The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Sean on April 21, 2010, 04:57:54 PM

Title: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Sean on April 21, 2010, 04:57:54 PM
Arizona's bill orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

Isn't this fucked fucked up?


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/arizona.immigration.bill/index.html
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 21, 2010, 05:41:09 PM
Arizona's bill orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

Isn't this fucked fucked up?


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/arizona.immigration.bill/index.html
OH NO! They're requiring people to carry documentation!!!

Good. All states should do that. Fuck the illegals. PROFILING IS GOOD.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 21, 2010, 05:52:30 PM
this is such a bad idea. I am guessing it will be knocked down by the supreme court if it passes.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Areweonfiya on April 21, 2010, 06:27:29 PM
They did the same thing in South Africa during Apartheid.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 21, 2010, 08:52:48 PM
Arizona's bill orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

Isn't this fucked fucked up?


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/arizona.immigration.bill/index.html
OH NO! They're requiring people to carry documentation!!!

Good. All states should do that. Fuck the illegals. PROFILING IS GOOD.
Protip: This allows police officers to pull over specific ethnicity and detain them if they do not have passports/birth certificates on their person (without any evidence, just off the street). They will not be allowed to contact family while being detained. The law open up shittons of room for police abuse, and this being Arizona (home of Joe Arpaio), it will be abused.

It will be challenged, brought to the Supreme Court, and defeated.

Also, Racial profiling is institutionalized racism, pure and simple. Interesting to see that you're throwing in with their kind.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: sillyrob on April 25, 2010, 12:46:37 AM
I'm from Arizona and I 100% support this bill.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 25, 2010, 01:14:43 AM
Arizona's bill orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

Isn't this fucked fucked up?


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/arizona.immigration.bill/index.html
OH NO! They're requiring people to carry documentation!!!

Good. All states should do that. Fuck the illegals. PROFILING IS GOOD.
Protip: This allows police officers to pull over specific ethnicity and detain them if they do not have passports/birth certificates on their person (without any evidence, just off the street). They will not be allowed to contact family while being detained. The law open up shittons of room for police abuse, and this being Arizona (home of Joe Arpaio), it will be abused.

It will be challenged, brought to the Supreme Court, and defeated.

Also, Racial profiling is institutionalized racism, pure and simple. Interesting to see that you're throwing in with their kind.

In high crime areas where one particular race is committing the majority of the crimes... i am all for profiling. Sorry, i live it. Apparently Detroit is a third world city and ranks in danger with a lot of awful places.

ALso, I am not one of the minorities, so at this moment it doesnt hurt me. But im sure one day it will Boo hoo. Also, White people should be racially profiled if they work anywhere near money. Especially banks.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: sillyrob on April 25, 2010, 01:42:16 AM
Arizona's bill orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

Isn't this fucked fucked up?


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/arizona.immigration.bill/index.html
OH NO! They're requiring people to carry documentation!!!

Good. All states should do that. Fuck the illegals. PROFILING IS GOOD.
Protip: This allows police officers to pull over specific ethnicity and detain them if they do not have passports/birth certificates on their person (without any evidence, just off the street). They will not be allowed to contact family while being detained. The law open up shittons of room for police abuse, and this being Arizona (home of Joe Arpaio), it will be abused.

It will be challenged, brought to the Supreme Court, and defeated.

Also, Racial profiling is institutionalized racism, pure and simple. Interesting to see that you're throwing in with their kind.

No, it says if you are pulled over and you cannot provide documents proving you're allowed to be here you can be taken in for further questioning to prove you're allowed to be here. Learn your shit please.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 25, 2010, 03:04:49 AM
Arizona's bill orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

Isn't this fucked fucked up?


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/arizona.immigration.bill/index.html
OH NO! They're requiring people to carry documentation!!!

Good. All states should do that. Fuck the illegals. PROFILING IS GOOD.
Protip: This allows police officers to pull over specific ethnicity and detain them if they do not have passports/birth certificates on their person (without any evidence, just off the street). They will not be allowed to contact family while being detained. The law open up shittons of room for police abuse, and this being Arizona (home of Joe Arpaio), it will be abused.

It will be challenged, brought to the Supreme Court, and defeated.

Also, Racial profiling is institutionalized racism, pure and simple. Interesting to see that you're throwing in with their kind.

No, it says if you are pulled over and you cannot provide documents proving you're allowed to be here you can be taken in for further questioning to prove you're allowed to be here. Learn your shit please.

Are you going to be carrying these documents at all times?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on April 25, 2010, 07:34:22 AM
Whether or not a law has a good result or bad result is irrelevant.  The court must strike down any law that is unconstitutional regardless.  An unconstitutional law that has a good result must be struck down the same way as a constitutional law that has a bad result must be upheld.

It is debatable where the power lies to regulate imigration (Federal or State), certainly there are explicit powers that reside only with the Federal government, the rest however, as per the 10th amendment belong with the state (unless explicitly prohibited), the court should make clear what those powers are.  What is not debatable is this:  The forth amendment is not nor has it ever been outcome dependent, if there is no warrant, obtained under probable cause sworn by oath or affirmation by the presuant officer, it is not a reasonable search.

The few exceptions I know about due to court precedents are as follows:

1.  The forth amendment only applies to places where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, it explicitly states that persons, papers, houses and effects are such areas.  However a back yard field that you own, or your truck bed, are not private.

2.  An officer witnessing a crime may permit him to conduct a search.  For example, if you open your car window and it smells like Bob Marley's ass, or if he witnessed you buy some crack and place it in your pocket, he can search you.  This is also known as the plain sight rule.

3.  Search as a result of a lawful arrest.  If you are arrested lawfully, the officer may conduct a search of you and the area in which you were arrested.  I somewhat disagree with this one.  If you are pulled out of your car and arrested for drunk driving, I agree they should search your person, but there is no imediate reason to search the car without a warrant.

4.  Pat down, this is for the officers safety, to ensure that somebody is not carrying a weapon that could hurt the officer.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on April 25, 2010, 10:45:25 AM
No, it says if you are pulled over and you cannot provide documents proving you're allowed to be here you can be taken in for further questioning to prove you're allowed to be here. Learn your shit please.

I could be wrong, but from what I've heard, all immigrants must carry around their papers. Police can stop anyone "suspected" of being an illegal immigrant. What does this mean? What does an illegal immigrant look like? Also, if a someone is here legally, but doesn't have their papers, they are detained. On top of this, they must pay fees, as well as a fine.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 25, 2010, 10:55:31 AM
No, it says if you are pulled over and you cannot provide documents proving you're allowed to be here you can be taken in for further questioning to prove you're allowed to be here. Learn your shit please.

I could be wrong, but from what I've heard, all immigrants must carry around their papers. Police can stop anyone "suspected" of being an illegal immigrant. What does this mean? What does an illegal immigrant look like? Also, if a someone is here legally, but doesn't have their papers, they are detained. On top of this, they must pay fees, as well as a fine.
Well... if they do it like they are starting to do in high crime areas in Detroit... i think they'll be ok... Stop people for ANY violation, from jaywalking to having a crack in your windshield to anything.  Now, in Detroit, since they're only trying to catch black peoplecriminals...they don't have the is he isnt he legal question... but i guess if you pulled over a car load of mexicans, and none of them had any ID, and they couldn't speak english... it'd be super cool to take em in on suspicion. Throw some pot in the cars window if they wanna make REAL sure they're not breaking any harassment laws.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Wendy on April 25, 2010, 11:00:31 AM
They did the same thing in South Africa during Apartheid.

I believe the same(or a similar) thing occurred in Germany in the 30's.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on April 25, 2010, 11:12:48 AM
Hispanic immigrants aren't as worrisome as black people violent criminals.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 25, 2010, 01:18:40 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Ex5lH.jpg)
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Lorddave on April 25, 2010, 02:12:46 PM
I'm iffy on it.
To be honest, one side says "Good, let's sort this mess out".
On the other hand this is getting close to police state and forcing everyone to have serial numbers on their forehead.

It's interesting to note that the support for this bill is by the same people who don't want the government to interfere in the lives of Americans which includes forcing them to carry around ID and present it whenever someone asks for it for something stupid.

If we were to take this law and make it apply to everyone (ie. you all need to carry around your SS card) there would be an uproar.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 25, 2010, 03:13:00 PM
Everyone is supposed to carry identification, unless you're a little kid.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Wakka Wakka on April 25, 2010, 03:23:24 PM
Everyone is supposed to carry identification, unless you're a little kid.
Right, can't police ask you for you id regardless?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Wendy on April 25, 2010, 05:13:43 PM
They can. The difference here is that they will probably have a legal reason to detain you if you don't.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Areweonfiya on April 25, 2010, 07:02:04 PM
Regardless of it being effective or not, it will take a toll on Arizona's economy.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Lorddave on April 25, 2010, 07:11:03 PM
Everyone is supposed to carry identification, unless you're a little kid.

Not as far as I know.
You CAN get a non-driving ID card but you aren't required to have one.  Had an ex-GF who was 21 before I finally convinced her to get her non-driving ID card.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 25, 2010, 08:45:35 PM
I actually checked around on the web.. cuz i thought people were legally required to carry some sort of ID with them at all times... but they arent. Or at least not from anything i found.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 25, 2010, 08:50:39 PM
Dear President Obama:
I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.

We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. Into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.

We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.

I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over?

Please let him know that I will be expectin g the following:

1. Free medical care for my entire family.

2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.

3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.

4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.

5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.

6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.

7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.

8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.

9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico , but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.

10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.

11. I plan to fly the U.S. Flag from my house top, put U S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.

12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.

13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.

14. I want to receive free food stamps.

15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.

16. I'll need Income tax credits so that although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.

17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car.

18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.

I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. From Mexico . I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.

Thank you so much for your kind help.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 25, 2010, 08:59:41 PM
[Teabagger copypasta]
No-one's suggesting that illegal immigrants are a good thing. What we are trying to say is that open racism is not the best policy to identify and deport them.

http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html (http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html)
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: sillyrob on April 26, 2010, 03:08:44 AM
Arizona's bill orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

Isn't this fucked fucked up?


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/arizona.immigration.bill/index.html
OH NO! They're requiring people to carry documentation!!!

Good. All states should do that. Fuck the illegals. PROFILING IS GOOD.
Protip: This allows police officers to pull over specific ethnicity and detain them if they do not have passports/birth certificates on their person (without any evidence, just off the street). They will not be allowed to contact family while being detained. The law open up shittons of room for police abuse, and this being Arizona (home of Joe Arpaio), it will be abused.

It will be challenged, brought to the Supreme Court, and defeated.

Also, Racial profiling is institutionalized racism, pure and simple. Interesting to see that you're throwing in with their kind.

No, it says if you are pulled over and you cannot provide documents proving you're allowed to be here you can be taken in for further questioning to prove you're allowed to be here. Learn your shit please.

Are you going to be carrying these documents at all times?
I do at all times. I always have proof of who I am. I need it to buy alcohol, go into bars, drive around, ect. It's NOT FUCKING HARD to prove who you are. If you cant, you're illegal. Go back to Mexico thank you. Not you, them.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: sillyrob on April 26, 2010, 03:18:17 AM
I have to say this: If you're not from a state that borders Mexico, and you don't have to worry about some illegal asshole stealing your identity to get a job, shut the fuck up. 500,000 illegals live here taking away from tax payers money, stealing from hard working Americans. Arizona is like 6 BILLION in debt and I bet you that illegals don't help that. To add to that, our economy isn't great, so remove 500,000 illegals and give those jobs to REAL citizens and I'm sure our unemployment would go down. You might think that I hate Mexicans, and I don't. I've had friends who were awesome who were legal. I have respect for people who can actually go through the process. But fuck the assholes who break the law.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 26, 2010, 03:19:55 AM
[Teabagger copypasta]
No-one's suggesting that illegal immigrants are a good thing. What we are trying to say is that open racism is not the best policy to identify and deport them.

http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html (http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html)
Fucking Nazi, trying to sensor my racism... Stop trying to repress me repressing others.

Also, i came up with the entire list all by myself! I am very creative.

Edit: Just read your link. NICE! Apparently, the law is irrelevant, as ICE is already doing it. I think maybe we should have all immigrants wear some sort of "badge" or something at all times so we can quickly identify them so it will not be racial profiling. 
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on April 26, 2010, 08:11:08 AM
I do at all times. I always have proof of who I am. I need it to buy alcohol, go into bars, drive around, ect. It's NOT FUCKING HARD to prove who you are. If you cant, you're illegal. Go back to Mexico thank you. Not you, them.

So, you would be fine with getting arrested for leaving your ID at home?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 26, 2010, 08:41:27 AM
[Teabagger copypasta]
No-one's suggesting that illegal immigrants are a good thing. What we are trying to say is that open racism is not the best policy to identify and deport them.

http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html (http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Man-says-he-was-racially-targeted-forced-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html)
Fucking Nazi, trying to sensor my racism... Stop trying to repress me repressing others.

Also, i came up with the entire list all by myself! I am very creative.

Edit: Just read your link. NICE! Apparently, the law is irrelevant, as ICE is already doing it. I think maybe we should have all immigrants wear some sort of "badge" or something at all times so we can quickly identify them so it will not be racial profiling.  
Surely you're trolling now.

(http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/judentum-aktenlage/hol/EncJud_judenstern-d/007-Ungarn-intellektuelle-v-ztg-Esti-Kuri-m-judensternen.jpg)


The problem I have with this is that it institutes a system where bystanders are selected by race, and then considered guilty until proven otherwise. That's right, you have to prove that you're not guilty: your "right to remain silent" will result in you being arrested and possibly deported.

Of course, this law will not affect you, because you're white. So what do you care.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 26, 2010, 11:35:22 AM
Oh, you mean they've done something like this before? How did it work out?

I resent being called white... I am part American Indian, and that is how I identified myself on the census form.

I agree though... that this law, if it stands, would have to be implemented so carefully that it would probably end up doing more harm than good from a Police standpoint. Real Meessican criminals are going to be able to claim racial profiling every time they are arrested.

Now, if people commiting crimes are made to prove they are citizens... i have no problem with it. If you are driving, and don't have your license on you... i don't think it i s a huge jump to think they COULD be an illegal immigrant if they are in an area full of illegal immigrants. I dunno. Amnesty is gay and rewards people for being criminals, going after people based on race alone is not a great precedent to set... and doing nothing is an awful idea. It's really a for shit situation. I wish mexico would just try to get its fucking economy going so we can see how they treat White illegals looking for work.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 26, 2010, 11:39:22 AM
So I heard the other day something the President said.  Here's the quote: "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others," Obama said. "That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.

It actually hit me today when I heard it again on the radio.  I actually yelled at the radio.  What part of illegal immigrant does he not understand?  Apparently the illegal part.  Because according to him as long as they are on this soil they are Americans...or something.  What part of this new law is going to effect actual Americans?  Last I checked everyone needed to have some form of ID on them regardless if you drive or not.  How does this undermine the basic notions of fairness?  A cop asks you for ID...you show him.  Sounds pretty basic to me.  I also heard on the radio, leftist groups and the ACLU, and pro-mexican whatever groups....are calling for economic sanctions of Arizona.   So I say to you all FES pals, if you haven't decided where to go on vacation this year, choose Arizona.  Lets go put some tourist money into that state for doing what is right and good for the nation. 
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 26, 2010, 11:44:53 AM
So I heard the other day something the President said.  Here's the quote: "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others," Obama said. "That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.

It actually hit me today when I heard it again on the radio.  I actually yelled at the radio.  What part of illegal immigrant does he not understand?  Apparently the illegal part.  Because according to him as long as they are on this soil they are Americans...or something.  What part of this new law is going to effect actual Americans?  Last I checked everyone needed to have some form of ID on them regardless if you drive or not.  How does this undermine the basic notions of fairness?  A cop asks you for ID...you show him.  Sounds pretty basic to me.  I also heard on the radio, leftist groups and the ACLU, and pro-mexican whatever groups....are calling for economic sanctions of Arizona.   So I say to you all FES pals, if you haven't decided where to go on vacation this year, choose Arizona.  Lets go put some tourist money into that state for doing what is right and good for the nation.  
No-one wants illegal immigrants. What Obama and many others are so worried about is that the law creates a situation wherein an individual is guilty until proven innocent. Also, the law would require birth certificate and passport as proof (Drivers license or state ID will be insufficient, see the link I posted earlier). Do you carry your birth certificate and passport with you at all times?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 26, 2010, 11:48:23 AM
Oh, you mean they've done something like this before? How did it work out?

I resent being called white... I am part American Indian, and that is how I identified myself on the census form.
Sorry. What I was getting at, though, is that you do not look Hispanic. You would not be a target of this law.


Now, if people commiting crimes are made to prove they are citizens... i have no problem with it.
Nor do I. If the police perform the citizenship check as part of a criminal investigation, that's only logical. What I'm worried about is people being pulled over upon only the officer's suspicion that they might be illegal (they look/are Hispanic), and being arrested and forced to prove their identity.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 26, 2010, 01:03:58 PM
So I heard the other day something the President said.  Here's the quote: "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others," Obama said. "That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.

It actually hit me today when I heard it again on the radio.  I actually yelled at the radio.  What part of illegal immigrant does he not understand?  Apparently the illegal part.  Because according to him as long as they are on this soil they are Americans...or something.  What part of this new law is going to effect actual Americans?  Last I checked everyone needed to have some form of ID on them regardless if you drive or not.  How does this undermine the basic notions of fairness?  A cop asks you for ID...you show him.  Sounds pretty basic to me.  I also heard on the radio, leftist groups and the ACLU, and pro-mexican whatever groups....are calling for economic sanctions of Arizona.   So I say to you all FES pals, if you haven't decided where to go on vacation this year, choose Arizona.  Lets go put some tourist money into that state for doing what is right and good for the nation.  
No-one wants illegal immigrants. What Obama and many others are so worried about is that the law creates a situation wherein an individual is guilty until proven innocent. Also, the law would require birth certificate and passport as proof (Drivers license or state ID will be insufficient, see the link I posted earlier). Do you carry your birth certificate and passport with you at all times?


So if the law states you have to, how does that inconvenience you as an American?  I already have to carry 3 forms of ID.  Whats a couple more.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: semperround on April 26, 2010, 01:46:07 PM
So I heard the other day something the President said.  Here's the quote: "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others," Obama said. "That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.

It actually hit me today when I heard it again on the radio.  I actually yelled at the radio.  What part of illegal immigrant does he not understand?  Apparently the illegal part.  Because according to him as long as they are on this soil they are Americans...or something.  What part of this new law is going to effect actual Americans?  Last I checked everyone needed to have some form of ID on them regardless if you drive or not.  How does this undermine the basic notions of fairness?  A cop asks you for ID...you show him.  Sounds pretty basic to me.  I also heard on the radio, leftist groups and the ACLU, and pro-mexican whatever groups....are calling for economic sanctions of Arizona.   So I say to you all FES pals, if you haven't decided where to go on vacation this year, choose Arizona.  Lets go put some tourist money into that state for doing what is right and good for the nation. 
and i want to meet you all. we could have good times.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 26, 2010, 02:10:42 PM
So I heard the other day something the President said.  Here's the quote: "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others," Obama said. "That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.

It actually hit me today when I heard it again on the radio.  I actually yelled at the radio.  What part of illegal immigrant does he not understand?  Apparently the illegal part.  Because according to him as long as they are on this soil they are Americans...or something.  What part of this new law is going to effect actual Americans?  Last I checked everyone needed to have some form of ID on them regardless if you drive or not.  How does this undermine the basic notions of fairness?  A cop asks you for ID...you show him.  Sounds pretty basic to me.  I also heard on the radio, leftist groups and the ACLU, and pro-mexican whatever groups....are calling for economic sanctions of Arizona.   So I say to you all FES pals, if you haven't decided where to go on vacation this year, choose Arizona.  Lets go put some tourist money into that state for doing what is right and good for the nation.  
No-one wants illegal immigrants. What Obama and many others are so worried about is that the law creates a situation wherein an individual is guilty until proven innocent. Also, the law would require birth certificate and passport as proof (Drivers license or state ID will be insufficient, see the link I posted earlier). Do you carry your birth certificate and passport with you at all times?


So if the law states you have to, how does that inconvenience you as an American?  I already have to carry 3 forms of ID.  Whats a couple more.
1.
<---- Canadian

2. Birth certificates and passports are especially sensitive and hard-to-replace documents, which is exactly why they are not carried around.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 26, 2010, 05:29:45 PM
1. <---- Canadian


Then don't worry about it.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on April 26, 2010, 05:33:49 PM
1. <---- Canadian


Then don't worry about it.

Someone from another country can't have an opinion on the matter?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: semperround on April 26, 2010, 05:34:09 PM
maybe there should be some federally issued ID card that everyone can carry around. seems like it could be a simple solution.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 26, 2010, 06:12:02 PM
1. <---- Canadian


Then don't worry about it.

Someone from another country can't have an opinion on the matter?

Not unless he's planning on moving in.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 26, 2010, 06:34:26 PM
I am pro-anti-illegals.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on April 26, 2010, 08:21:15 PM
Once again, it does not matter whether or not one believes the law will have a good outcome or bad, only whether it is constitutional or not.  This law is unconstitutional and un American.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: grogberries on April 26, 2010, 10:48:21 PM
this is such a bad idea. I am guessing it will be knocked down by the supreme court if it passes.

Have you been following what the supreme court has been doing? I wouldn't put it past them if they didn't.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 27, 2010, 02:11:08 AM
1. <---- Canadian


Then don't worry about it.
I don't personally, I'm just amused at how easily you Americans can codify racial profiling into law.


I am pro-anti-illegals.
I think your guys' 4th Amendment is a pretty good idea.

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 27, 2010, 03:17:29 AM
Psh. We need a new amendment. Execute illegals. Classify em as terrorists. BOOM! blow em up.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 27, 2010, 04:28:54 AM
Once again, it does not matter whether or not one believes the law will have a good outcome or bad, only whether it is constitutional or not.  This law is unconstitutional and un American.

A law to remove immigrants that came into to America illegally is un-American.   Wow.

*facepalm*
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Pongo on April 27, 2010, 04:50:47 AM
Lets just ferry all the immigrants into Canada.  Problem solved on all fronts. 

Vote Pongo -- 2012
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: toothyp1cks on April 27, 2010, 05:23:21 AM
I should be President.
Every man and woman over 18 must carry a federally issued ID card. Police are allowed to spot check you. If you do not have your card you will be given a convienient date (for both) where you turn up at the police station. Your details will be taken (off other forms of ID). If you do not show up/do not have your card...
*BLAM*
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: dude55 on April 27, 2010, 05:58:14 AM
Okay, this is pretty much getting out of hand on the topic of 'racism'. Now, surely you must agree that although this is some racial profiling that the reason it IS, is because pretty much most of it is true. And its the only way to catch said illegals. If you have a better way to catch said immigrants besides SWAT raiding houses that they might be in (which has been done before or so I've read) please, tell Arizona a better way. Illegal Immigration IS becoming too much of a problem and there aren't many other ways to handle this.


This is the easiest way for everyone that I can see myself, sure it will cause trouble and people will call it racism.  But frankly people call Racism on the stupidest of things.

"I dont like Obama." "RACIST!"

"This Crips member has a gun to my head!" "RACIST!"

"This Mexican is sleeping on my lawn after he hopped the border fence!" "RACIST!"

There are so many Race Cards you can use to defend yourself that its absolutely ridiculous. And this is one of them, this isn't unconstitutional if people want to get into America do it like how everyone else had too and go through Ellis Island, I'm not even American, I'm mostly Italian (and a crap load of everything else mixed in.)  my family is originally from Italy and our line has been passed down since. I'm not racist I just believe that we DO have a illegal immigration problem and it NEEDS to be fixed.

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 27, 2010, 07:24:57 AM
Once again, it does not matter whether or not one believes the law will have a good outcome or bad, only whether it is constitutional or not.  This law is unconstitutional and un American.

A law to remove immigrants that came into to America illegally is un-American.   Wow.

*facepalm*
What we've been trying to tell you for the last page or so is that what people are opposed to is not the "deport illegals" part. It's the "guilty until proven innocent, because you look Mexican part".
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 27, 2010, 10:54:53 AM
All these years I thought U.S. citizens were required to carry ID and provide it when asked by a police officer... apparently we don't always have to do that.  If you are suspected of a crime, you have to identify yourself, but it isn't illegal to not have an ID card of some type (for citizens).

What is so bad about this Arizona law is that it makes all brown people suspected criminals.  It gives the police the right to demand identification based solely on the color of skin.  That is what makes the law unconstitutional.  I fully agree that something needs to be done to fix the illegal immigration problem, but I don't agree with this absurd law. 

This is interesting (haven't had the chance to read it all) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 27, 2010, 01:41:51 PM
I don't get why a driver's license isn't good enough for ID.  If a cop runs their name through the computer, then shouldn't they already be listed as an alien, without them having to root around for their green card or passport?  As an immigrant myself, I can tell you right now that it would have been ridiculous for me to be carrying around immigration documents in my wallet.  As was said before, they're very important documents that you can't risk carrying around with you every day.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: semperround on April 27, 2010, 03:55:47 PM
no one knows how the police are going to enforce it. they're supposed to be adding new training programs to avoid racial profiling. we'll have to wait and see how this all plays out.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 27, 2010, 04:15:16 PM
We need to have a law like that in Michigan. F'n Canadians... always taking our jerbs.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 27, 2010, 04:20:09 PM
We need to have a law like that in Michigan. F'n Canadians... always taking our jerbs.
(http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/2569/dsc06147o.jpg)
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: grogberries on April 27, 2010, 06:19:00 PM
I don't get why a driver's license isn't good enough for ID.  If a cop runs their name through the computer, then shouldn't they already be listed as an alien, without them having to root around for their green card or passport?  As an immigrant myself, I can tell you right now that it would have been ridiculous for me to be carrying around immigration documents in my wallet.  As was said before, they're very important documents that you can't risk carrying around with you every day.

Non-citizens can have driver's licenses.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 27, 2010, 06:54:37 PM
I don't get why a driver's license isn't good enough for ID.  If a cop runs their name through the computer, then shouldn't they already be listed as an alien, without them having to root around for their green card or passport?  As an immigrant myself, I can tell you right now that it would have been ridiculous for me to be carrying around immigration documents in my wallet.  As was said before, they're very important documents that you can't risk carrying around with you every day.

Non-citizens can have driver's licenses.

Uh, I think you're misunderstanding my point.  I know non-citizens can have licenses, I had one myself.  What I'm wondering is why an alien can't show the police, if asked, their license or any other form of regular ID.  It's not reasonable to expect people to walk around carrying their green card or passport on them at all times, and a license should be just fine.  If they're in the database, then they're obviously legal.  If nothing pops up, then they're at least guilty of uttering and can be arrested, regardless of their immigration status.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 27, 2010, 07:16:24 PM
I don't get why a driver's license isn't good enough for ID.  If a cop runs their name through the computer, then shouldn't they already be listed as an alien, without them having to root around for their green card or passport?  As an immigrant myself, I can tell you right now that it would have been ridiculous for me to be carrying around immigration documents in my wallet.  As was said before, they're very important documents that you can't risk carrying around with you every day.

Non-citizens can have driver's licenses.

Uh, I think you're misunderstanding my point.  I know non-citizens can have licenses, I had one myself.  What I'm wondering is why an alien can't show the police, if asked, their license or any other form of regular ID.  It's not reasonable to expect people to walk around carrying their green card or passport on them at all times, and a license should be just fine.  If they're in the database, then they're obviously legal.  If nothing pops up, then they're at least guilty of uttering and can be arrested, regardless of their immigration status.
If they can carry around a license, why can't they carry around a green card also? I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask someone to carry around something the exact same size as a license.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 27, 2010, 07:22:38 PM
I don't get why a driver's license isn't good enough for ID.  If a cop runs their name through the computer, then shouldn't they already be listed as an alien, without them having to root around for their green card or passport?  As an immigrant myself, I can tell you right now that it would have been ridiculous for me to be carrying around immigration documents in my wallet.  As was said before, they're very important documents that you can't risk carrying around with you every day.

Non-citizens can have driver's licenses.

Uh, I think you're misunderstanding my point.  I know non-citizens can have licenses, I had one myself.  What I'm wondering is why an alien can't show the police, if asked, their license or any other form of regular ID.  It's not reasonable to expect people to walk around carrying their green card or passport on them at all times, and a license should be just fine.  If they're in the database, then they're obviously legal.  If nothing pops up, then they're at least guilty of uttering and can be arrested, regardless of their immigration status.
If they can carry around a license, why can't they carry around a green card also? I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask someone to carry around something the exact same size as a license.
And how easy is it to get a new card if the one you have is lost?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 27, 2010, 07:24:32 PM
I don't get why a driver's license isn't good enough for ID.  If a cop runs their name through the computer, then shouldn't they already be listed as an alien, without them having to root around for their green card or passport?  As an immigrant myself, I can tell you right now that it would have been ridiculous for me to be carrying around immigration documents in my wallet.  As was said before, they're very important documents that you can't risk carrying around with you every day.

Non-citizens can have driver's licenses.

Uh, I think you're misunderstanding my point.  I know non-citizens can have licenses, I had one myself.  What I'm wondering is why an alien can't show the police, if asked, their license or any other form of regular ID.  It's not reasonable to expect people to walk around carrying their green card or passport on them at all times, and a license should be just fine.  If they're in the database, then they're obviously legal.  If nothing pops up, then they're at least guilty of uttering and can be arrested, regardless of their immigration status.
If they can carry around a license, why can't they carry around a green card also? I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask someone to carry around something the exact same size as a license.
And how easy is it to get a new card if the one you have is lost?
How about you just dont lose it.

https://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/greencard-replacement.html (https://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/greencard-replacement.html)

It cost like 290. ANd if anyone wants to bawwww that that costs to much... well... life isnt fair. Thats what you get for losing it, and if it gets stolen, well... life still isn't fair. Welcome to America ig you have a problem with it... go home.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 27, 2010, 07:26:44 PM
I don't get why a driver's license isn't good enough for ID.  If a cop runs their name through the computer, then shouldn't they already be listed as an alien, without them having to root around for their green card or passport?  As an immigrant myself, I can tell you right now that it would have been ridiculous for me to be carrying around immigration documents in my wallet.  As was said before, they're very important documents that you can't risk carrying around with you every day.

Non-citizens can have driver's licenses.

Uh, I think you're misunderstanding my point.  I know non-citizens can have licenses, I had one myself.  What I'm wondering is why an alien can't show the police, if asked, their license or any other form of regular ID.  It's not reasonable to expect people to walk around carrying their green card or passport on them at all times, and a license should be just fine.  If they're in the database, then they're obviously legal.  If nothing pops up, then they're at least guilty of uttering and can be arrested, regardless of their immigration status.
If they can carry around a license, why can't they carry around a green card also? I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask someone to carry around something the exact same size as a license.
And how easy is it to get a new card if the one you have is lost?
How about you just dont lose it.
The point of keeping sensitive documents like birth certificates and passports at home is that they're very hard to replace. Not accepting simple driver's licenses is stupid on behalf of the police, and only serves to make it harder for a legitimate citizen to prove their identity.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 27, 2010, 07:29:05 PM
Don't care. Thats the cost of immigrating.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 27, 2010, 07:56:37 PM
Don't care. Thats the cost of immigrating.

But why should it be?  There's no benefit to presenting a green card instead of a license, it's just harder for the immigrant.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 27, 2010, 08:10:04 PM
How is carrying their green card around hard?

All legal immigrants are required to have a green card.

All legal immigrants are NOT required to have a state id or drivers license.

All legal immigrants should have to carry around their green card.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 27, 2010, 08:10:37 PM
Don't care. Thats the cost of immigrating.
Protip: Not all hispanic people are immigrants. Many (I dare say most) were born in the States, yet they will be targeted just as much as new immigrants.

How is carrying their green card around hard?

All legal immigrants are required to have a green card.

All legal immigrants are NOT required to have a state id or drivers license.

All legal immigrants should have to carry around their green card.
Along with their birth certificates, passports, and date-stamped umbilical cords?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 27, 2010, 08:13:47 PM
Don't care. Thats the cost of immigrating.
Protip: Not all hispanic people are immigrants. Many (I dare say most) were born in the States, yet they will be targeted just as much as new immigrants.
I think we agreed earlier i was extremely uncomfortable with implementation




Quote
How is carrying their green card around hard?

All legal immigrants are required to have a green card.

All legal immigrants are NOT required to have a state id or drivers license.

All legal immigrants should have to carry around their green card.
Along with their birth certificates, passports, and date-stamped umbilical cords?
Nope. Just green cards... and maybe candy to bribe peeps with.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 27, 2010, 08:16:00 PM
Don't care. Thats the cost of immigrating.
Protip: Not all hispanic people are immigrants. Many (I dare say most) were born in the States, yet they will be targeted just as much as new immigrants.

Quote


Quote
How is carrying their green card around hard?

All legal immigrants are required to have a green card.
All legal immigrants are NOT required to have a state id or drivers license.

All legal immigrants should have to carry around their green card.
Along with their birth certificates, passports, and date-stamped umbilical cords?
[/quote]
[/quote]
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 27, 2010, 08:16:58 PM
Don't care. Thats the cost of immigrating.
Protip: Not all hispanic people are immigrants. Many (I dare say most) were born in the States, yet they will be targeted just as much as new immigrants.
I think we agreed earlier i was extremely uncomfortable with implementation
Then why are still arguing?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 28, 2010, 04:57:12 AM
Because Canadians and Americans are mortal enemies. You immigrate to our land and clog up our rods because you don't understand that we drive in MPH and not KPH.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 28, 2010, 11:28:07 AM
Because Canadians and Americans are mortal enemies. You immigrate to our land and clog up our rods because you don't understand that we drive in MPH and not KPH.
And you fill our airwaves with shitty reruns of American idol. DAMN YOU!
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 28, 2010, 07:49:07 PM
Because Canadians and Americans are mortal enemies. You immigrate to our land and clog up our rods because you don't understand that we drive in MPH and not KPH.
And you fill our airwaves with shitty reruns of American idol. DAMN YOU!
HEy... blame that one on Britain... or wherever the fuck that Cowell douche is from. On topic... looks like the bill is working.

Kinda.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_day_labor_3 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_day_labor_3)

Quote
Many day laborers like Diaz say they will leave Arizona because of the law, which also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.

Quote
Jose Armenta, a 33-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico's western coast, is already planning to move to Utah within the next 20 days because of a combination of the economy and the new law.

"A lot of people drive by," he says as he watched nearby cars speeding past, "and they yell, 'Hey, go back to Mexico!'"


Quote
Olga Sanchez, 32, from southern Mexico, lives in Phoenix illegally with her two brothers, who are 21 and 17. While the youngest boy is in high school, all three work and send money back home to their parents.
"This law is very bad for us," says Sanchez, who gets about $250 a week cleaning three houses. "I'm afraid of what's going to happen."
250 a week cleaning 3 houses? Not bad. Fuck her.

Other side note... when the fuck did we decide to call this recession "the great recession" ?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Areweonfiya on April 28, 2010, 09:21:12 PM
Does this mean we have to mow our own lawns?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 29, 2010, 03:28:52 AM
We still have people with warrants, deadbeat dads, people on unemployment and other losers who can work under the table.

I hate mowing my lawn.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 29, 2010, 04:24:46 AM

Quote
Olga Sanchez, 32, from southern Mexico, lives in Phoenix illegally with her two brothers, who are 21 and 17. While the youngest boy is in high school, all three work and send money back home to their parents.
"This law is very bad for us," says Sanchez, who gets about $250 a week cleaning three houses. "I'm afraid of what's going to happen."
250 a week cleaning 3 houses? Not bad. Fuck her.

And there in lies the problem.  Money from here...going to there.  And we wonder why we are in a recession and the unemployment rate is so high.

Cleaning houses is a very lucrative business.  My sister owns her own cleaning business.

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 29, 2010, 05:09:22 AM
I agree with Wardogg.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on April 29, 2010, 06:56:17 AM

Quote
Olga Sanchez, 32, from southern Mexico, lives in Phoenix illegally with her two brothers, who are 21 and 17. While the youngest boy is in high school, all three work and send money back home to their parents.
"This law is very bad for us," says Sanchez, who gets about $250 a week cleaning three houses. "I'm afraid of what's going to happen."
250 a week cleaning 3 houses? Not bad. Fuck her.

And there in lies the problem.  Money from here...going to there.  And we wonder why we are in a recession and the unemployment rate is so high.

Cleaning houses is a very lucrative business.  My sister owns her own cleaning business.



What we are doing is not a solution to that problem.  The main thing is, people want to come here because there are jobs, why Americans have such a problem with that is beyond me.  When we create more and more laws making it harder for them to come here legally, guess what, they will just come anyway.  Kinda like the war on drugs, only now since they are illegal, they are not paying taxes.  That is my main problem with illegals, they do not pay taxes.  But the solution is not to make it harder for them to come here legally.

Enforcing stricter laws will end up costing MORE money than the amount that they are costing us in tax revenue.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 29, 2010, 07:15:58 AM

Quote
Olga Sanchez, 32, from southern Mexico, lives in Phoenix illegally with her two brothers, who are 21 and 17. While the youngest boy is in high school, all three work and send money back home to their parents.
"This law is very bad for us," says Sanchez, who gets about $250 a week cleaning three houses. "I'm afraid of what's going to happen."
250 a week cleaning 3 houses? Not bad. Fuck her.

And there in lies the problem.  Money from here...going to there.  And we wonder why we are in a recession and the unemployment rate is so high.

Cleaning houses is a very lucrative business.  My sister owns her own cleaning business.


The logical solution is to send Americans over to Mexico, and have them send their income back to the States.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Wakka Wakka on April 29, 2010, 01:45:58 PM

Quote
Olga Sanchez, 32, from southern Mexico, lives in Phoenix illegally with her two brothers, who are 21 and 17. While the youngest boy is in high school, all three work and send money back home to their parents.
"This law is very bad for us," says Sanchez, who gets about $250 a week cleaning three houses. "I'm afraid of what's going to happen."
250 a week cleaning 3 houses? Not bad. Fuck her.

And there in lies the problem.  Money from here...going to there.  And we wonder why we are in a recession and the unemployment rate is so high.

Cleaning houses is a very lucrative business.  My sister owns her own cleaning business.
This had nothing to do with the recession.  Didn't cause it, isn't prolonging it.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 29, 2010, 02:28:46 PM

Quote
Olga Sanchez, 32, from southern Mexico, lives in Phoenix illegally with her two brothers, who are 21 and 17. While the youngest boy is in high school, all three work and send money back home to their parents.
"This law is very bad for us," says Sanchez, who gets about $250 a week cleaning three houses. "I'm afraid of what's going to happen."
250 a week cleaning 3 houses? Not bad. Fuck her.

And there in lies the problem.  Money from here...going to there.  And we wonder why we are in a recession and the unemployment rate is so high.

Cleaning houses is a very lucrative business.  My sister owns her own cleaning business.



What we are doing is not a solution to that problem.  The main thing is, people want to come here because there are jobs, why Americans have such a problem with that is beyond me.  When we create more and more laws making it harder for them to come here legally, guess what, they will just come anyway.  Kinda like the war on drugs, only now since they are illegal, they are not paying taxes.  That is my main problem with illegals, they do not pay taxes.  But the solution is not to make it harder for them to come here legally.

Enforcing stricter laws will end up costing MORE money than the amount that they are costing us in tax revenue.
It also costs a shitload to prosecute a murderer. Laws be laws, and strict be strict.

I don't know exactly how Arizona pays for each and every social service, or how federal dollars are spent... but if less federal and state dollars are spent on illegals, and more is spent on stricter enforcement... I dunno. SOmeone smarter than me would have to do the math, as i dont know the figures... but MEOW MEOW lil kitten
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 29, 2010, 04:31:04 PM
I just want people to obey the laws.  They can come here and work....they just have to go through the proper channels.



FACT:  Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law says, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."

It is a felony to be an illegal in Mexico.

We only ask the same in return.  Is that so hard?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Ocius on April 29, 2010, 04:56:26 PM
[Teabagger copypasta]
No-one's suggesting that illegal immigrants are a good thing.

In this case they are though.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: semperround on April 29, 2010, 05:24:48 PM
http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/arizona-iced-tea-dont-boycott-us-were-not-really-from-arizona/19459590 (http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/arizona-iced-tea-dont-boycott-us-were-not-really-from-arizona/19459590)
somehow someone got the idea to boycott arizona iced tea.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 29, 2010, 06:21:55 PM
http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/arizona-iced-tea-dont-boycott-us-were-not-really-from-arizona/19459590 (http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/arizona-iced-tea-dont-boycott-us-were-not-really-from-arizona/19459590)
somehow someone got the idea to boycott arizona iced tea.

Stupid liberals.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Areweonfiya on April 29, 2010, 06:57:11 PM
herp
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 29, 2010, 07:17:12 PM
I love America. Americans... well... sometimes not so much.

I WONDER IF I CAN STILL GET A PAIR OF ARIZONA JEANS?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 29, 2010, 07:27:58 PM
I just want to reiterate this.....


FACT:  Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law says, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."

It is a felony to be an illegal in Mexico.

We only ask the same in return.  Is that so hard?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 30, 2010, 09:15:10 AM
Isn't it already a felony?  I know the first time a person is caught here illegally it is a misdemeanor, but I thought the second offense was a felony. 

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on April 30, 2010, 01:35:55 PM
No, it says if you are pulled over and you cannot provide documents proving you're allowed to be here you can be taken in for further questioning to prove you're allowed to be here. Learn your shit please.

I could be wrong, but from what I've heard, all immigrants must carry around their papers. Police can stop anyone "suspected" of being an illegal immigrant. What does this mean? What does an illegal immigrant look like? Also, if a someone is here legally, but doesn't have their papers, they are detained. On top of this, they must pay fees, as well as a fine.

If they were following laws in the first place, they would have a state ID to which you can't get an official one without being in the US legally. And if they were proven to be here legally, why would they pay a fine? (yes I know I'm behind)

Isn't it already a felony?  I know the first time a person is caught here illegally it is a misdemeanor, but I thought the second offense was a felony. 

It could be but the liberals in Washington are too busy kiss ass and apologizing for Americans 200 years of "mistakes" to up hold the laws already in place. They're also too scared of being labeled racists and bigots by people like you (minus Wardog) for enforcing the laws. Though I'm not saying the republicans are without fault, I'm sure some like not reporting them cause their "cheap labor".
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on April 30, 2010, 01:57:27 PM
I could be wrong, but from what I've heard, all immigrants must carry around their papers. Police can stop anyone "suspected" of being an illegal immigrant. What does this mean? What does an illegal immigrant look like? Also, if a someone is here legally, but doesn't have their papers, they are detained. On top of this, they must pay fees, as well as a fine.

If they were following laws in the first place, they would have a state ID to which you can't get an official one without being in the US legally. And if they were proven to be here legally, why would they pay a fine? (yes I know I'm behind)

This law requires that immigrants carry around some proof of citizenship/being here legally. If they are here legally, but can't provide proof on the spot, they are breaking the law. I'm pretty sure there is no law requiring you to carry around identification, and a police officer can only ask you to identify yourself if you are detained for criminal activity.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on April 30, 2010, 02:07:45 PM
It could be but the liberals in Washington are too busy kiss ass and apologizing for Americans 200 years of "mistakes
Source, please?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 30, 2010, 04:04:28 PM
Isn't it already a felony?  I know the first time a person is caught here illegally it is a misdemeanor, but I thought the second offense was a felony. 

It could be but the liberals in Washington are too busy kiss ass and apologizing for Americans 200 years of "mistakes" to up hold the laws already in place. They're also too scared of being labeled racists and bigots by people like you (minus Wardog) for enforcing the laws. Though I'm not saying the republicans are without fault, I'm sure some like not reporting them cause their "cheap labor".

Do you actually think all the Mexicans waited for the liberals to be in power before coming to the US?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on April 30, 2010, 04:34:31 PM
Isn't it already a felony?  I know the first time a person is caught here illegally it is a misdemeanor, but I thought the second offense was a felony. 

It could be but the liberals in Washington are too busy kiss ass and apologizing for Americans 200 years of "mistakes" to up hold the laws already in place. They're also too scared of being labeled racists and bigots by people like you (minus Wardog) for enforcing the laws. Though I'm not saying the republicans are without fault, I'm sure some like not reporting them cause their "cheap labor".

Do you actually think all the Mexicans waited for the liberals to be in power before coming to the US?

No, as I said, both sides have failed miserably on this issue.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 30, 2010, 04:54:11 PM
I wouldn't label them racists and bigots for enforcing the law.  The law may be unconstitutional, but you probably wouldn't understand.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on April 30, 2010, 05:00:57 PM
Gah there were protestors outside Wrigley because the Cubs were playing the Diamondbacks.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: semperround on April 30, 2010, 05:23:28 PM
Gah there were protestors outside Wrigley because the Cubs were playing the Diamondbacks.
...and the diamondbacks have secured me free tacos the past two day. ironic?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: EnglshGentleman on April 30, 2010, 05:57:13 PM
From reading the first two pages, I'm going to clear some stuff up since some people clearly have a misunderstanding of the bill.

First off, it is not like the police are gonna turn into the Gestapo as pick up any brown skinned person off the street. It doesn't work that way. They can only be detained if there is both reasonable suspicion (incapability to speak English I.E.) and an inability to produce identification such as a Driver's License or federal, state or local government issued identification.

So it doesn't matter what skin color they are, if they are some white person that is only able to speak Finnish, they are suspect too.

I'm in Arizona and I'm all for it as well as many people I know. Anyone that is old enough to be doing activity to get the police's attention should be have some form of I.D. on them anyways. It isn't that difficult to have them pull up your identification even if you somehow are arrested, so the only people that this can possibly negatively affect are those that are illegal anyways.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on April 30, 2010, 09:00:48 PM
Bilingual whiteys should fuck with cops and only speak their non english language.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 30, 2010, 09:23:46 PM
From reading the first two pages, I'm going to clear some stuff up since some people clearly have a misunderstanding of the bill.

First off, it is not like the police are gonna turn into the Gestapo as pick up any brown skinned person off the street. It doesn't work that way. They can only be detained if there is both reasonable suspicion (incapability to speak English I.E.) and an inability to produce identification such as a Driver's License or federal, state or local government issued identification.

So it doesn't matter what skin color they are, if they are some white person that is only able to speak Finnish, they are suspect too.

I'm in Arizona and I'm all for it as well as many people I know. Anyone that is old enough to be doing activity to get the police's attention should be have some form of I.D. on them anyways. It isn't that difficult to have them pull up your identification even if you somehow are arrested, so the only people that this can possibly negatively affect are those that are illegal anyways.


Latest polls show 70% of AZ population is for the law...i wonder what the other 30% is?  ???
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: EnglshGentleman on April 30, 2010, 10:53:48 PM
From reading the first two pages, I'm going to clear some stuff up since some people clearly have a misunderstanding of the bill.

First off, it is not like the police are gonna turn into the Gestapo as pick up any brown skinned person off the street. It doesn't work that way. They can only be detained if there is both reasonable suspicion (incapability to speak English I.E.) and an inability to produce identification such as a Driver's License or federal, state or local government issued identification.

So it doesn't matter what skin color they are, if they are some white person that is only able to speak Finnish, they are suspect too.

I'm in Arizona and I'm all for it as well as many people I know. Anyone that is old enough to be doing activity to get the police's attention should be have some form of I.D. on them anyways. It isn't that difficult to have them pull up your identification even if you somehow are arrested, so the only people that this can possibly negatively affect are those that are illegal anyways.


Latest polls show 70% of AZ population is for the law...i wonder what the other 30% is?  ???

Hmmm... some estimates believe that there are about 12 million illegals in the U.S.
And 30% of AZ's population is about 2 million.

 :o :o :o

http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/arizona-iced-tea-dont-boycott-us-were-not-really-from-arizona/19459590 (http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/arizona-iced-tea-dont-boycott-us-were-not-really-from-arizona/19459590)
somehow someone got the idea to boycott arizona iced tea.

Is Arizona Iced Tea sold outside of Arizona? I thought it was a regional drink.... Never really occured to me they could be a chain.

Oh ya, ITS DELICIOUS!!!
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 01, 2010, 07:36:54 AM
I like Arizona Iced teas. Not so much the faggoty flavored ones, and their limeade is ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: semperround on May 01, 2010, 08:33:05 AM
the company has always been based in new york.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 01, 2010, 04:21:45 PM
More lulz from Pat Bertroche, an aspiring GOP politician:

Quote
Bertroche said, when referring to illegal immigrants, that "We should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal?"


After all, it's not like they're human or anything. They're just illegal Mexicans.
           /
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/whitetrash.gif)
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 01, 2010, 05:35:40 PM
From reading the first two pages, I'm going to clear some stuff up since some people clearly have a misunderstanding of the bill.

First off, it is not like the police are gonna turn into the Gestapo as pick up any brown skinned person off the street. It doesn't work that way. They can only be detained if there is both reasonable suspicion (incapability to speak English I.E.) and an inability to produce identification such as a Driver's License or federal, state or local government issued identification.

So it doesn't matter what skin color they are, if they are some white person that is only able to speak Finnish, they are suspect too.

I'm in Arizona and I'm all for it as well as many people I know. Anyone that is old enough to be doing activity to get the police's attention should be have some form of I.D. on them anyways. It isn't that difficult to have them pull up your identification even if you somehow are arrested, so the only people that this can possibly negatively affect are those that are illegal anyways.


Since when is not being able to speak English a crime?  Also, a person doesn't have to produce identification just because the police ask for it, unless they are driving. 
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 01, 2010, 07:24:05 PM

Since when is not being able to speak English a crime?  Also, a person doesn't have to produce identification just because the police ask for it, unless they are driving. 

Since when is providing any public service, or any service for that matter, in any other language but english a law?

As for identification...you forgot something at the end of your ID sentence, the word "yet".   And as far as Im concerned hopefully, soon.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: EnglshGentleman on May 01, 2010, 08:21:51 PM
From reading the first two pages, I'm going to clear some stuff up since some people clearly have a misunderstanding of the bill.

First off, it is not like the police are gonna turn into the Gestapo as pick up any brown skinned person off the street. It doesn't work that way. They can only be detained if there is both reasonable suspicion (incapability to speak English I.E.) and an inability to produce identification such as a Driver's License or federal, state or local government issued identification.

So it doesn't matter what skin color they are, if they are some white person that is only able to speak Finnish, they are suspect too.

I'm in Arizona and I'm all for it as well as many people I know. Anyone that is old enough to be doing activity to get the police's attention should be have some form of I.D. on them anyways. It isn't that difficult to have them pull up your identification even if you somehow are arrested, so the only people that this can possibly negatively affect are those that are illegal anyways.


Since when is not being able to speak English a crime?  Also, a person doesn't have to produce identification just because the police ask for it, unless they are driving. 

It isn't a crime, but it is reason enough to be suspicious of a person. Especially if that person is in a border state.

And soon hopefully we will need to have ID now. I don't see what the big deal is. Do you carry your wallet with you when you go places? Why wouldn't you have an ID with you in it then?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: optimisticcynic on May 01, 2010, 08:47:28 PM
I really don't like the idea of there being a law saying i need to carry my id with me. I have it when I am driving but like when I go rock climbing I leave my wallet at home so nothing happens to it. It would be irritating to be arrested for not having id on me.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 01, 2010, 08:51:24 PM
I really don't like the idea of there being a law saying i need to carry my id with me. I have it when I am driving but like when I go rock climbing I leave my wallet at home so nothing happens to it. It would be irritating to be arrested for not having id on me.

As long as you are not in the process of committing a crime you wouldn't be ID'd.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 01, 2010, 09:02:15 PM
Or you're Hispanic.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 01, 2010, 09:03:16 PM
More lulz from Pat Bertroche, an aspiring GOP politician:

Quote
Bertroche said, when referring to illegal immigrants, that "We should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal?"

That idiot sure doesn't speak for this republican.

Or you're Hispanic.

Now I'm confused. Who's the racists in this argument again?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 01, 2010, 09:04:40 PM
Now I'm confused. Who's the racists in this argument again?

Whoever proposed that we should be able to stop someone that looks like an illegal immigrant.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 01, 2010, 09:10:01 PM
More lulz from Pat Bertroche, an aspiring GOP politician:

Quote
Bertroche said, when referring to illegal immigrants, that "We should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal?"

That idiot sure doesn't speak for this republican.
I thought you were a registered independent?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 01, 2010, 09:14:37 PM
Whether or not a law has a good result or bad result is irrelevant.  The court must strike down any law that is unconstitutional regardless.  An unconstitutional law that has a good result must be struck down the same way as a constitutional law that has a bad result must be upheld.

It is debatable where the power lies to regulate imigration (Federal or State), certainly there are explicit powers that reside only with the Federal government, the rest however, as per the 10th amendment belong with the state (unless explicitly prohibited), the court should make clear what those powers are.  What is not debatable is this:  The forth amendment is not nor has it ever been outcome dependent, if there is no warrant, obtained under probable cause sworn by oath or affirmation by the presuant officer, it is not a reasonable search.

The few exceptions I know about due to court precedents are as follows:

1.  The forth amendment only applies to places where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, it explicitly states that persons, papers, houses and effects are such areas.  However a back yard field that you own, or your truck bed, are not private.

2.  An officer witnessing a crime may permit him to conduct a search.  For example, if you open your car window and it smells like Bob Marley's ass, or if he witnessed you buy some crack and place it in your pocket, he can search you.  This is also known as the plain sight rule.

3.  Search as a result of a lawful arrest.  If you are arrested lawfully, the officer may conduct a search of you and the area in which you were arrested.  I somewhat disagree with this one.  If you are pulled out of your car and arrested for drunk driving, I agree they should search your person, but there is no imediate reason to search the car without a warrant.

4.  Pat down, this is for the officers safety, to ensure that somebody is not carrying a weapon that could hurt the officer.

An officer has no power to stop and ask somebody for thier ID or search them unless one of the above criteria are met, or they have a warrant.  An ID would fall under "papers" and is protected from warrentless search and seizure under the forth amendment.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 01, 2010, 09:24:56 PM
Now I'm confused. Who's the racists in this argument again?

Whoever proposed that we should be able to stop someone that looks like an illegal immigrant.

Ok then, O Wise One, how would you solve the situation, cause I have yet to see anyone with enough balls to do anything outside this law.

More lulz from Pat Bertroche, an aspiring GOP politician:

Quote
Bertroche said, when referring to illegal immigrants, that "We should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal?"

That idiot sure doesn't speak for this republican.
I thought you were a registered independent?

Nope. I'm a registered Republican, but this does not mean I vote just because of what party someone is, I would vote for a Democrat if I thought they would be a better fit then the Republican. I don't vote along party lines.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 01, 2010, 09:53:39 PM
More lulz from Pat Bertroche, an aspiring GOP politician:

Quote
Bertroche said, when referring to illegal immigrants, that "We should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal?"

That idiot sure doesn't speak for this republican.
I thought you were a registered independent?

Nope. I'm a registered Republican, but this does not mean I vote just because of what party someone is, I would vote for a Democrat if I thought they would be a better fit then the Republican. I don't vote along party lines.
You think along party lines, as evidenced by everything you've ever posted on this forum.

Also, I distinctly remember you saying that you had registered as Independent. It was a couple months back.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: optimisticcynic on May 01, 2010, 09:57:33 PM
I really don't like the idea of there being a law saying i need to carry my id with me. I have it when I am driving but like when I go rock climbing I leave my wallet at home so nothing happens to it. It would be irritating to be arrested for not having id on me.

As long as you are not in the process of committing a crime you wouldn't be ID'd.
if you are committing a crime I don't mind you needing to have an id on you to make sure the ticket is going to the right person. but making a law saying you need to have an ID on you at all times seems a little extreme.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 01, 2010, 10:36:05 PM
More lulz from Pat Bertroche, an aspiring GOP politician:

Quote
Bertroche said, when referring to illegal immigrants, that "We should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal?"

That idiot sure doesn't speak for this republican.
I thought you were a registered independent?

Nope. I'm a registered Republican, but this does not mean I vote just because of what party someone is, I would vote for a Democrat if I thought they would be a better fit then the Republican. I don't vote along party lines.
You think along party lines, as evidenced by everything you've ever posted on this forum.

Also, I distinctly remember you saying that you had registered as Independent. It was a couple months back.

Admittedly, I did considered it, but didn't make the switch cause then I wouldn't be able to voice my opinion in the Republican primary.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: EnglshGentleman on May 01, 2010, 10:49:44 PM
I really don't like the idea of there being a law saying i need to carry my id with me. I have it when I am driving but like when I go rock climbing I leave my wallet at home so nothing happens to it. It would be irritating to be arrested for not having id on me.

As long as you are not in the process of committing a crime you wouldn't be ID'd.
if you are committing a crime I don't mind you needing to have an id on you to make sure the ticket is going to the right person. but making a law saying you need to have an ID on you at all times seems a little extreme.

There needs to be both a lack of ID and probable cause to be detained. As I said earlier, an example of probable cause would be the lack of an ability to speak English.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: sillyrob on May 02, 2010, 01:56:10 AM
To anyone who is against the law and cries that it's racist: READ THE FUCKING LAW BEFORE YOU CRY LIBERAL TEARS OF FAGGOTRY. The law does not say, "Stop anyone who is brown." People are assuming that the cops are going to racial profile (hmmm sounds racist to me, but then again, you cant be racist to white people). This grants Arizona police the powers of federal agencies, like INS and ICE. It also makes it ILLEGAL to be ILLEGAL. Also, it makes it illegal to knowingly pick up illegals to do work and knowingly transport illegals. Hell, I was reading that Oklahoma is not only interested in this bill, but is thinking about enacting a bill similar to it.

But now a bunch of people are protesting, Arizona congressmen are calling for boycotts of Arizona, capitol buildings are being vandalized (who cares if it's beans, it's vandalism), and just generally making a huge deal out of nothing. If you actually do research, most of Arizona and a good portion of the nation are in support of it, so why is it that only the voices and opinions of the minority are the ones being portrayed in the media?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 02, 2010, 04:33:28 AM
Has any of the opponents of this actually even read the bill?

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: EnglshGentleman on May 02, 2010, 08:32:32 AM
Has any of the opponents of this actually even read the bill?

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

Probably not. Most opponents cater to those that either don't have the resources to read it or can't read English.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Althalus on May 02, 2010, 08:36:07 AM
Why do you use a nirvana avatar but accuse others of being faggots?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 02, 2010, 10:17:09 AM
I really don't like the idea of there being a law saying i need to carry my id with me. I have it when I am driving but like when I go rock climbing I leave my wallet at home so nothing happens to it. It would be irritating to be arrested for not having id on me.

As long as you are not in the process of committing a crime you wouldn't be ID'd.
if you are committing a crime I don't mind you needing to have an id on you to make sure the ticket is going to the right person. but making a law saying you need to have an ID on you at all times seems a little extreme.

There needs to be both a lack of ID and probable cause to be detained. As I said earlier, an example of probable cause would be the lack of an ability to speak English.

So, how does the cop find out the person can't speak English in the first place?  Where's the "probable cause" for finding that information out?  You're skipping a step when you say lack of ID and inability to speak English are probable causes. 
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2010, 11:26:32 AM
Actually, what they need is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.  And it won't be defined until a precedent is set via the courts.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: EnglshGentleman on May 02, 2010, 01:05:58 PM
I really don't like the idea of there being a law saying i need to carry my id with me. I have it when I am driving but like when I go rock climbing I leave my wallet at home so nothing happens to it. It would be irritating to be arrested for not having id on me.

As long as you are not in the process of committing a crime you wouldn't be ID'd.
if you are committing a crime I don't mind you needing to have an id on you to make sure the ticket is going to the right person. but making a law saying you need to have an ID on you at all times seems a little extreme.

There needs to be both a lack of ID and probable cause to be detained. As I said earlier, an example of probable cause would be the lack of an ability to speak English.

So, how does the cop find out the person can't speak English in the first place?  Where's the "probable cause" for finding that information out?  You're skipping a step when you say lack of ID and inability to speak English are probable causes.  

I'm not saying lack of ID is a probable cause. Its the ID + reasonable suspicion  (thank you Saddam) that gets you.

No ID+ No RS = Your all good.
No ID + RS = No good
ID + No RS = Still ok.
ID+ RS = Preferably not but still fine.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 02, 2010, 04:29:51 PM
But you're saying not being able to speak English is reasonable suspicion, and I"m saying that isn't good enough. 

The law has been amended already.  I think they have to be committing a crime now, which I don't have a problem with.  If a person gets caught committing a crime, they're going to have to identify themselves. 
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 02, 2010, 04:55:29 PM
I really don't like the idea of there being a law saying i need to carry my id with me. I have it when I am driving but like when I go rock climbing I leave my wallet at home so nothing happens to it. It would be irritating to be arrested for not having id on me.

As long as you are not in the process of committing a crime you wouldn't be ID'd.
if you are committing a crime I don't mind you needing to have an id on you to make sure the ticket is going to the right person. but making a law saying you need to have an ID on you at all times seems a little extreme.

There needs to be both a lack of ID and probable cause to be detained. As I said earlier, an example of probable cause would be the lack of an ability to speak English.

You don't seem to understand, our constitution prohibits the government to search or demand "papers" or identification unless there is probable cause of a crime being commited or a warrant.  Race, and/or launguage are not probable cause of a crime.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 02, 2010, 04:56:53 PM
But you're saying not being able to speak English is reasonable suspicion, and I"m saying that isn't good enough. 

The law has been amended already.  I think they have to be committing a crime now, which I don't have a problem with.  If a person gets caught committing a crime, they're going to have to identify themselves. 

I don't care if they're the most peaceful person in the world, if they're here illegally, THEY'RE STILL BREAKING THE LAW!!!
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 02, 2010, 06:24:37 PM
But you're saying not being able to speak English is reasonable suspicion, and I"m saying that isn't good enough. 

The law has been amended already.  I think they have to be committing a crime now, which I don't have a problem with.  If a person gets caught committing a crime, they're going to have to identify themselves. 

I don't care if they're the most peaceful person in the world, if they're here illegally, THEY'RE STILL BREAKING THE LAW!!!
I don't care how much you hate for immigrants to seek a life in the US., if the law is unconstitutional, THEN THAT LAW IS INVALID.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2010, 06:29:47 PM
I really don't like the idea of there being a law saying i need to carry my id with me. I have it when I am driving but like when I go rock climbing I leave my wallet at home so nothing happens to it. It would be irritating to be arrested for not having id on me.

As long as you are not in the process of committing a crime you wouldn't be ID'd.
if you are committing a crime I don't mind you needing to have an id on you to make sure the ticket is going to the right person. but making a law saying you need to have an ID on you at all times seems a little extreme.

There needs to be both a lack of ID and probable cause to be detained. As I said earlier, an example of probable cause would be the lack of an ability to speak English.

You don't seem to understand, our constitution prohibits the government to search or demand "papers" or identification unless there is probable cause of a crime being commited or a warrant.  Race, and/or launguage are not probable cause of a crime.

That's true.  Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, cops can ask someone to identify themselves with reasonable suspicion, but not for official documentation.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 02, 2010, 06:31:32 PM
But you're saying not being able to speak English is reasonable suspicion, and I"m saying that isn't good enough. 

The law has been amended already.  I think they have to be committing a crime now, which I don't have a problem with.  If a person gets caught committing a crime, they're going to have to identify themselves. 

I don't care if they're the most peaceful person in the world, if they're here illegally, THEY'RE STILL BREAKING THE LAW!!!
I don't care how much you hate for immigrants to seek a life in the US., if the law is unconstitutional, THEN THAT LAW IS INVALID.

I don't care about people moving to the USA as long as they do it legally. Quit defending illegal immigrants. BTW, my comment wasn't about the law, my comment was about them being here in general.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 02, 2010, 06:33:08 PM
CR90, you really don't get it, do you? Nobody is defending illegal immigrants. I'm defending the rights of Americans.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 02, 2010, 06:40:40 PM
CR90, you really don't get it, do you? Nobody is defending illegal immigrants. I'm defending the rights of Americans.

No, you're being stupid and fighting for no reason. The facts have been layed out to where what y'all are claiming are wrong but you still cry foul. Get on with your life. If you have a driver's license you're fine. Quit being so secretive, what do you have to hide if you're not a illegal immigrant? Dope?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2010, 06:53:31 PM
CR90, you really don't get it, do you? Nobody is defending illegal immigrants. I'm defending the rights of Americans.

No, you're being stupid and fighting for no reason. The facts have been layed out to where what y'all are claiming are wrong but you still cry foul. Get on with your life. If you have a driver's license you're fine. Quit being so secretive, what do you have to hide if you're not a illegal immigrant? Dope?

Read the Constitution.  Your attitude is exactly the opposite of what the Constitution entails.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 02, 2010, 06:59:53 PM
IN Detroit, they profile people and pull them over and run their names for minor violations, and have begun cleaning up SOME of the areas.

AND PEOPLE ARE CRYING ABOUT IT BECAUSE BLACK PEOPLE KEEP GETTING ARRESTED! AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA i hate detroiters
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 02, 2010, 07:17:42 PM
CR90, you really don't get it, do you? Nobody is defending illegal immigrants. I'm defending the rights of Americans.

No, you're being stupid and fighting for no reason. The facts have been layed out to where what y'all are claiming are wrong but you still cry foul. Get on with your life. If you have a driver's license you're fine. Quit being so secretive, what do you have to hide if you're not a illegal immigrant? Dope?

Read the Constitution.  Your attitude is exactly the opposite of what the Constitution entails.

There you go again, ignoring the fact and continuing to cry foul.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Death-T on May 02, 2010, 07:29:55 PM
CR90, you really don't get it, do you? Nobody is defending illegal immigrants. I'm defending the rights of Americans.

No, you're being stupid and fighting for no reason. The facts have been layed out to where what y'all are claiming are wrong but you still cry foul. Get on with your life. If you have a driver's license you're fine. Quit being so secretive, what do you have to hide if you're not a illegal immigrant? Dope?

Read the Constitution.  Your attitude is exactly the opposite of what the Constitution entails.

Absolute crap. The Consititution is a "living" document in that it is still subject to change even today through amendments. As it stands, the Consitution rules against unlawful search and seizure and certain other rights in relation to privacy are held. However, a good bit of this is left up to the Judicial Branch and its intrepretations of this intentionally vague document. If they and the law at large deem it legal (with supporting views based on the Constitution)- it holds the weight of the Constitution behind it as they are its custodians.

As it stands, unless the Consitution is changed, the Judicial Branch hears a case against it, or the lawmakers themselves works against it - it stands thanks to different intrepretations of the "iron-clad" Constitution.

You crazy kids. Thinking the Constitution makes every act of investigation illegal just because your view of it says so.

That being said.... I don't really like the essense of this bill, but I understand that it can, with the right backing, stand up under any press short of a total "shake-down" of the Judicial Branch or the State Legislature.

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 02, 2010, 07:33:33 PM
CR90, you really don't get it, do you? Nobody is defending illegal immigrants. I'm defending the rights of Americans.

No, you're being stupid and fighting for no reason. The facts have been layed out to where what y'all are claiming are wrong but you still cry foul. Get on with your life. If you have a driver's license you're fine. Quit being so secretive, what do you have to hide if you're not a illegal immigrant? Dope?

Read the Constitution.  Your attitude is exactly the opposite of what the Constitution entails.

Absolute crap. The Consititution is a "living" document in that it is still subject to change even today through amendments. As it stands, the Consitution rules against unlawful search and seizure and certain other rights in relation to privacy are held. However, a good bit of this is left up to the Judicial Branch and its intrepretations of this intentionally vague document. If they and the law at large deem it legal (with supporting views based on the Constitution)- it holds the weight of the Constitution behind it as they are its custodians.

As it stands, unless the Consitution is changed, the Judicial Branch hears a case against it, or the lawmakers themselves works against it - it stands thanks to different intrepretations of the "iron-clad" Constitution.

You crazy kids. Thinking the Constitution makes every act of investigation illegal just because your view of it says so.

That being said.... I don't really like the essense of this bill, but I understand that it can, with the right backing, stand up under any press short of a total "shake-down" of the Judicial Branch or the State Legislature.

I was referring to his comment of "What do you have to hide?"
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 02, 2010, 07:34:03 PM
Why would anyone ever think that a Mexican could be an illegal Mexican immigrant.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 02, 2010, 07:41:27 PM
I'm against racial profiling.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: EnglshGentleman on May 02, 2010, 08:18:00 PM
I'm against racial profiling.

It stinks but it works. Well.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 02, 2010, 08:20:40 PM
I'm against racial profiling.

It stinks but it works. Well.


All Americans should have their rights protected, whatever race.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Death-T on May 02, 2010, 08:22:09 PM
CR90, you really don't get it, do you? Nobody is defending illegal immigrants. I'm defending the rights of Americans.

No, you're being stupid and fighting for no reason. The facts have been layed out to where what y'all are claiming are wrong but you still cry foul. Get on with your life. If you have a driver's license you're fine. Quit being so secretive, what do you have to hide if you're not a illegal immigrant? Dope?

Read the Constitution.  Your attitude is exactly the opposite of what the Constitution entails.

Absolute crap. The Consititution is a "living" document in that it is still subject to change even today through amendments. As it stands, the Consitution rules against unlawful search and seizure and certain other rights in relation to privacy are held. However, a good bit of this is left up to the Judicial Branch and its intrepretations of this intentionally vague document. If they and the law at large deem it legal (with supporting views based on the Constitution)- it holds the weight of the Constitution behind it as they are its custodians.

As it stands, unless the Consitution is changed, the Judicial Branch hears a case against it, or the lawmakers themselves works against it - it stands thanks to different intrepretations of the "iron-clad" Constitution.

You crazy kids. Thinking the Constitution makes every act of investigation illegal just because your view of it says so.

That being said.... I don't really like the essense of this bill, but I understand that it can, with the right backing, stand up under any press short of a total "shake-down" of the Judicial Branch or the State Legislature.

I was referring to his comment of "What do you have to hide?"

Even that "principle" of the Constitution is not exacly set in stone. True, you have rights - but these rights are at the partial whim of the Judicial Branch and social tides. Don't like it? Get an amendment into the Constitution that sets out your rights, word for word, and will not be open to intrepretation.

Why would anyone ever think that a Mexican could be an illegal Mexican immigrant.

- Its quite easy to tell if you look for the right signs. For instance, from my employment at a greenhouse for nearly seven years rendered me a pretty good understanding of what to look for. However, its not always cut and dry, but the law only requires "Reasonable Suspicion" and the term can applied quite widely. Then again, if you have nothing to hide - don't sweat it.


I'm against racial profiling.

It stinks but it works. Well.

Unfortunely..... it does have a basis in pure statistics.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 02, 2010, 08:53:03 PM
I'm against racial profiling.

It stinks but it works. Well.


All Americans should have their rights protected, whatever race.

Key word there is "Americans" and IMO those in this country legally, which you can't tell by reading their mind contrary to popular belief.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 02, 2010, 08:56:36 PM
Key word there is "Americans" and IMO those in this country legally, which you can't tell by reading their mind contrary to popular belief.

What the hell are you talking about? You are in favor of racial profiling? Interesting.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: sillyrob on May 03, 2010, 03:23:04 AM
Nowhere in this law does it say they can pull over Mexicans. I feel like a damned broken record, but a lot of people don't seem to understand. If someone is breaking the law, and they cannot provide ID and even when they provide a name the cop cannot find them in their computer, that is cause to assume they're here illegally. If a couple documented residents end up getting harassed because they weren't carrying papers, so fucking be it. It's their fault they weren't carrying them so they should get harassed. We also do have illegals here that are not Mexican. I know someone who has a bunch of illegal Asian friends and they're so far stopping at least ten illegal Arabs a month at the border.

Anyways, after reading the sob stories in the newspaper about illegal families leaving the state because they're worried they're going to get caught. The law is working and no one is getting arrested.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 03, 2010, 03:27:08 AM
Nowhere in this law does it say they can pull over Mexicans. I feel like a damned broken record, but a lot of people don't seem to understand. If someone is breaking the law, and they cannot provide ID and even when they provide a name the cop cannot find them in their computer, that is cause to assume they're here illegally. If a couple documented residents end up getting harassed because they weren't carrying papers, so fucking be it. It's their fault they weren't carrying them so they should get harassed. We also do have illegals here that are not Mexican. I know someone who has a bunch of illegal Asian friends and they're so far stopping at least ten illegal Arabs a month at the border.

Anyways, after reading the sob stories in the newspaper about illegal families leaving the state because they're worried they're going to get caught. The law is working and no one is getting arrested.

I think people are just more concerned with the possibility of it leading to the profiling and illegal search and seizures than with anything in the actual law. ANd i understand.

BUT I HATE ILLEGALS. ROAR!!!

I'm just not sure i like the precedent it sets. I really am not sure im ready for a national id card.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: sillyrob on May 03, 2010, 03:54:51 AM
Nowhere in this law does it say they can pull over Mexicans. I feel like a damned broken record, but a lot of people don't seem to understand. If someone is breaking the law, and they cannot provide ID and even when they provide a name the cop cannot find them in their computer, that is cause to assume they're here illegally. If a couple documented residents end up getting harassed because they weren't carrying papers, so fucking be it. It's their fault they weren't carrying them so they should get harassed. We also do have illegals here that are not Mexican. I know someone who has a bunch of illegal Asian friends and they're so far stopping at least ten illegal Arabs a month at the border.

Anyways, after reading the sob stories in the newspaper about illegal families leaving the state because they're worried they're going to get caught. The law is working and no one is getting arrested.

I think people are just more concerned with the possibility of it leading to the profiling and illegal search and seizures than with anything in the actual law. ANd i understand.

BUT I HATE ILLEGALS. ROAR!!!

I'm just not sure i like the precedent it sets. I really am not sure im ready for a national id card.
People are just assuming that cops are going to be racist and illegally search brown people for funsies. I'm pretty sure that's racist.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 03, 2010, 07:55:37 AM
Nowhere in this law does it say they can pull over Mexicans. I feel like a damned broken record, but a lot of people don't seem to understand. If someone is breaking the law, and they cannot provide ID and even when they provide a name the cop cannot find them in their computer, that is cause to assume they're here illegally. If a couple documented residents end up getting harassed because they weren't carrying papers, so fucking be it. It's their fault they weren't carrying them so they should get harassed. We also do have illegals here that are not Mexican. I know someone who has a bunch of illegal Asian friends and they're so far stopping at least ten illegal Arabs a month at the border.

Anyways, after reading the sob stories in the newspaper about illegal families leaving the state because they're worried they're going to get caught. The law is working and no one is getting arrested.

I think people are just more concerned with the possibility of it leading to the profiling and illegal search and seizures than with anything in the actual law. ANd i understand.

BUT I HATE ILLEGALS. ROAR!!!

I'm just not sure i like the precedent it sets. I really am not sure im ready for a national id card.
People are just assuming that cops are going to be racist and illegally search brown people for funsies. I'm pretty sure that's racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio)

The law will be abused.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: semperround on May 03, 2010, 08:21:42 AM
Nowhere in this law does it say they can pull over Mexicans. I feel like a damned broken record, but a lot of people don't seem to understand. If someone is breaking the law, and they cannot provide ID and even when they provide a name the cop cannot find them in their computer, that is cause to assume they're here illegally. If a couple documented residents end up getting harassed because they weren't carrying papers, so fucking be it. It's their fault they weren't carrying them so they should get harassed. We also do have illegals here that are not Mexican. I know someone who has a bunch of illegal Asian friends and they're so far stopping at least ten illegal Arabs a month at the border.

Anyways, after reading the sob stories in the newspaper about illegal families leaving the state because they're worried they're going to get caught. The law is working and no one is getting arrested.

I think people are just more concerned with the possibility of it leading to the profiling and illegal search and seizures than with anything in the actual law. ANd i understand.

BUT I HATE ILLEGALS. ROAR!!!

I'm just not sure i like the precedent it sets. I really am not sure im ready for a national id card.
People are just assuming that cops are going to be racist and illegally search brown people for funsies. I'm pretty sure that's racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio)

The law will be abused.
why? because the old sheriff is tough on immigration. he has been elected to five times as sheriff so he must be doing something right.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 03, 2010, 09:48:17 AM
Nowhere in this law does it say they can pull over Mexicans. I feel like a damned broken record, but a lot of people don't seem to understand. If someone is breaking the law, and they cannot provide ID and even when they provide a name the cop cannot find them in their computer, that is cause to assume they're here illegally. If a couple documented residents end up getting harassed because they weren't carrying papers, so fucking be it. It's their fault they weren't carrying them so they should get harassed. We also do have illegals here that are not Mexican. I know someone who has a bunch of illegal Asian friends and they're so far stopping at least ten illegal Arabs a month at the border.

Anyways, after reading the sob stories in the newspaper about illegal families leaving the state because they're worried they're going to get caught. The law is working and no one is getting arrested.

I think people are just more concerned with the possibility of it leading to the profiling and illegal search and seizures than with anything in the actual law. ANd i understand.

BUT I HATE ILLEGALS. ROAR!!!

I'm just not sure i like the precedent it sets. I really am not sure im ready for a national id card.
People are just assuming that cops are going to be racist and illegally search brown people for funsies. I'm pretty sure that's racist.
I don't trust the police. Sorry, just seen enough bullshit from fed up cops.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 03, 2010, 10:45:11 AM
Nowhere in this law does it say they can pull over Mexicans. I feel like a damned broken record, but a lot of people don't seem to understand. If someone is breaking the law, and they cannot provide ID and even when they provide a name the cop cannot find them in their computer, that is cause to assume they're here illegally. If a couple documented residents end up getting harassed because they weren't carrying papers, so fucking be it. It's their fault they weren't carrying them so they should get harassed. We also do have illegals here that are not Mexican. I know someone who has a bunch of illegal Asian friends and they're so far stopping at least ten illegal Arabs a month at the border.

Anyways, after reading the sob stories in the newspaper about illegal families leaving the state because they're worried they're going to get caught. The law is working and no one is getting arrested.

I think people are just more concerned with the possibility of it leading to the profiling and illegal search and seizures than with anything in the actual law. ANd i understand.

BUT I HATE ILLEGALS. ROAR!!!

I'm just not sure i like the precedent it sets. I really am not sure im ready for a national id card.
People are just assuming that cops are going to be racist and illegally search brown people for funsies. I'm pretty sure that's racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio)

The law will be abused.
why?
Because police are police.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on May 03, 2010, 12:40:08 PM
Nowhere in this law does it say they can pull over Mexicans. I feel like a damned broken record, but a lot of people don't seem to understand. If someone is breaking the law, and they cannot provide ID and even when they provide a name the cop cannot find them in their computer, that is cause to assume they're here illegally. If a couple documented residents end up getting harassed because they weren't carrying papers, so fucking be it. It's their fault they weren't carrying them so they should get harassed. We also do have illegals here that are not Mexican. I know someone who has a bunch of illegal Asian friends and they're so far stopping at least ten illegal Arabs a month at the border.

Anyways, after reading the sob stories in the newspaper about illegal families leaving the state because they're worried they're going to get caught. The law is working and no one is getting arrested.

I think people are just more concerned with the possibility of it leading to the profiling and illegal search and seizures than with anything in the actual law. ANd i understand.

BUT I HATE ILLEGALS. ROAR!!!

I'm just not sure i like the precedent it sets. I really am not sure im ready for a national id card.
People are just assuming that cops are going to be racist and illegally search brown people for funsies. I'm pretty sure that's racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio)

The law will be abused.
why?
Because police are penguins.

Fixed
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 03, 2010, 01:44:27 PM
Arrgh!  Anarchy for everyone!!!
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Death-T on May 03, 2010, 02:00:29 PM
Arrgh!  Anarchy for everyone!!!

Anarchy is a sign of weakness. A realization that the current system is not working and chaos is the answer. I despise anarchists and those that say that order and government is not needed even with our large numbers of people on this small little planet. What fools.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 03, 2010, 03:35:21 PM
Arrgh!  Anarchy for everyone!!!
Hardly. Anarchy fails for the exact same reason that Communism does.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Death-T on May 03, 2010, 04:12:41 PM
Arrgh!  Anarchy for everyone!!!
Hardly. Anarchy fails for the exact same reason that Communism does.
Interesting. Care to expound on that? I'm having trouble understanding the common thread between the two, besides highly unrealistic goals that contradict themselves by needing actual organizations, when the intial ideals were built upon total freedom.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 03, 2010, 06:26:52 PM
Nobody, atleast not I, is suggesting anarchy.  I am suggesting a constitutional government, which is an ideal I know and probably unobtainable because of the political environment in which we live.  However I still do oppose any law which violates those boundaries, whether I think the law will have a good outcome or bad.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 03, 2010, 06:41:53 PM
CR90, you really don't get it, do you? Nobody is defending illegal immigrants. I'm defending the rights of Americans.

No, you're being stupid and fighting for no reason. The facts have been layed out to where what y'all are claiming are wrong but you still cry foul. Get on with your life. If you have a driver's license you're fine. Quit being so secretive, what do you have to hide if you're not a illegal immigrant? Dope?

Read the Constitution.  Your attitude is exactly the opposite of what the Constitution entails.

Absolute crap. The Consititution is a "living" document in that it is still subject to change even today through amendments. As it stands, the Consitution rules against unlawful search and seizure and certain other rights in relation to privacy are held. However, a good bit of this is left up to the Judicial Branch and its intrepretations of this intentionally vague document. If they and the law at large deem it legal (with supporting views based on the Constitution)- it holds the weight of the Constitution behind it as they are its custodians.

As it stands, unless the Consitution is changed, the Judicial Branch hears a case against it, or the lawmakers themselves works against it - it stands thanks to different intrepretations of the "iron-clad" Constitution.

You crazy kids. Thinking the Constitution makes every act of investigation illegal just because your view of it says so.

That being said.... I don't really like the essense of this bill, but I understand that it can, with the right backing, stand up under any press short of a total "shake-down" of the Judicial Branch or the State Legislature.

I was referring to his comment of "What do you have to hide?"

Even that "principle" of the Constitution is not exacly set in stone. True, you have rights - but these rights are at the partial whim of the Judicial Branch and social tides. Don't like it? Get an amendment into the Constitution that sets out your rights, word for word, and will not be open to intrepretation.

Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Death-T on May 03, 2010, 07:16:56 PM
Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

If you would look back at my post I said partially, not total. And even the rights given can be taken away with the right pressure and whim of the Judicial Branch. Just look what happened in World War 2 with the Japanese Interment camps. Like I said, you have rights and they do indeed count for a lot of legal clout, more than anything else in this nation perhaps. But when the chips are down, the Constitution was written to be flexible and even the most iron-clad of amendments can be circumvented thanks to the intrepretation of "due process of law."

Nice name by the way, I've always enjoyed his writings.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 03, 2010, 07:20:09 PM
Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

If you would look back at my post I said partially, not total. And even the rights given can be taken away with the right pressure and whim of the Judicial Branch. Just look what happened in World War 2 with the Japanese Interment camps. Like I said, you have rights and they do indeed count for a lot of legal clout, more than anything else in this nation perhaps. But when the chips are down, the Constitution was written to be flexible and even the most iron-clad of amendments can be circumvented thanks to the intrepretation of "due process of law."

Nice name by the way, I've always enjoyed his writings.

Did the courts have anything to do with the Japanese internment camps?  I thought that was just FDR's order.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Death-T on May 03, 2010, 07:24:23 PM
Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

If you would look back at my post I said partially, not total. And even the rights given can be taken away with the right pressure and whim of the Judicial Branch. Just look what happened in World War 2 with the Japanese Interment camps. Like I said, you have rights and they do indeed count for a lot of legal clout, more than anything else in this nation perhaps. But when the chips are down, the Constitution was written to be flexible and even the most iron-clad of amendments can be circumvented thanks to the intrepretation of "due process of law."

Nice name by the way, I've always enjoyed his writings.

Did the courts have anything to do with the Japanese internment camps?  I thought that was just FDR's order.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Always glad to let others know that what they hold dear and always valid is not the case.

P.S. - I'm not anti-government, quite the opposite - I'm pro-government to a certain degree. Just didn't want people to assume something without me stating my positon.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 03, 2010, 07:39:07 PM
Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

If you would look back at my post I said partially, not total. And even the rights given can be taken away with the right pressure and whim of the Judicial Branch. Just look what happened in World War 2 with the Japanese Interment camps. Like I said, you have rights and they do indeed count for a lot of legal clout, more than anything else in this nation perhaps. But when the chips are down, the Constitution was written to be flexible and even the most iron-clad of amendments can be circumvented thanks to the intrepretation of "due process of law."

Nice name by the way, I've always enjoyed his writings.

Did the courts have anything to do with the Japanese internment camps?  I thought that was just FDR's order.
We were at war, so it's all good to suspend rights.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 03, 2010, 07:43:04 PM
Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

If you would look back at my post I said partially, not total. And even the rights given can be taken away with the right pressure and whim of the Judicial Branch. Just look what happened in World War 2 with the Japanese Interment camps. Like I said, you have rights and they do indeed count for a lot of legal clout, more than anything else in this nation perhaps. But when the chips are down, the Constitution was written to be flexible and even the most iron-clad of amendments can be circumvented thanks to the intrepretation of "due process of law."

Nice name by the way, I've always enjoyed his writings.

Did the courts have anything to do with the Japanese internment camps?  I thought that was just FDR's order.
We were at war, so it's all good to suspend rights.
I sincerely hope this was sarcasm.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 03, 2010, 07:45:16 PM
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Always glad to let others know that what they hold dear and always valid is not the case.

Wow.  Still, that wasn't exactly a precedent-setting case, given the official apologies and reparations offered by the government decades later.  I'd hate to think that something like that would happen nowadays, although I can't say for certain that it never will. :-\

We were at war, so it's all good to suspend rights.
I sincerely hope this was sarcasm.

lrn2Dann
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Death-T on May 03, 2010, 07:49:42 PM
Though I agree judicial activism exists, Marbury v Madision did not give the judicial branch the power to interpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.  Read that decision carefully.  The Judicial branch is limited by the constitution the exact same way as the other two branches.  Also, the constitution protects all rights, not just those innumerated.  Rights were not meant to be decided by a committe, the word has a definition and with that definition we can easily identify what is a right and what is not.  As for the enumerated rights, the constitution is pretty clear on those, not vague at all.  When it says things like "Congress shall make no law...", "...shall not be infringed", or "...Shall not be violated", or "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", there is very little room for interpretation there.

If you would look back at my post I said partially, not total. And even the rights given can be taken away with the right pressure and whim of the Judicial Branch. Just look what happened in World War 2 with the Japanese Interment camps. Like I said, you have rights and they do indeed count for a lot of legal clout, more than anything else in this nation perhaps. But when the chips are down, the Constitution was written to be flexible and even the most iron-clad of amendments can be circumvented thanks to the intrepretation of "due process of law."

Nice name by the way, I've always enjoyed his writings.

Did the courts have anything to do with the Japanese internment camps?  I thought that was just FDR's order.
We were at war, so it's all good to suspend rights.
I sincerely hope this was sarcasm.

Who knows, we may have a fascist commenting on here. I've met many during my time on the internet. Many of them are "weekend" fascists - they "think" they like the ideas, but do not realize how good we have it here in this country. However, I've also met the actual hard-core fascists and fully realize what they're supporting. He's probably just being sarcastic though.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 04, 2010, 03:02:37 AM
I am 100% in favor of putting American citizens into interment camps during times of war if their time inspires songs like this

(http://)


Otherwise i am not really in favor.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 04, 2010, 06:08:59 AM
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Always glad to let others know that what they hold dear and always valid is not the case.

Wow.  Still, that wasn't exactly a precedent-setting case, given the official apologies and reparations offered by the government decades later.  I'd hate to think that something like that would happen nowadays, although I can't say for certain that it never will. :-\

Actually, the precedent of compelling state interest still exists today.  Though there are rules which the precedent lays out that lower courts must adhere by before invoking it.  Compelling state interest was recently argued in Citizen's United v FEC, the argument failed.

I personally wish for this precedent to be overturned.  The only exception given in the constitution as to when rights can be suspended or limited is as a result of due process, even in the face of great danger to the homeland or political instability, that was entirely a judicial invention.  The rights protected in the constitution should not be compared to any compelling state interest to take them away.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 04, 2010, 06:38:36 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/?page=1


"Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents."
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 04, 2010, 07:26:29 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/?page=1


"Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents."
Can they pull over white people and request birth certificate/passports based solely on said people's whiteness?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 04, 2010, 08:32:38 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-than-arizonas/?page=1


"Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents."
Can they pull over white people and request birth certificate/passports based solely on said people's whiteness?

Not sure.  But neither can the cops in Arizona according to SB1070. 

Heres Article Article 67 of the Mexican Population Law. Article 67 stipulates, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 04, 2010, 12:37:05 PM
I'm against racial profiling.

It stinks but it works. Well.


All Americans should have their rights protected, whatever race.

Key word there is "Americans" and IMO those in this country legally, which you can't tell by reading their mind contrary to popular belief.

Constitution protects all people under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not just citizens.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 04, 2010, 12:43:42 PM
I'm against racial profiling.

It stinks but it works. Well.


All Americans should have their rights protected, whatever race.

Key word there is "Americans" and IMO those in this country legally, which you can't tell by reading their mind contrary to popular belief.

Constitution protects all people under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not just citizens.

That's irrelevant to the second half of my comment.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 04, 2010, 12:53:57 PM

Constitution protects all people under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not just citizens.

BUUZZZZZZ!!!  Ohhh im sorry, thats the wrong answer.  Bob, show him what he didn't win!

The Constitution which is a Law, protects the Citizens of the United States of America. Other more specific law protects or subjects people who are not citizens to our laws. For example you cannot deport a U S Citizen but you can deport a non citizen.

Have you noticed that the Constitution is primarily a means of protecting the Citizens from the power of the State of America not some other entity.

Who does the Constitution apply to, only U S citizens, for example to run for some political office requires Citizenship, to vote requires citizenship and in the case of the President you must be a natural born citizen.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 04, 2010, 01:28:47 PM

Constitution protects all people under the jurisdiction of the U.S., not just citizens.

BUUZZZZZZ!!!  Ohhh im sorry, thats the wrong answer.  Bob, show him what he didn't win!

The Constitution which is a Law, protects the Citizens of the United States of America. Other more specific law protects or subjects people who are not citizens to our laws. For example you cannot deport a U S Citizen but you can deport a non citizen.

Have you noticed that the Constitution is primarily a means of protecting the Citizens from the power of the State of America not some other entity.

Who does the Constitution apply to, only U S citizens, for example to run for some political office requires Citizenship, to vote requires citizenship and in the case of the President you must be a natural born citizen.

Dumbass.  The constitution protects all people under it's jurisdiction, it also grants additional priviledges to citizens.  Priviledges are different from rights.  All people have their rights protected, while special citizens are granted additional privileges such as the ability to vote or run for office.  The constitution uses the word "people" and "citizen" to mean different things.  Take this:

Quote
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,

This clearly establishes that citizens are a subset of people and have the priviledge of running for office.

Now this:

Quote
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Makes no mention of this applying only to citizens.  In fact, no where in the bill of rights does the word citizen appear.  It only mentions "people" "persons" or "the accused".

the 14th amendment clarifies it further:

Quote
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When the constituiton talks about citizens, it is talking about priviledges that they are entitled by law, however when it talks about people, it talks about the protection of rights of all people, citizen and non citizen alike.

This is why if a tourist comes to this country, the government cannot just detain him, put him in jail, or shoot him in the head without first charging him/her with a crime and having a trial.  Why?  Because their rights are protected.

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 04, 2010, 03:43:41 PM
Well... i would argue this

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In the preamble, the constitution states We the People of the united states, so from that point on, i would assume all times it states "people" it states the people of the united states... and it isn't a hard jump to the people of the united states being citizens.


And that will be my foray into constitutional interpretation until i take a class or so.
Please don't call me a dumbass...
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 04, 2010, 04:16:58 PM
Well... i would argue this

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In the preamble, the constitution states We the People of the united states, so from that point on, i would assume all times it states "people" it states the people of the united states... and it isn't a hard jump to the people of the united states being citizens.


And that will be my foray into constitutional interpretation until i take a class or so.
Please don't call me a dumbass...


I've heard the argument before.  I won't call you a dumbass so long as you wish to learn about it.  My response is that the preamble is a statement of purpose and does not hold any force of law, it is the articles that come after that do.  Also the first quote I mentioned:

Quote
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States,

Does it make any sense that "person" in that sentence means citizens, when it clearly states no person except for citizens?

That is not the only example either, it is established over and over again that citizens are a subset of people.  Take the 14th amendment example which I gave above as well.  But there is also this in article IV:

Quote
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Why would they use citizen in the first clause, then person in the second clause?  Do you really think that is just a mistake?
It's plainly obvious that they are deliberate in their use of those two words.  By the way, not even the Bush administration argued that people within our jurisdiction do not have any constitutional protections.  That is why they kept foreign prisoners of war in GITMO, so they could claim they did not have to give them habeas corpus rights because they were not on U.S. soil.  They, like everybody agreed that if they are on U.S. soil, they are afforded the protections in the constitution like everybody else.  Such as due process and free speech.  They are NOT afforded the priviledges and immunities, such as voting, or running for office that are reserved only for citizens.

Think of the preamble as a statement of what the founders wished for the constitution to accomplish.  If it actually had force of law, there would be no need for the following articles at all, they could justify any law or government action as being presuant of that purpose.  The following articles are the powers and restrictions enumerated in order to accomplish that purpose.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 04, 2010, 04:24:34 PM
My criminal law professor and constitutional law professor agree.  The whole idea of the rights laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is that they are natural rights, bestowed by God on all human beings.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 04, 2010, 04:43:05 PM
My criminal law professor and constitutional law professor agree.  The whole idea of the rights laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is that they are natural rights, bestowed by God on all human beings.

Can't argue with those two.


the 14th amendment clarifies it further:

Quote
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When the constituiton talks about citizens, it is talking about priviledges that they are entitled by law, however when it talks about people, it talks about the protection of rights of all people, citizen and non citizen alike.

This is why if a tourist comes to this country, the government cannot just detain him, put him in jail, or shoot him in the head without first charging him/her with a crime and having a trial.  Why?  Because their rights are protected.



Thanks for proving my point dumbass.  Illegal immigrants are breaking the law by being here.  If they are involved in an additional crime then the AZ police are now allowed to ask them for proof of being here legally. 

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 04, 2010, 06:46:14 PM
Thanks for proving my point dumbass.  Illegal immigrants are breaking the law by being here.  If they are involved in an additional crime then the AZ police are now allowed to ask them for proof of being here legally. 

I don't have any problem with that, and I don't think that anyone else here does, either.  The problem that I think most people have is that it allows cops to ask for proof of citizenship/legal residence with reasonable suspicion.  How can one reasonably suspect that a person is an illegal immigrant just by looking at them?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 04, 2010, 06:59:24 PM
Thanks for proving my point dumbass.  Illegal immigrants are breaking the law by being here.  If they are involved in an additional crime then the AZ police are now allowed to ask them for proof of being here legally. 

I don't have any problem with that, and I don't think that anyone else here does, either.  The problem that I think most people have is that it allows cops to ask for proof of citizenship/legal residence with reasonable suspicion.  How can one reasonably suspect that a person is an illegal immigrant just by looking at them?

This.

Also Wardogg, I was responding to your argument earlier that the constitution only applies to citizens.  Not whether or not police can determine sombodies legal status after a lawfully arrest.  The problem here is giving the police the power to demand proof of citizenship (ie provide identification) with only a reasonable suspicion, where the 4th amendment requires a warrant before issuing a demand. Which applies to citizens and non citizens alike.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 04, 2010, 07:51:23 PM
Cool. I learned something.

AND I DIDNT GET CALLED A DUMBASS!  :-*
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 04, 2010, 07:55:45 PM
Thanks for proving my point dumbass.  Illegal immigrants are breaking the law by being here.  If they are involved in an additional crime then the AZ police are now allowed to ask them for proof of being here legally. 

I don't have any problem with that, and I don't think that anyone else here does, either.  The problem that I think most people have is that it allows cops to ask for proof of citizenship/legal residence with reasonable suspicion.  How can one reasonably suspect that a person is an illegal immigrant just by looking at them?

This.

Also Wardogg, I was responding to your argument earlier that the constitution only applies to citizens.  Not whether or not police can determine sombodies legal status after a lawfully arrest.  The problem here is giving the police the power to demand proof of citizenship (ie provide identification) with only a reasonable suspicion, where the 4th amendment requires a warrant before issuing a demand. Which applies to citizens and non citizens alike.

Show me in SB1070 where it says they can.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 04, 2010, 08:06:30 PM
Section one under the provisions:  

Quote
1.      Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

That does not say anything about there having to be a lawfull arrest first.  It requires the law enforcement officer to attempt to determine the legal status of the person during legitimate contact.  How else would you determine that unless you were to ask for their identification?  Demanding that would first require either a lawfull arrest, or a warrant.

If reasonable suspicion exists, a warrant should be obtained to search their person.  The exception is if there is a lawfull arrest for another crime, you will get no argument from me there because that does warrant a search of their person.  The language of this law appears to bypass that.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 04, 2010, 08:09:25 PM
Section one under the provisions: 

Quote
1.      Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

That does not say anything about there having to be a lawfull arrest first.  It requires the law enforcement officer to attempt to determine the legal status of the person during legitimate contact.  How else would you determine that unless you were to ask for their identification?  Demanding that would first require either a lawfull arrest, or a warrant.

If reasonable suspicion exists, a warrant should be obtained to search their person.  The exception is if there is a lawfull arrest.  The language of this law appears to bypass that.


Meh, honestly im too tired to go pouring over the document.  I will return tomorrow.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 04, 2010, 08:10:49 PM
Section one under the provisions: 

Quote
1.      Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

That does not say anything about there having to be a lawfull arrest first.  It requires the law enforcement officer to attempt to determine the legal status of the person during legitimate contact.  How else would you determine that unless you were to ask for their identification?  Demanding that would first require either a lawfull arrest, or a warrant.

If reasonable suspicion exists, a warrant should be obtained to search their person.  The exception is if there is a lawfull arrest.  The language of this law appears to bypass that.


Meh, honestly im too tired to go pouring over the document.  I will return tomorrow.

From the sound of it I presumed you already read it.  Considering you claimed that it did no such thing.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 04, 2010, 08:11:04 PM
Section one under the provisions:  

Quote
1.      Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

That does not say anything about there having to be a lawfull arrest first.  It requires the law enforcement officer to attempt to determine the legal status of the person during legitimate contact.  How else would you determine that unless you were to ask for their identification?  Demanding that would first require either a lawfull arrest, or a warrant.

If reasonable suspicion exists, a warrant should be obtained to search their person.  The exception is if there is a lawfull arrest for another crime, you will get no argument from me there because that does warrant a search of their person.  The language of this law appears to bypass that.

Where did you get this quote, provide your evidence or be accused of fabricating.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 04, 2010, 08:12:04 PM
Where did you get this quote, provide your evidence or be accused of fabricating.

...

Seriously?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 04, 2010, 08:12:35 PM
Section one under the provisions: 

Quote
1.      Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

That does not say anything about there having to be a lawfull arrest first.  It requires the law enforcement officer to attempt to determine the legal status of the person during legitimate contact.  How else would you determine that unless you were to ask for their identification?  Demanding that would first require either a lawfull arrest, or a warrant.

If reasonable suspicion exists, a warrant should be obtained to search their person.  The exception is if there is a lawfull arrest.  The language of this law appears to bypass that.


Meh, honestly im too tired to go pouring over the document.  I will return tomorrow.

From the sound of it I presumed you already read it.  Considering you claimed that it did no such thing.

I did doesnt mean i memorized it.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 04, 2010, 08:12:47 PM
Section one under the provisions:  

Quote
1.      Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

That does not say anything about there having to be a lawfull arrest first.  It requires the law enforcement officer to attempt to determine the legal status of the person during legitimate contact.  How else would you determine that unless you were to ask for their identification?  Demanding that would first require either a lawfull arrest, or a warrant.

If reasonable suspicion exists, a warrant should be obtained to search their person.  The exception is if there is a lawfull arrest for another crime, you will get no argument from me there because that does warrant a search of their person.  The language of this law appears to bypass that.

Where did you get this quote, provide your evidence or be accused of fabricating.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 04, 2010, 08:16:56 PM
Section one under the provisions: 

Quote
1.      Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

That does not say anything about there having to be a lawfull arrest first.  It requires the law enforcement officer to attempt to determine the legal status of the person during legitimate contact.  How else would you determine that unless you were to ask for their identification?  Demanding that would first require either a lawfull arrest, or a warrant.

If reasonable suspicion exists, a warrant should be obtained to search their person.  The exception is if there is a lawfull arrest.  The language of this law appears to bypass that.


Meh, honestly im too tired to go pouring over the document.  I will return tomorrow.

From the sound of it I presumed you already read it.  Considering you claimed that it did no such thing.

I did doesnt mean i memorized it.

It was the very first part...


anyhow, I provided the link I found.  I think we need to get on the same page on what exactly I do not like about this bill.  You will get no argument from me whether or not police can search a person who has been arrested lawfully, they certainly can.  However, it is improper for the police to demand somebodies ID if they have done nothing wrong.  If they are suspicious of being an illegal, I'd like to hear what that suspicion could be other than racial profiling.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 04, 2010, 08:31:30 PM
Section one under the provisions:  

Quote
1.      Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

That does not say anything about there having to be a lawfull arrest first.  It requires the law enforcement officer to attempt to determine the legal status of the person during legitimate contact.  How else would you determine that unless you were to ask for their identification?  Demanding that would first require either a lawfull arrest, or a warrant.

If reasonable suspicion exists, a warrant should be obtained to search their person.  The exception is if there is a lawfull arrest for another crime, you will get no argument from me there because that does warrant a search of their person.  The language of this law appears to bypass that.

Where did you get this quote, provide your evidence or be accused of fabricating.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

The date at the bottom says January, you do know the bill was revised about a week ago right?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 04, 2010, 08:58:02 PM
My criminal law professor and constitutional law professor agree.  The whole idea of the rights laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is that they are natural rights, bestowed by God on all human beings.
I agree, except for the part where God bestows the rights. The Constitution is a legal document; it bestows rights via the authority and force of law.

/2cents
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 04, 2010, 09:55:58 PM
Breaking footage of a citizen being apprehended by police and told to "get in the back of the van":
(http://)
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 05, 2010, 02:41:03 AM
Section one under the provisions:  

Quote
1.      Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

That does not say anything about there having to be a lawfull arrest first.  It requires the law enforcement officer to attempt to determine the legal status of the person during legitimate contact.  How else would you determine that unless you were to ask for their identification?  Demanding that would first require either a lawfull arrest, or a warrant.

If reasonable suspicion exists, a warrant should be obtained to search their person.  The exception is if there is a lawfull arrest for another crime, you will get no argument from me there because that does warrant a search of their person.  The language of this law appears to bypass that.

Where did you get this quote, provide your evidence or be accused of fabricating.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

The date at the bottom says January, you do know the bill was revised about a week ago right?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 05, 2010, 09:02:17 AM
Section one under the provisions:  

Quote
1.      Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

That does not say anything about there having to be a lawfull arrest first.  It requires the law enforcement officer to attempt to determine the legal status of the person during legitimate contact.  How else would you determine that unless you were to ask for their identification?  Demanding that would first require either a lawfull arrest, or a warrant.

If reasonable suspicion exists, a warrant should be obtained to search their person.  The exception is if there is a lawfull arrest for another crime, you will get no argument from me there because that does warrant a search of their person.  The language of this law appears to bypass that.

Where did you get this quote, provide your evidence or be accused of fabricating.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

The date at the bottom says January, you do know the bill was revised about a week ago right?

The amendments proposed have not been passed yet to my knowledge.  The link I provided is the current law.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 05, 2010, 12:22:02 PM
Section one under the provisions:  

Quote
1.      Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

That does not say anything about there having to be a lawfull arrest first.  It requires the law enforcement officer to attempt to determine the legal status of the person during legitimate contact.  How else would you determine that unless you were to ask for their identification?  Demanding that would first require either a lawfull arrest, or a warrant.

If reasonable suspicion exists, a warrant should be obtained to search their person.  The exception is if there is a lawfull arrest for another crime, you will get no argument from me there because that does warrant a search of their person.  The language of this law appears to bypass that.

Where did you get this quote, provide your evidence or be accused of fabricating.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm

The date at the bottom says January, you do know the bill was revised about a week ago right?

The amendments proposed have not been passed yet to my knowledge.  The link I provided is the current law.

That's not the current law from what I heard through the grapevine.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 05, 2010, 01:08:06 PM
That is what is on the Arizona legislative website.  Do you have a more authoritative source?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 05, 2010, 01:50:43 PM
Grapevine = his mom. 

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 05, 2010, 04:35:40 PM
Grapevine = his mom. 

No.

Grapevine = other message boards
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 05, 2010, 04:44:24 PM
That's not the current law from what I heard through the grapevine.
Grapevine = other message boards

So, you readily accept what is written on other message boards, but not Arizona's legislative website? wat.

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 05, 2010, 04:50:48 PM
That's not the current law from what I heard through the grapevine.
Grapevine = other message boards

So, you readily accept what is written on other message boards, but not Arizona's legislative website? wat.

That page was written in January I have no way to dispute him.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 05, 2010, 05:39:46 PM
Well, Marcus posted today, so that should trump what you read on other message boards.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 05, 2010, 06:34:14 PM
Well, Marcus posted today, so that should trump what you read on other message boards.

Sorry doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 05, 2010, 06:38:10 PM
You have a source from a message board more credible than Arizona's Legislature website?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 05, 2010, 06:57:26 PM
You have a source from a message board more credible than Arizona's Legislature website?

I didn't say that. I said, it's easy to claim something off a website without looking for a more recent version which would then ruin your point.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 05, 2010, 06:59:19 PM
This was actually an interesting discussion, or at least it was up until a few posts.  Can we all just ignore CR90 and get back to it?  I'm sick of valid debates turning into spam the moment he jumps in.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 05, 2010, 08:10:22 PM
That's not the current law from what I heard through the grapevine.
Grapevine = other message boards

So, you readily accept what is written on other message boards, but not Arizona's legislative website? wat.

That page was written in January I have no way to dispute him.

Then why did you try to unless you had evidence?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 06, 2010, 02:28:50 AM
That's not the current law from what I heard through the grapevine.
Grapevine = other message boards

So, you readily accept what is written on other message boards, but not Arizona's legislative website? wat.

That page was written in January I have no way to dispute him.

Then why did you try to unless you had evidence?

I think you're confusing which "him" I'm referring to.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 06, 2010, 09:39:26 AM
Do you even know which "him" you were referring to?  Marcus has provided a link to the Arizona legislature's website, you are using the info you've obtained from a message board.  I assume it's a message board filled with people who also haven't bothered to read the Arizona legislature's website. 
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 06, 2010, 10:06:16 AM
I found this page with the revised legislation.  http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/043010_hb2162/  Also this page http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/ which might be easier to read because they have strikes through the old wording and the new wording in purple. 
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 06, 2010, 10:47:46 AM
I found this page with the revised legislation.  http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/043010_hb2162/  Also this page http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/ which might be easier to read because they have strikes through the old wording and the new wording in purple. 

Problem still exists, though it is worded better.  If it is just a lawfull stop, a warrant would still be needed to search that person.  This law appears to give the police the power to make an attempt to determine legal status if there is a reasonable suspiscion after a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.  Though I have no problem with police searching your person after a lawfull arrest, the police have no right to search you without a warrant otherwise.

My question is, if the officer asks you to produce proof that you are here legally (considering you are currently not under arrest for anything), what happens if you refuse?  Legally you have the right to unless the officer has a warrant.

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: semperround on May 06, 2010, 11:08:36 AM
I found this page with the revised legislation.  http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/043010_hb2162/  Also this page http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/ which might be easier to read because they have strikes through the old wording and the new wording in purple.  

Problem still exists, though it is worded better.  If it is just a lawfull stop, a warrant would still be needed to search that person.  This law appears to give the police the power to make an attempt to determine legal status if there is a reasonable suspiscion after a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.  Though I have no problem with police searching your person after a lawfull arrest, the police have no right to search you without a warrant otherwise.

My question is, if the officer asks you to produce proof that you are here legally (considering you are currently not under arrest for anything), what happens if you refuse?  Legally you have the right to unless the officer has a warrant.


i believe you are required to tell them your name if they ask. i'm not sure though.

EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes)
i don't know if it is enforced in arizona or not.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 06, 2010, 11:20:49 AM
I found this page with the revised legislation.  http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/043010_hb2162/  Also this page http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/ which might be easier to read because they have strikes through the old wording and the new wording in purple.  

Problem still exists, though it is worded better.  If it is just a lawfull stop, a warrant would still be needed to search that person.  This law appears to give the police the power to make an attempt to determine legal status if there is a reasonable suspiscion after a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.  Though I have no problem with police searching your person after a lawfull arrest, the police have no right to search you without a warrant otherwise.

My question is, if the officer asks you to produce proof that you are here legally (considering you are currently not under arrest for anything), what happens if you refuse?  Legally you have the right to unless the officer has a warrant.


i believe you are required to tell them your name if they ask. i'm not sure though.

EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes)
i don't know if it is enforced in arizona or not.

But even with that statute, you don't have to provide documentation.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: semperround on May 06, 2010, 11:22:32 AM
I found this page with the revised legislation.  http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/043010_hb2162/  Also this page http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/ which might be easier to read because they have strikes through the old wording and the new wording in purple. 

Problem still exists, though it is worded better.  If it is just a lawfull stop, a warrant would still be needed to search that person.  This law appears to give the police the power to make an attempt to determine legal status if there is a reasonable suspiscion after a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.  Though I have no problem with police searching your person after a lawfull arrest, the police have no right to search you without a warrant otherwise.

My question is, if the officer asks you to produce proof that you are here legally (considering you are currently not under arrest for anything), what happens if you refuse?  Legally you have the right to unless the officer has a warrant.


i believe you are required to tell them your name if they ask. i'm not sure though.

EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes)
i don't know if it is enforced in arizona or not.

But even with that statute, you don't have to provide documentation.
documentation can be as simple as a drivers liscense or state issued i.d.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 06, 2010, 01:08:56 PM
I found this page with the revised legislation.  http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/043010_hb2162/  Also this page http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/ which might be easier to read because they have strikes through the old wording and the new wording in purple. 

Problem still exists, though it is worded better.  If it is just a lawfull stop, a warrant would still be needed to search that person.  This law appears to give the police the power to make an attempt to determine legal status if there is a reasonable suspiscion after a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.  Though I have no problem with police searching your person after a lawfull arrest, the police have no right to search you without a warrant otherwise.

My question is, if the officer asks you to produce proof that you are here legally (considering you are currently not under arrest for anything), what happens if you refuse?  Legally you have the right to unless the officer has a warrant.


i believe you are required to tell them your name if they ask. i'm not sure though.

EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes)
i don't know if it is enforced in arizona or not.

But even with that statute, you don't have to provide documentation.
documentation can be as simple as a drivers liscense or state issued i.d.

But you still don't have to show it, at least not with only reasonable suspicion.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 09, 2010, 09:39:00 PM
(http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/crayola-arizona.jpg)
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 10, 2010, 01:29:16 AM
(http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/crayola-arizona.jpg)

I'm sorry who are the race mongerers again. Cause all I can see is those opposing this bill bringing race and "racial profiling" into this. Typical racist is racist. *facepalm*
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 10, 2010, 03:54:30 AM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/alien_WU7CcuvTMg4n2yBzWqSPMI
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 10, 2010, 04:01:41 AM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/alien_WU7CcuvTMg4n2yBzWqSPMI

Quote
The landmark settlement has prompted the Correction Department to dump scores of illegal immigrants on the streets, since federal officials often fail to pick them up within the required two-day window.
Quote
"We just release them now," one high-ranking jail supervisor said. "It's ICE's problem to go find these guys."

Great.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 17, 2010, 08:28:58 AM
(http://www.disc0rd.com/images/eff.jpg)
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 17, 2010, 12:55:04 PM
(http://www.disc0rd.com/images/eff.jpg)

Liez.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 17, 2010, 01:22:15 PM
(http://www.disc0rd.com/images/eff.jpg)

Liez.
Possible troofz.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 17, 2010, 01:37:53 PM
(http://www.disc0rd.com/images/eff.jpg)

Liez.
Possible troofz.

No it's not. You're as bad as Eric Holder when it comes to reading the law (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0510/Holder_hasnt_read_Ariz_immigration_bill.html).
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 17, 2010, 01:40:11 PM
Fucking hell. Stop fagging up the thread, assholes. I am proud of my non-spam topic. >:(
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 17, 2010, 02:46:20 PM
Fucking hell. Stop fagging up the thread, assholes. I am proud of my non-spam topic. >:(
This is FES. Spam is the air we breathe and the threads we poop. It is our very way of life.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 17, 2010, 04:22:42 PM
No it's not. You're as bad as Eric Holder when it comes to reading the law (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0510/Holder_hasnt_read_Ariz_immigration_bill.html).

You haven't read it either.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 17, 2010, 05:59:52 PM
No it's not. You're as bad as Eric Holder when it comes to reading the law (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0510/Holder_hasnt_read_Ariz_immigration_bill.html).

You haven't read it either.

Are you saying you're a voyeur and know my ever move?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 17, 2010, 08:26:10 PM
No it's not. You're as bad as Eric Holder when it comes to reading the law (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0510/Holder_hasnt_read_Ariz_immigration_bill.html).

You haven't read it either.

Are you saying you're a voyeur and know my ever move?
11:00 AM: Subject has waken up
11:05-12:30PM: Subject is playing on Xbox Live
12:35 PM: Subject was observed making Kraft dinner and leftover pizza for lunch.
12:45 PM - 5:00 PM: Subject is watching baseball, wrestling, and Fox News
5:00 PM - 2:30 AM: More Xbox Live

* Note: Thoughout the day, suspect is often observed posting on FES, Fox Nation, and WND.



Have failed to notice any deviation from this established pattern for the last 192 days. Requesting reassignment.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 17, 2010, 08:41:28 PM
No it's not. You're as bad as Eric Holder when it comes to reading the law (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0510/Holder_hasnt_read_Ariz_immigration_bill.html).

You haven't read it either.

Are you saying you're a voyeur and know my ever move?
11:00 AM: Subject has waken up
11:05-12:30PM: Subject is playing on Xbox Live
12:35 PM: Subject was observed making Kraft dinner and leftover pizza for lunch.
12:45 PM - 5:00 PM: Subject is watching baseball, wrestling, and Fox News
5:00 PM - 2:30 AM: More Xbox Live

* Note: Thoughout the day, suspect is often observed posting on FES, Fox Nation, and WND.



Have failed to notice any deviation from this established pattern for the last 192 days. Requesting reassignment.

You forgot the part about him fapping to Tim Tebow.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 17, 2010, 08:52:23 PM
No it's not. You're as bad as Eric Holder when it comes to reading the law (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0510/Holder_hasnt_read_Ariz_immigration_bill.html).

You haven't read it either.

Are you saying you're a voyeur and know my ever move?
11:00 AM: Subject has waken up
11:05-12:30PM: Subject is playing on Xbox Live
12:35 PM: Subject was observed making Kraft dinner and leftover pizza for lunch.
12:45 PM - 5:00 PM: Subject is watching baseball, wrestling, and Fox News
5:00 PM - 2:30 AM: More Xbox Live

* Note: Thoughout the day, suspect is often observed posting on FES, Fox Nation, and WND.



Have failed to notice any deviation from this established pattern for the last 192 days. Requesting reassignment.

...


My usual lunch is pizza rolls ::)

You forgot the part about him fapping to Tim Tebow.

You're irrelevant, as is your comment.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Eddy Baby on May 18, 2010, 12:54:05 AM
Lol@ usual lunch, from home.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 18, 2010, 08:13:19 AM
No it's not. You're as bad as Eric Holder when it comes to reading the law (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0510/Holder_hasnt_read_Ariz_immigration_bill.html).

You haven't read it either.

Are you saying you're a voyeur and know my ever move?

Are you saying you have read the bill?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 26, 2010, 07:58:30 AM
A glimse of the future in Arizona.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/eduardo-caraballo-puerto-rico-deportion-94795779.html
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 08:13:14 AM
Meh. I see no problem with holding a car thief a few more days.

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 26, 2010, 08:18:05 AM
Meh. I see no problem with holding a car thief a few more days.



Right, because the fact that he was arrested and charged for it, also means he is guilty.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 26, 2010, 08:30:22 AM
Meh. I see no problem with holding a car thief a few more days.



Right, because the fact that he was arrested and charged for it, also means he is guilty.

True.  Also, even if he is guilty, that doesn't justify the police denying him his constitutional right of bail.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 08:43:06 AM
Meh. I see no problem with holding a car thief a few more days.



Right, because the fact that he was arrested and charged for it AND NOT WHITE, also means he is guilty.
Usually. At least, where i'm from.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 26, 2010, 08:48:56 AM
So why give them trials then?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 09:00:29 AM
Thats what i'm saying!

You catch a mofo in a car that ain't his, and the owner says it was stolen, THROW THE ASS IN PRISON!


Forget a trial.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 26, 2010, 09:10:51 AM
Awesome.  So if I accuse Barrack Obama of stealing my money, we can just have him arrested and thrown in jail right?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 09:16:12 AM
Awesome.  So if I accuse Barrack Obama of stealing my money, we can just have him arrested and thrown in jail right?
Naw. Because their is no obvious motive for that one... nor is it likely such a  cut and dry occurrence would happen.

NOW... if you reported your wallie missing, and it turned up in Obammers front pocket, and it had your ID in and such in it... then yes.

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 26, 2010, 09:40:44 AM
Thats what i'm saying!

You catch a mofo in a car that ain't his, and the owner says it was stolen, THROW THE ASS IN PRISON!


Forget a trial.

So if I lend you my car, and then I report it to the police as stolen, we should just throw your ass in prison?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 26, 2010, 09:43:23 AM
Thats what i'm saying!

You catch a mofo in a car that ain't his, and the owner says it was stolen, THROW THE ASS IN PRISON!


Forget a trial.

So if I lend you my car, and then I report it to the police as stolen, we should just throw your ass in prison?

Only if he's black, I suppose.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 09:58:03 AM
Thats what i'm saying!

You catch a mofo in a car that ain't his, and the owner says it was stolen, THROW THE ASS IN PRISON!


Forget a trial.

So if I lend you my car, and then I report it to the police as stolen, we should just throw your ass in prison?
If i were dumb enough to borrow your ve3hicle without written permission as proof? Yes.
Thats what i'm saying!

You catch a mofo in a car that ain't his, and the owner says it was stolen, THROW THE ASS IN PRISON!


Forget a trial.

So if I lend you my car, and then I report it to the police as stolen, we should just throw your ass in prison?

Only if he's black, I suppose.
Racist.

Brown and yellow commit crimes also.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 26, 2010, 12:10:17 PM
I'm getting the feeling that you're trolling here, Dann.  Do we really have to have a discussion on the importance of having a fair criminal justice system?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 26, 2010, 12:15:13 PM
Why do you hate Due Process of Law, Dann?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 12:21:05 PM
I'm getting the feeling that you're trolling here, Dann.  Do we really have to have a discussion on the importance of having a fair criminal justice system?
What's unfair about sending criminals to jail?

Why do you hate Due Process of Law, Dann?
ABUSE of due process. I mean... 15 people see a mofo shoot a man. The police catch him with the murder weapon and a gun. SEND HIM TO PRISON. Fuck a trial yo.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 26, 2010, 12:33:49 PM
He would be convicted if they connected him to the murder weapon and there were witnesses.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 12:35:03 PM
He would be convicted if they connected him to the murder weapon and there were witnesses.
Why waste time on the trial?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 26, 2010, 12:41:57 PM
What if the defense proves that he had been framed?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 12:44:13 PM
If 15 people and the police hate him enough to bear false witness and allow another person to die, then he must be an asshole. Let him go to prison. It's not like he's getting executed.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 26, 2010, 01:05:47 PM
I'm getting the feeling that you're trolling here, Dann.  Do we really have to have a discussion on the importance of having a fair criminal justice system?
What's unfair about sending criminals to jail?

Why do you hate Due Process of Law, Dann?
ABUSE of due process. I mean... 15 people see a mofo shoot a man. The police catch him with the murder weapon and a gun. SEND HIM TO PRISON. Fuck a trial yo.

Because of the way this has been abused in the past and present.  The fact that police have been known to plant evidence, and beat confessions out of people.

What you are saying in your above example is actually "If the police claim this person committed a crime and claim that 15 people identified that person, (and they are not white) then that is evidence enough that this person did in fact commit the crime".  There is no need for the government to actually prove that their claims are correct, nor to give the accused the opportunity to defend him/herself against such claims, because the government is omnipotent, right?

If you go that route we might as well return to the days of the Salem witch trials.

Angy Protestant Villager:  "Burn her, she is a witch!"
Crazy Left Wing Civil Liberties Extremist: "But how do you know she is a witch?"
Angry Protestant Villager:  "Didn't you just hear the Magistrate?  He told us that she is a witch!  BURN HER!"
CLWCLE:  "Did the Magistrate provide any evidence that she is a witch?  How do we know that the claims made are accurate?"
APV:  "Off with you now!  We had a trial, the witnesses said that they heard from this other person who heard from somebody else that she casted spell on the village and summoned the devil!  Then she started making the girls scream in pain right there in the court room with her black magic! that was proof enough for the Magistrate that she is a witch!"

Do you believe in witches Dann?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 01:11:57 PM
No, but i believe in Bitches. Stop being one.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 26, 2010, 01:17:34 PM
No, but i believe in Bitches. Stop being one.

Do you believe that a government's claim of somebody's guilt is evidence enough that they are in fact guilty?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 01:19:14 PM
No, but i believe in Bitches. Stop being one.

Do you believe that a government's claim of somebody's guilt is evidence enough that they are in fact guilty?
No way. The government is corrupt! That's why i don't think they should be in charge of laws.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 26, 2010, 01:22:18 PM
ABUSE of due process. I mean... 15 people see a mofo shoot a man. The police catch him with the murder weapon and a gun. SEND HIM TO PRISON. Fuck a trial yo.

Then what forum should be used to put forth the above evidence, without a trial?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 01:25:07 PM
ABUSE of due process. I mean... 15 people see a mofo shoot a man. The police catch him with the murder weapon and a gun. SEND HIM TO PRISON. Fuck a trial yo.

Then what forum should be used to put forth the above evidence, without a trial?
Street justice, lynch mobs, vigilantes (the good kind, like batman or V.) and police that are hired, and not elected. Maybe a few respected local leaders... but only a few and only local ones.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 26, 2010, 01:28:22 PM
ABUSE of due process. I mean... 15 people see a mofo shoot a man. The police catch him with the murder weapon and a gun. SEND HIM TO PRISON. Fuck a trial yo.

Then what forum should be used to put forth the above evidence, without a trial?
Street justice, lynch mobs, vigilantes (the good kind, like batman or V.) and police that are hired, and not elected. Maybe a few respected local leaders... but only a few and only local ones.

So in other words, Mob rule.  Similar to the Salem witch trials.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 01:33:46 PM
ABUSE of due process. I mean... 15 people see a mofo shoot a man. The police catch him with the murder weapon and a gun. SEND HIM TO PRISON. Fuck a trial yo.

Then what forum should be used to put forth the above evidence, without a trial?
Street justice, lynch mobs, vigilantes (the good kind, like batman or V.) and police that are hired, and not elected. Maybe a few respected local leaders... but only a few and only local ones.

So in other words, Mob rule.  Similar to the Salem witch trials.
Similar. But no killing. Unless they were a jerk when getting sentenced. I HATE PEOPLE HWO DONT ACCEPT THEIR FATE!
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Mykael on May 26, 2010, 01:56:44 PM
I'm getting the feeling that you're trolling here, Dann.  Do we really have to have a discussion on the importance of having a fair criminal justice system?
What's unfair about sending criminals to jail?

Why do you hate Due Process of Law, Dann?
ABUSE of due process. I mean... 15 people see a mofo shoot a man. The police catch him with the murder weapon and a gun. SEND HIM TO PRISON. Fuck a trial yo.
Trial = Due Process

You be trollin, boy/.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 26, 2010, 03:09:03 PM
Meh. I see no problem with holding a car thief a few more days.



Right, because the fact that he was arrested and charged for it, also means he is guilty.

True.  Also, even if he is guilty, that doesn't justify the police denying him his constitutional right of bail.

Wat
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Sean on May 26, 2010, 03:15:17 PM
Meh. I see no problem with holding a car thief a few more days.



Right, because the fact that he was arrested and charged for it, also means he is guilty.

True.  Also, even if he is guilty, that doesn't justify the police denying him his constitutional right of bail.

Wat

I'm guessing you disagree..? Go on.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 26, 2010, 03:21:00 PM
Meh. I see no problem with holding a car thief a few more days.



Right, because the fact that he was arrested and charged for it, also means he is guilty.

True.  Also, even if he is guilty, that doesn't justify the police denying him his constitutional right of bail.

Wat

The way bail works is that you pay a certain amount of money to the court, which will be held as collateral to ensure your return.  Bail can be denied by the judge sometimes, but it wasn't in this case.  The man's bail was set.  He paid it, and should have been free to leave.  But then the police refused to let him go.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 26, 2010, 03:52:47 PM
Meh. I see no problem with holding a car thief a few more days.



Right, because the fact that he was arrested and charged for it, also means he is guilty.

True.  Also, even if he is guilty, that doesn't justify the police denying him his constitutional right of bail.

Wat

The way bail works is that you pay a certain amount of money to the court, which will be held as collateral to ensure your return.  Bail can be denied by the judge sometimes, but it wasn't in this case.  The man's bail was set.  He paid it, and should have been free to leave.  But then the police refused to let him go.

I get that they were wrong to not release him, but i fail to she the constitutional violation. At wrose they violated protocal and can be punished for it, but I don't see any constitutional problem.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 03:57:56 PM
I'm getting the feeling that you're trolling here, Dann.  Do we really have to have a discussion on the importance of having a fair criminal justice system?
What's unfair about sending criminals to jail?

Why do you hate Due Process of Law, Dann?
ABUSE of due process. I mean... 15 people see a mofo shoot a man. The police catch him with the murder weapon and a gun. SEND HIM TO PRISON. Fuck a trial yo.
Trial = Due Process

You be trollin, boy/.
YEA? Wanna make something of it?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 26, 2010, 04:44:20 PM
Meh. I see no problem with holding a car thief a few more days.



Right, because the fact that he was arrested and charged for it, also means he is guilty.

True.  Also, even if he is guilty, that doesn't justify the police denying him his constitutional right of bail.

Wat

The way bail works is that you pay a certain amount of money to the court, which will be held as collateral to ensure your return.  Bail can be denied by the judge sometimes, but it wasn't in this case.  The man's bail was set.  He paid it, and should have been free to leave.  But then the police refused to let him go.

I get that they were wrong to not release him, but i fail to she the constitutional violation. At wrose they violated protocal and can be punished for it, but I don't see any constitutional problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Christianrocker90 on May 26, 2010, 05:08:30 PM
Meh. I see no problem with holding a car thief a few more days.



Right, because the fact that he was arrested and charged for it, also means he is guilty.

True.  Also, even if he is guilty, that doesn't justify the police denying him his constitutional right of bail.

Wat

The way bail works is that you pay a certain amount of money to the court, which will be held as collateral to ensure your return.  Bail can be denied by the judge sometimes, but it wasn't in this case.  The man's bail was set.  He paid it, and should have been free to leave.  But then the police refused to let him go.

I get that they were wrong to not release him, but i fail to she the constitutional violation. At worse they violated protocol and can be punished for it, but I don't see any constitutional problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Ok, I guess that can be considered "cruel and unusual punishments". Point taken, and mine is conceded.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 27, 2010, 03:52:29 AM
Meh. I see no problem with holding a car thief a few more days.



Right, because the fact that he was arrested and charged for it, also means he is guilty.

True.  Also, even if he is guilty, that doesn't justify the police denying him his constitutional right of bail.

Wat

The way bail works is that you pay a certain amount of money to the court, which will be held as collateral to ensure your return.  Bail can be denied by the judge sometimes, but it wasn't in this case.  The man's bail was set.  He paid it, and should have been free to leave.  But then the police refused to let him go.

I get that they were wrong to not release him, but i fail to she the constitutional violation. At wrose they violated protocal and can be punished for it, but I don't see any constitutional problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

No where in the constitution does it say they have to release him if he posts bail.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 27, 2010, 04:22:23 AM
No where in the constitution does it say they have to release him if he posts bail.

Perhaps because the realease associated with bail is in the legal definition:

noun:
Security, such as cash, a bond, or property, pledged or given to a court by or on behalf of one accused of committing a crime, to obtain release from incarceration and to ensure the person?s future appearance in court when required during the criminal proceeding. See also preventive detention and recognizance.

verb:
To obtain for oneself or another the release from incarceration by providing security to ensure the person?s future appearance at every stage in a criminal proceeding.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 27, 2010, 04:38:04 AM
No where in the constitution does it say they have to release him if he posts bail.

Perhaps because the realease associated with bail is in the legal definition:

noun:
Security, such as cash, a bond, or property, pledged or given to a court by or on behalf of one accused of committing a crime, to obtain release from incarceration and to ensure the person?s future appearance in court when required during the criminal proceeding. See also preventive detention and recognizance.

verb:
To obtain for oneself or another the release from incarceration by providing security to ensure the person?s future appearance at every stage in a criminal proceeding.



Its a stretch....its almost the which came first argument though.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 27, 2010, 04:42:39 AM
No where in the constitution does it say they have to release him if he posts bail.

Perhaps because the realease associated with bail is in the legal definition:

noun:
Security, such as cash, a bond, or property, pledged or given to a court by or on behalf of one accused of committing a crime, to obtain release from incarceration and to ensure the person?s future appearance in court when required during the criminal proceeding. See also preventive detention and recognizance.

verb:
To obtain for oneself or another the release from incarceration by providing security to ensure the person?s future appearance at every stage in a criminal proceeding.


Its a stretch....its almost the which came first argument though.

Think of it this way then, The government set a legal contract with the accused that if he paid a certain amount of colateral, he would be released with the promise he would appear for trial.  When the money was paid, the government chose to accept the payment, then also chose to not live up to their end of the bargain.  If they did not intend to release him, they should not have accepted the money nor set the bail.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 27, 2010, 04:44:05 AM
No where in the constitution does it say they have to release him if he posts bail.

Perhaps because the realease associated with bail is in the legal definition:

noun:
Security, such as cash, a bond, or property, pledged or given to a court by or on behalf of one accused of committing a crime, to obtain release from incarceration and to ensure the person?s future appearance in court when required during the criminal proceeding. See also preventive detention and recognizance.

verb:
To obtain for oneself or another the release from incarceration by providing security to ensure the person?s future appearance at every stage in a criminal proceeding.


Its a stretch....its almost the which came first argument though.

Think of it this way then, The government set a legal contract with the accused that if he paid a certain amount of colateral, he would be released with the promise he would appear for trial.  When the money was paid, the government chose to accept the payment, then also chose to not live up to their end of the bargain.  If they did not intend to release him, they should not have accepted the money nor set the bail.

Agreed....but does that make it unconstitutional?
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 27, 2010, 06:24:46 AM
No where in the constitution does it say they have to release him if he posts bail.

Perhaps because the realease associated with bail is in the legal definition:

noun:
Security, such as cash, a bond, or property, pledged or given to a court by or on behalf of one accused of committing a crime, to obtain release from incarceration and to ensure the person?s future appearance in court when required during the criminal proceeding. See also preventive detention and recognizance.

verb:
To obtain for oneself or another the release from incarceration by providing security to ensure the person?s future appearance at every stage in a criminal proceeding.


Its a stretch....its almost the which came first argument though.

Think of it this way then, The government set a legal contract with the accused that if he paid a certain amount of colateral, he would be released with the promise he would appear for trial.  When the money was paid, the government chose to accept the payment, then also chose to not live up to their end of the bargain.  If they did not intend to release him, they should not have accepted the money nor set the bail.

Agreed....but does that make it unconstitutional?

Well, if there is a federal law requiring that he be released if the bail conditions are met, then yes, it would be unconstitutional for them to hold him anyway.

As stated in Article VI section 2:

Quote
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

However, it is unclear to me whether or not they violated federal law.  The Judicial officer can certainly change the conditions of his release at any time according to the law, but in this case, it was ICE, not a judicial officer, who decided to hold him.  From what I understand, unless that judge changes his/her mind, if the bail is met, then it must be upheld.  The rest of the law covers when bail is to be set, and when it is not.  One of the conditions for bail is if the person is in the country legally, if he is not, then no bail.  However in this case, he WAS a legal citizen, who provided all the documentation needed to establish that fact, and he was still held.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 27, 2010, 07:53:42 AM
I see they may have broken the law, but I still dont see how it is unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on May 27, 2010, 02:05:45 PM
You may be right, either way it seems illegal.  The last thing I will say toward the Constitutional argument is reguarding the 5th amendment, which states that "no person....shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law".  So for example, it would be considered a violation of that clause if the government decides to hold a person without charging them with a crime, or holding them after they were acquitted of a crime.  It's a stretch I admit, but bail is a part of due process here.

Lastly, whether it is unconsitutional or just illegal (the difference is very touchy when it comes to government actions), it is still just as serious.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 27, 2010, 05:36:22 PM
By holding him after he posted bail didn't they deny him due process? That would be unconstitutional.  I don't know as much about the constitution as Marcus, so I hope he keeps trying to explain :)
Title: Immigration Policy and Border Control
Post by: babsinva on July 01, 2010, 09:36:19 PM
I am sure many of you have heard what's happening in Arizona.

A panel discusses why they feel nothing is being done; these are their words not mine, so don't shoot the messenger.

One panelist pointed out that he, (the panelist) and Obama feel that the Republicans are to blame, because they will not work on the issue of immigration policy with Obama.  That is true, for Republicans also did not back Bush (also Republican) in 2006 on the same issue, so it's not really Republican against Democrat, for they haven't backed their own party on the issue in the past.  And although both of these statements are true, conservative Democrats are also not backing Obama (who is a Democrat himself.)  Another point made by the 2 other panelists and a brief interview with a congressman (not on the panel in the TV studio) have said since Obama's party (Democrats) control both the house and the senate, then that bill could be on the table tomorrow if they wanted it to be.  So why is Obama playing the blame game? 

Panelists feel:
a) this is typical Obama - it's what he does best - blame;
b) Obama makes alot of political speeches, that are not legislative speeches and devoid of specifics;
c) the Hispanic American population that was very concerned about this issue and voted in favor of Obama over McCain back then, is losing their faith in him, and their numbers of supporters have decreased, and Obama wants to win them back;
d) the Democrats are holding this immigration enforcement as hostage in order to get a bargain on amnesty, which is against their constitutional duties anyhow, because they should enforce the border;
e) Obama says he does not want the Arizona law, because he doesn't want a patchwork of laws, but instead a national standard, however the national standard already exists, but it's not enforced.  Which shows his lack of knowing the constitutional duties, OR his lack of enforcing them. (Ok that last sentence was my comment)

Here is the video - see for yourself, and weigh in >>
http://news.yahoo.com/video/opinion-15749653/20671942#video=20671942

Title: Re: Immigration Policy and Border Control
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 01, 2010, 09:44:28 PM
Immigration is an issue that doesn't break cleanly along party lines. To my knowledge, Republicans and Democrats are not well unified on a solution. It also gets really ugly for any congressman in the southwest, or with national aspirations. That's why it's so hard to get any bill passed.

The Solution: Legalize all the immigrants, and enforce a proper minimum wage. This way, they have enough money to survive, and to buy things. What does buying things do? It causes people to make and sell things. When people make and sell things, we have a concept called "jobs". Jobs are good. This way, not only are they not "stealing" jobs (Without the difference in pay, there's no reason to hire an immigrant over an "American"), they are actually helping to bolster the economy.
Title: Re: Immigration Policy and Border Control
Post by: Mykael on July 01, 2010, 11:51:06 PM
So, in summary, everything is Obama's fault?

Come on, babs. You're more intelligent than this.
Title: Re: Immigration Policy and Border Control
Post by: babsinva on July 02, 2010, 08:59:48 AM
So, in summary, everything is Obama's fault?

Come on, babs. You're more intelligent than this.

Myk, please don't get your panties in a bunch, ya stud muffin you.

No I am not saying everything in politics in Obama's fault, for Bush and Cheney did their fair share of messing things up, and Obama is Democrat and the other 2 are Republicans - so it's not a party affiliation thing for me either. 

And like I said, these are the panelists remarks - not mine.  Only one comment at the end was mine - the rest was their material.  I really don't like most politicians, not just Obama.  Nixon was a good President - regardless of the Watergate thing.

Title: Re: Immigration Policy and Border Control
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 02, 2010, 11:46:50 AM
The Solution: Legalize all the immigrants, and enforce a proper minimum wage. This way, they have enough money to survive, and to buy things. What does buying things do? It causes people to make and sell things. When people make and sell things, we have a concept called "jobs". Jobs are good. This way, not only are they not "stealing" jobs (Without the difference in pay, there's no reason to hire an immigrant over an "American"), they are actually helping to bolster the economy.

How is that fair, though?  Take me, for example.  My family and I had to pay a lot of money in fees, get fingerprinted, go through a shitload of paperwork, and take a stupid test, all to become citizens.  And now you're saying, "Just legalize them all!"  Don't you see how this is a problem?
Title: Re: Immigration Policy and Border Control
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 02, 2010, 04:17:35 PM
The Solution: Legalize all the immigrants, and enforce a proper minimum wage. This way, they have enough money to survive, and to buy things. What does buying things do? It causes people to make and sell things. When people make and sell things, we have a concept called "jobs". Jobs are good. This way, not only are they not "stealing" jobs (Without the difference in pay, there's no reason to hire an immigrant over an "American"), they are actually helping to bolster the economy.

How is that fair, though?  Take me, for example.  My family and I had to pay a lot of money in fees, get fingerprinted, go through a shitload of paperwork, and take a stupid test, all to become citizens.  And now you're saying, "Just legalize them all!"  Don't you see how this is a problem?
I'd rather use effective policies than shitty past precedent which has shown more than it's fair share of failures.
Title: Re: Immigration Policy and Border Control
Post by: Lorddave on July 02, 2010, 06:33:57 PM
Immigration is an issue that doesn't break cleanly along party lines. To my knowledge, Republicans and Democrats are not well unified on a solution. It also gets really ugly for any congressman in the southwest, or with national aspirations. That's why it's so hard to get any bill passed.

The Solution: Legalize all the immigrants, and enforce a proper minimum wage. This way, they have enough money to survive, and to buy things. What does buying things do? It causes people to make and sell things. When people make and sell things, we have a concept called "jobs". Jobs are good. This way, not only are they not "stealing" jobs (Without the difference in pay, there's no reason to hire an immigrant over an "American"), they are actually helping to bolster the economy.

The problem with your idea is that most manufacturing jobs are outsourced so more buying means more Chinese jobs. 

Still, I like the idea of just giving up and legalizing the whole lot.  Let them pay into the system.
Yes it's unfair to those who had to work to get in legally but the way I see it, fixing a problem requires someone to be upset while the problem get's fixed.  And when it does, not only is everything better, but those who complained before generally stop complaining.
Title: Re: Immigration Policy and Border Control
Post by: babsinva on July 05, 2010, 05:21:06 AM

Oohh some hostility in this thread.

Title: Re: Immigration Policy and Border Control
Post by: babsinva on July 08, 2010, 10:22:26 PM

They are having a BBQ - American slang for Bar-b-que.

Immigration is an issue that doesn't break cleanly along party lines. To my knowledge, Republicans and Democrats are not well unified on a solution.

True BF. 
Goddard, Attorney General for the state of Arizona is in opposition to the governor there who is Republican and opposition to Obama, a Democrat. 

Illegal immigrants, and illegal drugs from the Mexican drug cartels are infiltrating the border, as well as Arizona being the kidnap capital of the U.S.  (perhaps even the world)

22,700 have been killed at the border just since 2007.  Goddard sent a letter to our President that his figures are off, even though there are more boots on the ground (more foot men), and pretty much says the President "just doesn't get it."  Sizzle, burn - it's getting hot down there in Arizona, and the media does not mean the 109 degree Farenheit temps either.  They are calling it a BBQ.

Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 11, 2010, 05:21:37 PM
Interesting:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/11/holder-says-feds-will-watch-for-racial-profiling-if-arizona-law/
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Muphci on July 11, 2010, 09:04:50 PM
I was gonna dress-up like a Mexican with a bunch of my friends and cause a roadblock in Arizona but then didn't.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: babsinva on July 12, 2010, 09:21:24 AM
@ all

Ooh I'm sorry.

I did not know that when I made the thread Immigration Policy and Border Control that Sean already had one, but it had fallen back in the pages of R&P and I did not see it.  I didn't mean to infringe on his thread starting.

I will ask a mod to merge the 2.

Title: Re: Immigration Policy and Border Control
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on July 12, 2010, 11:15:28 AM
The Solution: Legalize all the immigrants, and enforce a proper minimum wage. This way, they have enough money to survive, and to buy things. What does buying things do? It causes people to make and sell things. When people make and sell things, we have a concept called "jobs". Jobs are good. This way, not only are they not "stealing" jobs (Without the difference in pay, there's no reason to hire an immigrant over an "American"), they are actually helping to bolster the economy.

How is that fair, though?  Take me, for example.  My family and I had to pay a lot of money in fees, get fingerprinted, go through a shitload of paperwork, and take a stupid test, all to become citizens.  And now you're saying, "Just legalize them all!"  Don't you see how this is a problem?

There is a difference between becoming a citizen, and becoming a legal immigrant.  Becoming a citizen should be hard, and I would not approve natralizing all immigrants. 
Title: Re: Immigration Policy and Border Control
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 12, 2010, 12:14:35 PM
The Solution: Legalize all the immigrants, and enforce a proper minimum wage. This way, they have enough money to survive, and to buy things. What does buying things do? It causes people to make and sell things. When people make and sell things, we have a concept called "jobs". Jobs are good. This way, not only are they not "stealing" jobs (Without the difference in pay, there's no reason to hire an immigrant over an "American"), they are actually helping to bolster the economy.

How is that fair, though?  Take me, for example.  My family and I had to pay a lot of money in fees, get fingerprinted, go through a shitload of paperwork, and take a stupid test, all to become citizens.  And now you're saying, "Just legalize them all!"  Don't you see how this is a problem?

There is a difference between becoming a citizen, and becoming a legal immigrant.  Becoming a citizen should be hard, and I would not approve natralizing all immigrants. 

But not everyone gets a Visa to legally live in the country, either.  The government only approves a certain number of people to legally immigrate each year, and there are many criteria for selection, including income, level of education, and the ability to speak English.  Allowing some people to just hop over all that simply because they come from Mexico isn't fair.  Also, legalizing all illegal immigrants would provide more incentives to enter the country illegally, if they know that there won't be any negative consequences.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benocrates on July 12, 2010, 06:26:46 PM
If Mexicans came over the boarder to just cause shit, then there would be little argument. The fact is, they work in the jobs most people don't want to do.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 12, 2010, 11:33:43 PM
If Mexicans came over the boarder to just cause shit, then there would be little argument. The fact is, they work in the jobs most people don't want to do.

But isn't that because they know there's nothing better they can get?  I hardly think there's any inherent correlation with being Mexican and low self-esteem or lack of ambition or intelligence.  If Franklin's suggestion of legalizing all immigrants was adopted, then there would be no incentive for there to be a Mexican sub-working class.  They would want to get educations, real jobs, everything that the rest of us do.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on July 13, 2010, 04:16:15 AM
If Mexicans came over the boarder to just cause shit, then there would be little argument. The fact is, they work in the jobs most people don't want to do.

Not true.

And if it is somewhat true its only because they are lazy pieces of shit that would rather have a socialist nanny state take care of them, than actually put in a hard days work for pay.



Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 13, 2010, 06:00:16 AM
If Mexicans came over the boarder to just cause shit, then there would be little argument. The fact is, they work in the jobs most people don't want to do.

Not true.

And if it is somewhat true its only because they are lazy pieces of shit that would rather have a socialist nanny state take care of them, than actually put in a hard days work for pay.

No, Wardogg.  I'm not a fan of illegal immigrants, and there are many valid criticisms that I could level at them, but "laziness" is not one of them.  There are probably a few lazy ones among them, sure, but by and large, most of them struggle everyday raising families on under-the-table wages that they can barely live on.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 13, 2010, 09:23:34 AM
Wardogg, if you think those people are lazy, then you need your head examined.  I'm sure they've got their share of losers, but have you ever picked a crop? It's backbreaking! http://www.takeourjobs.org/
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Mrs. Peach on July 13, 2010, 09:41:53 AM
Guys, I think Wardogg's 'they' was referring to the US citizens who won't deign to take the jobs that Mexicans are filling.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 13, 2010, 09:55:07 AM
Oh, well I wonder what part of Beno's post he thinks is untrue. If you live in a state that has agriculture, anyone can go get a job picking. 
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Mrs. Peach on July 13, 2010, 10:07:40 AM
I don't know.  In my area the home construction/home improvement jobs and restaurant kitchen workers are heavily Latino.  I have no idea of how many of these may or may not be people with green cards. Of course, a lot of the home construction jobs have dried up in the last couple of years. 
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 13, 2010, 10:53:07 AM
Yeah, the housing market tanked down here too... which I think is a good thing.  They need to stop building in Florida. Too many people here already! The state needs to learn to live with the tax revenue it already gets, and stop being so damn greedy.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benocrates on July 13, 2010, 03:44:07 PM
Wardogg had it right in the second part of his response. The reason that Mexicans come over is because they know there will be shitty jobs they can take that lazy Americans don't want to do. I used to think that the whole 'Mexicans hanging around 7-11' thing was a joke until I went to the store for a pack of smokes in Barstow Virginia and saw it for myself. Then I began looking for it and realized it was everywhere. They're here because lazy Americans will pay them to be. To demand that they still live as illegal, second-class citizens is the height of American douche-baggery.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 13, 2010, 04:15:05 PM
Well, actually he isn't correct.  He thinks there aren't that many lazy Americans, and that instead they're being denied work in favor of the illegals.

Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Lord Wilmore on July 13, 2010, 04:36:36 PM
Everyone is discussing this in ideological terms, when in reality immigration laws should be based around long-term policy aims, not gut reactions. The fact is that historically amnestys  have tended to produce increased immigration, and if a government's aim is to lower imigration (or at least keep it at sustainable levels), then implementing an amnesty would probably be a bad decision.


Furthermore, immigration is not simply a debate about citizenship and jobs, fairness etc, but about having a sustainable population. The population of the United States is one of the few in the western world that is rising substantially. It has risen by 30 million in the last ten years, and is projected to rise by at least another 30 million in the next ten years. This is good in some respects, but bad in others - without consistently strong economic growth (not impossible or even unlikely, but certainly more challenging than it has been in the past), this will be difficult socially.


More importantly, this growth is not happening at the same rate everywhere - the southern and western states are seeing the biggest increases, and this is also where most U.S. immigration occurs. This puts huge pressure on infrastructure (hospitals, housing, roads etc), something which is not helped by large numbers of illegal immigrants who earn but don't pay taxes. Now, granting an amnesty would bring many of them into the fold, but if it just results in even more immigration, then you really aren't solving anything.


The Arizona law sounds to me like a pretty poor piece of legislation, but if immigration and population levels really are an issue for Arizona, then ultimately they have to try and do something about it.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 13, 2010, 04:59:55 PM
To demand that they still live as illegal, second-class citizens is the height of American douche-baggery.

Who is demanding anything like that? ???
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 14, 2010, 06:58:35 AM
Well, most of us would like the illegal immigration problem to be solved, but the food industry makes a huge profit off of this source of cheap labor.  There are fewer and fewer family farms, and they have to compete with the big corporate farms.  It is in the corporate farms best interest to use cheap labor. 
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 27, 2010, 07:11:05 PM
This is interesting.  It turns out that a few years ago, a couple of police chiefs from my state, New Hampshire, actually arrested some illegal immigrants and charged them with "trespass".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060902035.html

This is an older article, but eventually our Supreme Court ruled that the arrests were unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: theonlydann on July 28, 2010, 05:44:38 AM
Illegal immigration will never be solved. To many people profit from it.

/thread
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: EireEngineer on July 28, 2010, 06:36:27 AM
Wow....16 pages of people on both sides misrepresenting the law, and the problem.  What is this...CraigsList?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 28, 2010, 07:13:53 AM
Wow....16 pages of people on both sides misrepresenting the law, and the problem.  What is this...CraigsList?

So you know the law, then?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: EireEngineer on July 28, 2010, 07:27:19 AM
Wow....16 pages of people on both sides misrepresenting the law, and the problem.  What is this...CraigsList?

So you know the law, then?

I have at least read it, and I see problems with it on both sides.  Like most legislation these days, it seems poorly crafted, though I do like some of the provisions.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: theonlydann on July 28, 2010, 08:03:46 AM
Wow....16 pages of people on both sides misrepresenting the law, and the problem.  What is this...CraigsList?

So you know the law, then?

I have at least read it, and I see problems with it on both sides.  Like most legislation these days, it seems poorly crafted, though I do like some of the provisions.
That is a fairly stock response
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: EireEngineer on July 28, 2010, 08:57:14 AM
Well, If you want specifics, here you go.

Portions of the bill I agree with, and why:
A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

Basically, no agency shall adopt a policy of sanctuary in direct contravention of Federal law.

B. 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).

Its the "For any lawfull contact" part that seems to confuse all the demagogues.

19 subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.
20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.
So at least they put this in to clarify it.

I do have a problem with these sections, for obvious reasons:

D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
18 ATTORNEY FEES.
19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
22 SUBSECTION.

All of those passages are poorly crafted and either give to much power to law enforcement, or provide loopholes for them to act inappropriately.  As I said, it is a truly poorly written bill, and the law of unintended consequences will be its downfall.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 28, 2010, 09:07:58 AM
My opinion of the law has changed somewhat since it first came about.  I don't have a problem with police officers checking the legal status of persons they come in contact with through the normal course of doing their jobs.  If they pull someone over for speeding, or arrest someone for some crime, and then find out the person is an illegal, I don't have a problem with them detaining the person and then handing them over to the Feds. Obviously the Feds need local assistance.

I agree with EireEngineer, though. The bill needs work.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 28, 2010, 09:33:24 AM
The key question, of course, is how "reasonable suspicion" will be defined by the courts.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: EireEngineer on July 28, 2010, 10:15:11 AM
The key question, of course, is how "reasonable suspicion" will be defined by the courts.
That is one of the things  I would have liked to have seen elucidated in the bill.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Death-T on July 29, 2010, 06:20:41 AM
Arizona's bill orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

Isn't this fucked fucked up?


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/arizona.immigration.bill/index.html

I don't have a single problem with it. Wow..... carrying documentation! I don't need to do tha..... oh wait. Yes I do. Because I live in the modern world of drivers license and social security cards.

Besides..... if you're not illegal.... you have almost nothing to worry about beyond what is already going down - racially charged wise. Its not like the bill automatically makes all the cops that used to be fair racist and the ones that were racist, even bigger racists.

Forgive me if I feel that laws should be followed and consequences should be dolled out if they are broken.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 29, 2010, 07:43:15 AM
I don't have a single problem with it. Wow..... carrying documentation! I don't need to do tha..... oh wait. Yes I do. Because I live in the modern world of drivers license and social security cards.

No, there's no law that requires you to carry around identification.  Unless, of course, you're driving, then you obviously need a license.  Also, social security cards?  You carry that around in your wallet? ???
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 29, 2010, 07:44:50 AM
Anyone dumb enough to do that, is dumb enough to support this law.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: EireEngineer on July 29, 2010, 07:49:02 AM
I don't have a single problem with it. Wow..... carrying documentation! I don't need to do tha..... oh wait. Yes I do. Because I live in the modern world of drivers license and social security cards.

No, there's no law that requires you to carry around identification.  Unless, of course, you're driving, then you obviously need a license.  Also, social security cards?  You carry that around in your wallet? ???
There might not be a law to carry ID, but it is such common practice to have it on you that it is a de facto statute.  We require more identification to make a debit card purchase than to work.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 29, 2010, 07:53:58 AM
We require more identification to make a debit card purchase than to work.
...
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 29, 2010, 08:27:33 AM
I don't have a single problem with it. Wow..... carrying documentation! I don't need to do tha..... oh wait. Yes I do. Because I live in the modern world of drivers license and social security cards.

No, there's no law that requires you to carry around identification.  Unless, of course, you're driving, then you obviously need a license.  Also, social security cards?  You carry that around in your wallet? ???

People used to always carry their social security card in their wallet. This was before identity theft became such a problem.

I don't have a problem with requiring visitors to the US to carry proper identification.  If you travel in another country they expect you to have your passport or work permit, don't they?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Death-T on July 29, 2010, 08:53:38 AM
I don't have a single problem with it. Wow..... carrying documentation! I don't need to do tha..... oh wait. Yes I do. Because I live in the modern world of drivers license and social security cards.

No, there's no law that requires you to carry around identification.  Unless, of course, you're driving, then you obviously need a license.  Also, social security cards?  You carry that around in your wallet? ???

No. I'm merely stating in the modern world you almost always have some sort of ID on you. Whether you need to get some bank business done, get your military ID renewed, or just drive - you need ID. Hell, I needed an school-issued ID for high school just so I could walk on campus.

Besides..... where the hell did I say there was a law requiring ID at all times? You need to read more carefully.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: theonlydann on July 30, 2010, 05:40:24 AM
Documentation is different than ID.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Death-T on July 30, 2010, 08:16:50 AM
Documentation is different than ID.

And? Does not ID count towards checking whether or not your are illegal?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Sean on July 30, 2010, 08:21:49 AM
A drivers license is not valid proof of citizenship.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Death-T on July 30, 2010, 08:24:46 AM
A drivers license is not valid proof of citizenship.

Ah..  you're right. Damn, need to research more.

Anyway, I really don't have a single problem bill. Hope it stands.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 30, 2010, 09:42:48 AM
A drivers license is not valid proof of citizenship.

Is it valid proof of being at least a legal resident?  Driver's licenses aren't handed out to anyone who just walks in off the street.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 30, 2010, 09:45:40 AM
They should make it so that legal visitors/workers only need to carry something similar to a driver's license, like an identification card.  
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 30, 2010, 10:09:30 AM
As I sit here, watching Fox News, they keep railing against the idea of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Is there any viable argument against amnesty for all currently illegal immigrants?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 30, 2010, 10:28:25 AM
As I sit here, watching Fox News, they keep railing against the idea of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Is there any viable argument against amnesty for all currently illegal immigrants?

Yes, Franklin, there are.  Morally, it's unfair to the thousands of legal immigrants who went through the system, as well as the hundreds of thousands of would-be immigrants who are declined a visa each year, due to the government's strict requirements on who gets to immigrate here.  You would essentially be allowing anyone from Mexico to simply sidestep those requirements, when everyone else has to follow them.  Also, and more importantly, amnesty will encourage more illegal immigration.  If a behavior is rewarded, then it will be repeated.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 30, 2010, 10:49:26 AM
Morally, it's unfair to the thousands of legal immigrants who went through the system, as well as the hundreds of thousands of would-be immigrants who are declined a visa each year, due to the INS's strict requirements on who gets to immigrate here.  You would essentially be allowing anyone from Mexico to simply sidestep those requirements, when everyone else has to follow them.
See, I don't buy this line of logic. It essentially translates to "We should keep past policies that have been shown, numerous times, to be ineffective, just so no one gets their feelings hurt". Would you prefer we return to the flawed quota system which lasted from the 1920's to the 1960's? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924). Also, I am not saying that just Mexicans should get amnesty, I am supporting it for all immigrants. This policy is an even handed approach, much like modern proponents of harsh immigration policies claim of their policies.

Also, and more importantly, amnesty will encourage more illegal immigration.  If a behavior is rewarded, then it will be repeated.
To begin, that's not even true. In a surprisingly similarity to another thread, when drug use in Portugal was decriminalized, the amount of drugs used went down. Legalizing something does not always mean an increase in it.

Second, what's wrong with an increase in immigrants? If they are made citizens, the government will protect their right to a minimum wage. There will no longer be incentive to hire them over any other worker. And, if these families suddenly experience a rise in income, they will spend more money. More consumer spending creates further jobs, which allows more employment, which allows more consumer spending, which bolsters the economy.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 30, 2010, 12:15:38 PM
Morally, it's unfair to the thousands of legal immigrants who went through the system, as well as the hundreds of thousands of would-be immigrants who are declined a visa each year, due to the INS's strict requirements on who gets to immigrate here.  You would essentially be allowing anyone from Mexico to simply sidestep those requirements, when everyone else has to follow them.
See, I don't buy this line of logic. It essentially translates to "We should keep past policies that have been shown, numerous times, to be ineffective, just so no one gets their feelings hurt". Would you prefer we return to the flawed quota system which lasted from the 1920's to the 1960's? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924). Also, I am not saying that just Mexicans should get amnesty, I am supporting it for all immigrants. This policy is an even handed approach, much like modern proponents of harsh immigration policies claim of their policies.

But this will apply almost entirely to Mexicans, for the obvious fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in America have come from Mexico.  A law can be discriminatory in practice as well as in writing.  In answer to your question, no, I'm not necessarily defending quotas, but whatever laws that this country uses need to be consistent.  And on the subject of "ineffective policies", amnesty has been tried before, and has done nothing to slow or stop illegal immigration.

Quote
Also, and more importantly, amnesty will encourage more illegal immigration.  If a behavior is rewarded, then it will be repeated.
To begin, that's not even true. In a surprisingly similarity to another thread, when drug use in Portugal was decriminalized, the amount of drugs used went down. Legalizing something does not always mean an increase in it.

First of all, comparing drug use and illegal immigration is ridiculous, and you know it.  Second, are you really trying to tell me that the treatment of illegal immigrants here in America will have no effect on what potential immigrants in Mexico think about hopping the border?

Quote
Second, what's wrong with an increase in immigrants? If they are made citizens, the government will protect their right to a minimum wage. There will no longer be incentive to hire them over any other worker. And, if these families suddenly experience a rise in income, they will spend more money. More consumer spending creates further jobs, which allows more employment, which allows more consumer spending, which bolsters the economy.

To be honest, I don't know.  I would like to see some immigration reform, but I just don't think that a blanket amnesty is the best way to go.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 30, 2010, 02:11:46 PM
Quote
But this will apply almost entirely to Mexicans, for the obvious fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in America have come from Mexico.  A law can be discriminatory in practice as well as in writing.  In answer to your question, no, I'm not necessarily defending quotas, but whatever laws that this country uses need to be consistent.  And on the subject of "ineffective policies", amnesty has been tried before, and has done nothing to slow or stop illegal immigration.
I agree that blanket amnesty would apply mostly to Mexicans. So do current immigration policies, so that is clearly not a problem. I wasn't aware of any modern, major, developed nations trying complete immigration amnesty. Mind citing an example?

Quote
First of all, comparing drug use and illegal immigration is ridiculous, and you know it.  Second, are you really trying to tell me that the treatment of illegal immigrants here in America will have no effect on what potential immigrants in Mexico think about hopping the border?
Shitty quality of life here is clearly not stopping immigrants already, and neither is the threat of law. Why continue with both of them, if they're expensive, and immoral?

Quote
Quote
Second, what's wrong with an increase in immigrants?
To be honest, I don't know. 
Here's a hint: The Southwest is filled with r_cists. Fill in the blank.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 30, 2010, 02:57:31 PM
I agree that blanket amnesty would apply mostly to Mexicans. So do current immigration policies, so that is clearly not a problem.

No, they don't.  Border security policies are obviously aimed mostly at Mexico, but there's nothing in our laws on legal immigration that state that Mexican immigrants can do x, as opposed to other immigrants that can do y, or the like.

Quote
I wasn't aware of any modern, major, developed nations trying complete immigration amnesty. Mind citing an example?

Actually, I'm referring to America.  President Reagan signed an amnesty bill into law in 1986.  Here's an article about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/washington/23amnesty.html?_r=1

Quote
Shitty quality of life here is clearly not stopping immigrants already, and neither is the threat of law. Why continue with both of them, if they're expensive, and immoral?

How do you know that nobody is being deterred?  We don't know how many would-be immigrants have decided to stay home rather than make the trip.  But in any case, there's a difference between lack of discouragement and actual encouragement.  Even if tough immigration laws don't discourage immigrants from trying to cross the border, your plan will actually encourage them.  Also, I disagree with you that these laws are "immoral".
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 30, 2010, 03:38:53 PM
No, they don't.  Border security policies are obviously aimed mostly at Mexico, but there's nothing in our laws on legal immigration that state that Mexican immigrants can do x, as opposed to other immigrants that can do y, or the like.
I was primarily referring to the Arizona law. While it claims not being racist, it will affect almost exclusively Mexicans.
Quote
Actually, I'm referring to America.  President Reagan signed an amnesty bill into law in 1986.  Here's an article about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/washington/23amnesty.html?_r=1
Interesting. However, it appeared that the government failed to enforce proper hiring practices. I concede that blanket amnesty only works if the government is willing to enforce the law. Also, in classic Washington fashion, it killed it with too much bureaucracy. When you're dealing with a population of people who may not speak English, excessive paperwork is an insane idea. It appears, then, that it failed due to poor implementation, not because it's a flawed policy.

Quote
How do you know that nobody is being deterred?  We don't know how many would-be immigrants have decided to stay home rather than make the trip.  But in any case, there's a difference between lack of discouragement and actual encouragement.  Even if tough immigration laws don't discourage immigrants from trying to cross the border, your plan will actually encourage them.  Also, I disagree with you that these laws are "immoral".
[/quote]
I'm not supporting encouraging them. I'm supporting apathy. I, for one, believe forcing people to work for under drastically under minimum wage to be immoral.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 20, 2010, 02:22:13 PM
I am bumping this thread.

I was primarily referring to the Arizona law. While it claims not being racist, it will affect almost exclusively Mexicans.

Yes, because most illegal immigrants are Mexicans.  The government can hardly deport people who aren't here.  What you are suggesting, however, is a system that will give Mexicans an unfair advantage over other prospective immigrants.  It is much easier to creep over the Mexican-American border than it is to sneak into the country via, say, planes or boats.

Quote
I'm not supporting encouraging them. I'm supporting apathy. I, for one, believe forcing people to work for under drastically under minimum wage to be immoral.

Giving illegal immigrants citizenship is exactly what they want.  How is that not encouraging them?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on September 20, 2010, 02:57:02 PM
Yes, because most illegal immigrants are Mexicans.  The government can hardly deport people who aren't here.  What you are suggesting, however, is a system that will give Mexicans an unfair advantage over other prospective immigrants.  It is much easier to creep over the Mexican-American border than it is to sneak into the country via, say, planes or boats.
What the shitting fuck? What you're saying actually helps prove my point: The current system makes it easier for Mexicans to sneak in the country than other nationalities. I am supporting amnesty for all people, leveling the playing field.

Giving illegal immigrants citizenship is exactly what they want.  How is that not encouraging them?
It's a well documented social behavior and consequence that legalizing, or turning something illegal, does not always encourage it or discourage it, respectively. The drug use in Portugal is a great example of legalizing a "frowned upon and illegal behavior", with no increase in the negative behavior. Also, I'm pretty sure I do not need to point out the numerous historical instances of unintended side effects from turning things illegal.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 20, 2010, 03:34:41 PM
Yes, because most illegal immigrants are Mexicans.  The government can hardly deport people who aren't here.  What you are suggesting, however, is a system that will give Mexicans an unfair advantage over other prospective immigrants.  It is much easier to creep over the Mexican-American border than it is to sneak into the country via, say, planes or boats.
What the shitting fuck? What you're saying actually helps prove my point: The current system makes it easier for Mexicans to sneak in the country than other nationalities. I am supporting amnesty for all people, leveling the playing field.

Are you suggesting open borders, then?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: EnglshGentleman on September 20, 2010, 06:30:15 PM
Here's a hint: The Southwest is filled with r_cists. Fill in the blank.

I disagree. The South and Southeast are far more racist.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 20, 2010, 07:06:57 PM
Yes, because most illegal immigrants are Mexicans.  The government can hardly deport people who aren't here.  What you are suggesting, however, is a system that will give Mexicans an unfair advantage over other prospective immigrants.  It is much easier to creep over the Mexican-American border than it is to sneak into the country via, say, planes or boats.
What the shitting fuck? What you're saying actually helps prove my point: The current system makes it easier for Mexicans to sneak in the country than other nationalities. I am supporting amnesty for all people, leveling the playing field.

Are you suggesting open borders, then?

A nation without borders is hardly a nation at all.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 20, 2010, 07:22:03 PM
Protip: This allows police officers to pull over specific ethnicity and detain them if they do not have passports/birth certificates on their person (without any evidence, just off the street). They will not be allowed to contact family while being detained. The law open up shittons of room for police abuse, and this being Arizona (home of Joe Arpaio), it will be abused.

It will be challenged, brought to the Supreme Court, and defeated.

Also, Racial profiling is institutionalized racism, pure and simple. Interesting to see that you're throwing in with their kind.

Didn't read the rest of the thread yet, but I know that in addition to this, they can immediately deport you. Phone calls are rights of US citizens, but if they assume you aren't a citizen you have no rights. My Native American teacher was talking about this when we got into talking about his reservation.

A nation without borders is hardly a nation at all.
Um, why?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on September 20, 2010, 08:20:59 PM
Yes, because most illegal immigrants are Mexicans.  The government can hardly deport people who aren't here.  What you are suggesting, however, is a system that will give Mexicans an unfair advantage over other prospective immigrants.  It is much easier to creep over the Mexican-American border than it is to sneak into the country via, say, planes or boats.
What the shitting fuck? What you're saying actually helps prove my point: The current system makes it easier for Mexicans to sneak in the country than other nationalities. I am supporting amnesty for all people, leveling the playing field.

Are you suggesting open borders, then?
Yes.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 21, 2010, 09:09:31 AM
Here's a hint: The Southwest is filled with r_cists. Fill in the blank.

I disagree. The South and Southeast are far more racist.

He didn't say the Southwest was the most racist, he said it was filled with racists. The entire world is filled with racists, the South is no more racist than the rest, but perhaps southerners are more open about it.  It just makes Yankees feel better about themselves to think it is, while they whisper "nigger" behind some black person's back.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 21, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Protip: This allows police officers to pull over specific ethnicity and detain them if they do not have passports/birth certificates on their person (without any evidence, just off the street). They will not be allowed to contact family while being detained. The law open up shittons of room for police abuse, and this being Arizona (home of Joe Arpaio), it will be abused.

It will be challenged, brought to the Supreme Court, and defeated.

Also, Racial profiling is institutionalized racism, pure and simple. Interesting to see that you're throwing in with their kind.

Didn't read the rest of the thread yet, but I know that in addition to this, they can immediately deport you. Phone calls are rights of US citizens, but if they assume you aren't a citizen you have no rights. My Native American teacher was talking about this when we got into talking about his reservation.

Mykael isn't actually right.  The law allows police to detain people if they have "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country illegally.  If a case based on this law is ever challenged, then the courts will define reasonable suspicion, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled before that race and ethnicity are not valid evidence of any wrongdoing, so I find it highly unlikely that this law will permit racial profiling.

As for your teacher, well, I don't want to act like I know better than him or anything, but I'm not really sure what he's talking about.  The Bill of Rights lists natural rights given to all people by God, or nature, or whatever.  They apply to all people, not just Americans.  And the "one phone call" rule is an urban legend promoted by movies.  There are very rarely set rules that apply to use of the phone.  Some police will let you phone your lawyer, some will insist that they do the calling themselves.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 21, 2010, 02:05:16 PM
I'm pretty sure there is a racist law he was referring to, (not sure if it was one covered in the topic or not, not whether it was state level, federal level, or applied only on the reservation). But apparently, it hasn't been brought to the Supreme court yet... just like Texas' laws discriminating against atheists for politicians hasn't been brought before the Supreme Court.

However, he was the primary source not me, so I really can't defend or critique any further.  :P
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Benocrates on September 21, 2010, 02:08:42 PM
Um, why?

The best definition of a State (in the broad sense) is from Max Weber.

Quote from: Politics as a Vocation
Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force  within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 21, 2010, 02:17:12 PM
Um, why?

The best definition of a State (in the broad sense) is from Max Weber.

Quote from: Politics as a Vocation
Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force  within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.
Hmm, That seems like a rather loose fit.
Also Wardogg, to imply that America is not a nation without stricter border control, is to imply that America was not a nation before the very recent past.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benocrates on September 21, 2010, 02:21:41 PM
Well, there's more to the argument but that's the tagline. And I don't think that's what Wardogg was arguing for (stricter boarders) in that exact post. I'm sure he argues for that, but his argument that a state (the US is not a 'nation') requires boarders is valid.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 21, 2010, 03:04:53 PM
Also Wardogg, to imply that America is not a nation without stricter border control, is to imply that America was not a nation before the very recent past.

But there always has been some form of border control.  It's only become an issue in recent years because of the increase in illegal immigration, and therefore the increase in security at the borders.  Our immigration process is complex and selective not out of racism, but out of necessity.  Without it, we have no way of screening out undesirables, like welfare slobs, criminals, or possibly even terrorists.  "Open borders" is just not a feasible option.
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 21, 2010, 04:48:00 PM
Also Wardogg, to imply that America is not a nation without stricter border control, is to imply that America was not a nation before the very recent past.

But there always has been some form of border control.  It's only become an issue in recent years because of the increase in illegal immigration, and therefore the increase in security at the borders.  Our immigration process is complex and selective not out of racism, but out of necessity.  Without it, we have no way of screening out undesirables, like welfare slobs, criminals, or possibly even terrorists.  "Open borders" is just not a feasible option.

I never said that there wasn't always some form of border control, nor did I ever say that I was proposing open borders.  ???
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 22, 2010, 06:37:46 AM
Also Wardogg, to imply that America is not a nation without stricter border control, is to imply that America was not a nation before the very recent past.

But there always has been some form of border control.  It's only become an issue in recent years because of the increase in illegal immigration, and therefore the increase in security at the borders.  Our immigration process is complex and selective not out of racism, but out of necessity.  Without it, we have no way of screening out undesirables, like welfare slobs, criminals, or possibly even terrorists.  "Open borders" is just not a feasible option.

I never said that there wasn't always some form of border control, nor did I ever say that I was proposing open borders.  ???

But Wardogg simply said that a nation without borders isn't a nation at all.  You apparently seemed to interpret that as "stricter border control".  Also, the "open borders" comment was more directed at Franklin.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on September 22, 2010, 07:14:44 PM
Without it, we have no way of screening out undesirables, like welfare slobs, criminals, or possibly even terrorists.  "Open borders" is just not a feasible option.
Do you really think our current system does anything like that? All it is doing is forcing the "undesirables" (brown skinned people) to come in illegally, making them not protected by minimum wage laws, causing resentment and hatred because they're "stealing our jerbs".
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benocrates on September 23, 2010, 03:09:44 AM
Without it, we have no way of screening out undesirables, like welfare slobs, criminals, or possibly even terrorists.  "Open borders" is just not a feasible option.
Do you really think our current system does anything like that? All it is doing is forcing the "undesirables" (brown skinned people) to come in illegally, making them not protected by minimum wage laws, causing resentment and hatred because they're "stealing our jerbs".

hyperbole be here
Title: Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 23, 2010, 04:31:37 AM
Um, why?

The best definition of a State (in the broad sense) is from Max Weber.

Quote from: Politics as a Vocation
Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force  within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.
Hmm, That seems like a rather loose fit.
Also Wardogg, to imply that America is not a nation without stricter border control, is to imply that America was not a nation before the very recent past.

If there were no borders...then all of North America would be,  The Canadian States of Mexico.  Sounds fun.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 23, 2010, 02:09:01 PM
Do you really think our current system does anything like that?

Yes, it does.  A background check is performed on all prospective immigrants to make sure that they don't have a criminal record, that they can speak English, that they have or can find a job, etc.  If someone bypasses the system by illegally slipping into the country, then obviously they can't be investigated first.

Quote
All it is doing is forcing the "undesirables" (brown skinned people)

"Brown skinned people"?  Once again, the rules on immigration are the same for people of every nationality.  I don't know why you keep insisting that race is somehow an important factor.  Our policies on immigration were not written by a bunch of rednecks.

Quote
to come in illegally, making them not protected by minimum wage laws

Well, yeah.  I agree it's disgusting how they're being manipulated by greedy businesspeople, but seeing how illegal immigrants aren't supposed to be in this country or working here in the first place, there isn't much we can do that doesn't also involve deporting them.  That kind of argument is akin to suggesting that because prostitutes are exploited and paid very little by pimps, prostitution should become legal.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on September 23, 2010, 04:25:39 PM
Yes, it does.  A background check is performed on all prospective immigrants to make sure that they don't have a criminal record, that they can speak English, that they have or can find a job, etc.  If someone bypasses the system by illegally slipping into the country, then obviously they can't be investigated first.
So, as it appears, we agree that it's simply forcing the legitimate citizens to go through bureaucracy, while the "undesirables" simply sneak in and cause the current issues that I've covered numerous times.
Well, yeah.  I agree it's disgusting how they're being manipulated by greedy businesspeople, but seeing how illegal immigrants aren't supposed to be in this country or working here in the first place, there isn't much we can do that doesn't also involve deporting them.
Can you give a single moral reason as to why they shouldn't be here? Also, deporting all the illegal immigrants is just short of impossible, and far past economically viable.

there isn't much we can do that doesn't also involve deporting them.
What about legitimizing them, and protecting them with the power of the law?
That kind of argument is akin to suggesting that because prostitutes are exploited and paid very little by pimps, prostitution should become legal.
It is much easier for a prostitute to get a legitimate job than an illegal immigrant to get a legitimate job. Also, while this is slightly off-topic, prostitutes are hardly "exploited and under-paid"*, while illegal immigrants are.

* Source: Super Freakonomics
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: EireEngineer on September 23, 2010, 05:43:57 PM
Can you give a single moral reason as to why they shouldn't be here? Also, deporting all the illegal immigrants is just short of impossible, and far past economically viable.

Certainly, because no matter what they think of the laws of this nation and their homeland, they have a moral obligation to obey those laws. Protesting against them and attempting to change the law is one thing, but until said laws are changed, to wantonly attempt to circumvent them is quite obviously immoral.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on September 23, 2010, 05:45:55 PM
I either assume that laws = morals, or that civil disobedience is immoral. Either way, I'm obviously an idiot.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: EireEngineer on September 24, 2010, 09:23:35 AM
I either assume that laws = morals, or that civil disobedience is immoral. Either way, I'm obviously an idiot.
Way to woefully exaggerate my argument in a attempt to prop up yours.  Whats that called again?

Laws certainly are not morals, since laws themselves can have both moral and immoral ideas at their core.  However, opposition to an immoral law (as viewed by an individual or group) cannot morally take the form of ignoring the law wantonly.  First, if you truly believe that a particular law is wrong, you have an obligation to your fellow man to oppose it in a manner that rationally and plausibly has a chance of modifying or revoking it (or conversely, enacting a law you believe in).  Simply ignoring the law is both counter-productive (It often gives ammunition to the other side, for example), and blatantly selfish.

Second, ignoring a law enacted by society demonstrates an uncivilized level of ego-centrism by assuming that the belief of the person is absolute.  This nation has one of the highest levels of political and ideological freedom ever known to man, and the process allows grass roots political action to have far greater effect than it has in most nations.  From a soap box in the park, to the blogosphere, the capability of people to have direct impact on policy in this day and age is unmatched.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 24, 2010, 02:37:01 PM
So, as it appears, we agree that it's simply forcing the legitimate citizens to go through bureaucracy, while the "undesirables" simply sneak in and cause the current issues that I've covered numerous times.

"Simply" is not the word that I would have chosen.  Thousands of people are denied access to the United States every year, and many more are caught on the border trying to sneak in.  Also, not all prospective immigrants live in a country with a large border to this one, making illegal entry extremely difficult.  Of course our border security isn't perfect, and it never will be.  But to label them as useless just because they don't have a 100% arrest rate, is, quite frankly, immature.

Quote
Can you give a single moral reason as to why they shouldn't be here?

It's not about morals, it's about duty to society.  In a perfect world, everyone could happily live the American Dream in peace and harmony, but that's just not feasible.  As well as the security concerns, there are also economic problems.  Simply opening up the floodgates would flood America's population well past sustainability.  Again, there's no inherent reason that we, as Americans, deserve the benefits of citizenship; it's simply the luck of the draw.

Quote
What about legitimizing them, and protecting them with the power of the law?

The necessity of enforcing our immigration laws outweighs our obligation to make sure that certain criminals are treating other criminals nicely.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on September 24, 2010, 07:25:12 PM
Laws certainly are not morals, since laws themselves can have both moral and immoral ideas at their core.  However, opposition to an immoral law (as viewed by an individual or group) cannot morally take the form of ignoring the law wantonly.  First, if you truly believe that a particular law is wrong, you have an obligation to your fellow man to oppose it in a manner that rationally and plausibly has a chance of modifying or revoking it (or conversely, enacting a law you believe in).  Simply ignoring the law is both counter-productive (It often gives ammunition to the other side, for example), and blatantly selfish.
I feel this is drifting into a totally different topic, one about civil disobedience,  and that's not what I think the OP wants. I don't want to appear to be ignoring your argument, so feel free to create another thread.
Second, ignoring a law enacted by society demonstrates an uncivilized level of ego-centrism by assuming that the belief of the person is absolute.  This nation has one of the highest levels of political and ideological freedom ever known to man, and the process allows grass roots political action to have far greater effect than it has in most nations.  From a soap box in the park, to the blogosphere, the capability of people to have direct impact on policy in this day and age is unmatched.
It's cute that you think people actually have their own views enacted. The fear-mongering news and politicians can sway the public well enough to render any legitimately good ideas ignored. However, I'd like to refer back to my first response. If you'd like to discuss the issue in further depth, feel free to make a new thread.

Quote
"Simply" is not the word that I would have chosen.  Thousands of people are denied access to the United States every year, and many more are caught on the border trying to sneak in.  Also, not all prospective immigrants live in a country with a large border to this one, making illegal entry extremely difficult.  Of course our border security isn't perfect, and it never will be.  But to label them as useless just because they don't have a 100% arrest rate, is, quite frankly, immature.
It's quite clear that we aren't doing a well enough job with our current system. I'm not asking for a 100% arrest rate, but if there's too many illegal immigrants to the point they are causing the problems that many politicians are claiming, then we need a new system.

Quote
It's not about morals, it's about duty to society.  In a perfect world, everyone could happily live the American Dream in peace and harmony, but that's just not feasible.  As well as the security concerns, there are also economic problems.  Simply opening up the floodgates would flood America's population well past sustainability.  Again, there's no inherent reason that we, as Americans, deserve the benefits of citizenship; it's simply the luck of the draw.
Hardly. Illegal immigrants already have jobs: If they got legitimized and protected by laws, primarily regarding minimum wage, they would have enough money to buy goods beyond basic needs, and that would create jobs. The other immigrants would get the jobs, spend money, create more jobs, and we continue on an upward spiral. Also, I fail to see how my "duty to society" of forcing people to work in dangerous, near-slavery conditions trumps basic morals.

Quote
The necessity of enforcing our immigration laws outweighs our obligation to make sure that certain criminals are treating other criminals nicely.
I was speaking of protecting them from manipulating business man moreso, but protecting people from force is also important. It's quite clear, to me, that helping our fellow man who wants to better himself is more important than laws designed to keep "different" people from touching our ground.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: EireEngineer on September 24, 2010, 07:43:51 PM
Its cute that you think everything is a giant cabal.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Gigamonsta on September 24, 2010, 07:50:41 PM
well well well what do we have here.

the NWO is USING the illegals. look at barrack obama: he's going to basically give them voting rights soon and all the illegals will definitely vote for him. why do you think he is standing against the border fence?! so he can get their votes and set himself up as a savior of mexican immigrants!!!!! he will be able ot win all subsequent elections!!
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 24, 2010, 08:26:21 PM
It's quite clear that we aren't doing a well enough job with our current system. I'm not asking for a 100% arrest rate, but if there's too many illegal immigrants to the point they are causing the problems that many politicians are claiming, then we need a new system.

Yes, but the problem of "too many illegal immigrants" will not be solved by inviting more illegal immigrants.  And you haven't answered my point about security.  Do you deny that without any kind of regulation on who enters the country, there will be nothing to stop criminals, smugglers of contraband, and potentially terrorists into the country?

Quote
Hardly. Illegal immigrants already have jobs: If they got legitimized and protected by laws, primarily regarding minimum wage, they would have enough money to buy goods beyond basic needs, and that would create jobs. The other immigrants would get the jobs, spend money, create more jobs, and we continue on an upward spiral.

I don't follow your logic here.  How exactly did you get from "buying more goods" to "create jobs"?

Quote
Also, I fail to see how my "duty to society" of forcing people to work in dangerous, near-slavery conditions trumps basic morals.

You aren't forcing people to do anything.  They get up every morning and walk into work, knowing what they're being paid and what their job is.  And yet they continue to stay here.  They're free at any time to go back to their home country.

Quote
I was speaking of protecting them from manipulating business man moreso, but protecting people from force is also important.

Force?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 04, 2010, 03:44:34 PM
In conclusion, I win.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on October 04, 2010, 08:41:24 PM
Very sorry, I must have checked this without responding, taking it off my reply list.

Quote
Do you deny that without any kind of regulation on who enters the country, there will be nothing to stop criminals, smugglers of contraband, and potentially terrorists into the country?
I'm not saying that there should be no border; I'm saying that we should allow anyone to become a citizen without the dizzying amount of bureaucracy. There will still be stops and occasional searches for smugglers. If I implied otherwise, I apologize.

Quote
I don't follow your logic here.  How exactly did you get from "buying more goods" to "create jobs"?
If people buy things, people must sell things. In order for people to sell things, things must be created. If more things are bought, we need more people to sell said things, and to make said things.

Quote
You aren't forcing people to do anything.  They get up every morning and walk into work, knowing what they're being paid and what their job is.  And yet they continue to stay here.  They're free at any time to go back to their home country.
Their home country is even worse than the terrible conditions in the southern US. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place.


Quote
Force?
Yes. One of the roles of the government is to protect people from force. Violence. Aggression. Assault. Attack.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: EireEngineer on October 04, 2010, 10:00:26 PM


Quote
If people buy things, people must sell things. In order for people to sell things, things must be created. If more things are bought, we need more people to sell said things, and to make said things.
Ah, I do love how the economically ignorant always assume production, without looking at the factors that actually promote it.


Quote
Their home country is even worse than the terrible conditions in the southern US. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Without the checkvalve that is the US, that may just motivate them to make things better in their home country.


Quote
Force?
Yes. One of the roles of the government is to protect people from force. Violence. Aggression. Assault. Attack.
Like the violence done by the illegals that kill thousands of people every year, the aggression of skirting the laws of a nation they purport to care about, and the assault on our economy via the underground business transactions they are engaging in?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 05, 2010, 03:52:39 AM
I'm not saying that there should be no border; I'm saying that we should allow anyone to become a citizen without the dizzying amount of bureaucracy. There will still be stops and occasional searches for smugglers. If I implied otherwise, I apologize.

What makes you think that the bureaucracy is unnecessary or excessive?

Quote
If people buy things, people must sell things. In order for people to sell things, things must be created. If more things are bought, we need more people to sell said things, and to make said things.

Well, okay, that's great for the people in sales and manual production.  What about everyone else, who will have to compete with a flood of immigrants for jobs?

Quote
Their home country is even worse than the terrible conditions in the southern US. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

And that sucks for them and everything, but the first priority of America should be Americans.  Just like we aren't spending every dollar we have on feeding starving children in Africa, neither should we be compromising the economic interests of Americans in favor of helping foreigners.

Quote
Yes. One of the roles of the government is to protect people from force. Violence. Aggression. Assault. Attack.

I get that, and I'm not saying that the government shouldn't enforce laws against slave labor or human trafficking.  I just don't see what that has to do with illegal immigration.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on October 05, 2010, 11:16:01 AM
Quote
What makes you think that the bureaucracy is unnecessary or excessive?
The very fact that so many people are coming in illegally shows that there is a problem with the current immigration system.

Quote
Well, okay, that's great for the people in sales and manual production.  What about everyone else, who will have to compete with a flood of immigrants for jobs?
First off, service and production jobs are...well, effectively all jobs. Second of all, they are already competing with immigrants, and losing because the immigrants can take lower wages. If you level the playing field by forcing the immigrants to be paid minimum wage, it removes the incentive to hire them over anyone else. Also, you have yet to show that this policy would actually increase the number of immigrants coming in.


Quote
And that sucks for them and everything, but the first priority of America should be Americans.  Just like we aren't spending every dollar we have on feeding starving children in Africa, neither should we be compromising the economic interests of Americans in favor of helping foreigners.
First off, what makes American any right to live here over the immigrants? Luck of the draw? Our ancestors were more violent? Second, in what way would we be "compromising the economic interests of Americans"?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 05, 2010, 01:27:35 PM
The very fact that so many people are coming in illegally shows that there is a problem with the current immigration system.

I disagree.  I think it shows that there's a problem with the current quality of life in Mexico.  There really isn't any faster way to screen in immigrants than just stepping completely back and allowing everyone to just rush in, including the deadbeats and criminals.

Quote
they are already competing with immigrants, and losing because the immigrants can take lower wages. If you level the playing field by forcing the immigrants to be paid minimum wage, it removes the incentive to hire them over anyone else.

That's not quite true.  Very few people here are actually losing jobs to illegal immigrants, as almost no reputable employer will hire an illegal immigrant, even if they work for less money.  It is, after all, illegal.  However, with a flood of legal immigrants with as much to gain as Americans, there will be considerably more competition for the legitimate jobs that most Americans search for.  True, there's no incentive for the immigrant to be hired over the American, but if he had never been legalized, the competition wouldn't be there in the first place.

Quote
Also, you have yet to show that this policy would actually increase the number of immigrants coming in.

Look, I'll admit that you've made some good points, but this is not one of them.  You've said it yourself, life in Mexico is terrible.  They want to come to the United States.  They undertake a long and dangerous journey across the desert, often have to associate with and pay off coyotes and other dangerous criminals, and run the strong risk that they will be caught and sent back.  Furthermore, once inside the country, life is only marginally better.  They are exploited and discriminated against almost all the time, and live in constant fear that they will be caught and sent back.  Now, if we remove all those negative elements, they have a safe journey, a good job, live like a full American with endless possibilities...do you honestly think that the immigration rate will do anything but skyrocket?

Quote
First off, what makes American any right to live here over the immigrants? Luck of the draw?

Yes, that is exactly it.  It's the same reason that you have the right to eat hot meals every day while people starve in Africa.  It's not perfect, but life isn't perfect.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on October 05, 2010, 07:43:09 PM
Quote
I disagree.  I think it shows that there's a problem with the current quality of life in Mexico.  There really isn't any faster way to screen in immigrants than just stepping completely back and allowing everyone to just rush in, including the deadbeats and criminals.
The criminals are getting in anyway, and can still commit crimes despite our current attempt at keeping them out. Also, it's almost impossible to differentiate from a "dead beat" and a legitimate person seeking to better themselves.

Quote
That's not quite true.  Very few people here are actually losing jobs to illegal immigrants, as almost no reputable employer will hire an illegal immigrant, even if they work for less money.  It is, after all, illegal.  However, with a flood of legal immigrants with as much to gain as Americans, there will be considerably more competition for the legitimate jobs that most Americans search for.
The bold is completely, and utterly, false. The only reason this is an issue, according to the right, is because they are taking jobs for cheaper. Also, hundred of companies, including Wal-Mart, have been fined or have been sent a C&D over illegal immigration.

Quote
True, there's no incentive for the immigrant to be hired over the American, but if he had never been legalized, the competition wouldn't be there in the first place
That would be true, assuming that our current policy actually was keeping immigrants out. In reality, it's not, and the competition is there.

Quote
...do you honestly think that the immigration rate will do anything but skyrocket?
To be honest, this is a possibility. I don't, however, think it's an absolute certainty. I'll use drug use in Portugal as an example: Using impure and poorly made illegal street drugs, with huge difficulties of acquiring them and financial costs, people still used it. When Portugal legalized it, drug use did not skyrocket, and, for the most part, slightly dropped. Now, I'm not claiming the same thing will happen, but I'm saying that the we should find more historical evidence before deciding if this point is valid.

Quote
Yes, that is exactly it.  It's the same reason that you have the right to eat hot meals every day while people starve in Africa.  It's not perfect, but life isn't perfect.
And this is where it appears we have a fundamental difference between us. I would like to share the wealth of America, and you'd like to accept the current system.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 06, 2010, 08:05:25 AM
The criminals are getting in anyway, and can still commit crimes despite our current attempt at keeping them out.

So what?  People still commit crimes in spite of us having a police force.  Does this mean that we should disband police?

Quote
Also, it's almost impossible to differentiate from a "dead beat" and a legitimate person seeking to better themselves.

That's why we have extensive investigation into potential immigrants; to find out what their plans will be in this country and how they will contribute to society.

Quote
The bold is completely, and utterly, false. The only reason this is an issue, according to the right, is because they are taking jobs for cheaper. Also, hundred of companies, including Wal-Mart, have been fined or have been sent a C&D over illegal immigration.

Lol, Wal-Mart.  That's why I said "reputable employer".  Also, those punishments you mentioned have probably sent a strong deterrent to companies.

Quote
To be honest, this is a possibility. I don't, however, think it's an absolute certainty. I'll use drug use in Portugal as an example: Using impure and poorly made illegal street drugs, with huge difficulties of acquiring them and financial costs, people still used it. When Portugal legalized it, drug use did not skyrocket, and, for the most part, slightly dropped. Now, I'm not claiming the same thing will happen, but I'm saying that the we should find more historical evidence before deciding if this point is valid.

You've made that analogy before, and it is still ridiculous.  Drug use is completely different, because unlike illegal immigration, there is no one specific reason that people use drugs, nor is there any clear, tangible benefit to it.  Relatively few people are going to make the decision to start using drugs for the sole reason that they're legal.  However, there are no doubt quite a few people who will make the decision not to bother using drugs, because by being legal, they no longer have the societal stigma of being "cool" or "rebellious".

Illegal immigration, on the other hand, has a clear benefit to it - finding a life in America, which is considerably better than a life in Mexico.  It's as simple as that.  It has nothing to do with seeming cool or rebellious by defying laws - they just want a better life.

Quote
And this is where it appears we have a fundamental difference between us. I would like to share the wealth of America, and you'd like to accept the current system.

I am all for sharing the wealth of America, but in a realistic way.  Jobs are not the only concern.  There is also food, housing, capacity of schools, just off the top of my head.  I don't know how to begin explaining this, because I thought it was simply common sense.  We can't just allow an unlimited number of people to enter the country all at once and not expect any negative consequences.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on October 06, 2010, 06:33:30 PM
Quote
So what?  People still commit crimes in spite of us having a police force.  Does this mean that we should disband police?
No, but it does mean we should explore other options that are more effective, as I believe this option is.

Quote
That's why we have extensive investigation into potential immigrants; to find out what their plans will be in this country and how they will contribute to society.
I'm legitimately curious as to what the extensive investigation entails. Can I get a source on this?

Quote
Lol, Wal-Mart.  That's why I said "reputable employer".  Also, those punishments you mentioned have probably sent a strong deterrent to companies.
Actually, no. The federal government has, in the last two or three years, dropped the number of letters and warning it has sent out dramatically.

Quote
You've made that analogy before, and it is still ridiculous.  Drug use is completely different, because unlike illegal immigration, there is no one specific reason that people use drugs, nor is there any clear, tangible benefit to it.  Relatively few people are going to make the decision to start using drugs for the sole reason that they're legal.  However, there are no doubt quite a few people who will make the decision not to bother using drugs, because by being legal, they no longer have the societal stigma of being "cool" or "rebellious".

Illegal immigration, on the other hand, has a clear benefit to it - finding a life in America, which is considerably better than a life in Mexico.  It's as simple as that.  It has nothing to do with seeming cool or rebellious by defying laws - they just want a better life.
People do not do drugs simply because they're illegal. It's a factor, but not the sole reason. I know a large number of people who have said they would smoke marijuana if it was legal, but do not currently because it's illegal.

I'll accept there is a potential jump in immigration, but it's foolish to state it as fact until we find a good historical analogy.

Quote
I am all for sharing the wealth of America, but in a realistic way.  Jobs are not the only concern.  There is also food, housing, capacity of schools, just off the top of my head.  I don't know how to begin explaining this, because I thought it was simply common sense.  We can't just allow an unlimited number of people to enter the country all at once and not expect any negative consequences.
Unlimited? Are you aware that Mexico does not have an infinite population? I do agree that there could be a shock to infrastructure from a sudden increase in immigration, and the US should set aside some money to build-up infrastructure prior to implementing this policy. (Hypothetically, of course.) This would have the side-effect of creating more jobs.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 13, 2010, 01:16:10 PM
Behold:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act

That's the law.  Basically, it lists who is eligible or ineligible to immigrate to this country, the amount of people who can immigrate from a certain country, blah blah blah.

As for the rest of your arguments, though, I'm not really sure what you're arguing here.  What part of our current immigration policy do you disagree with?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: JamesJamie on October 13, 2010, 02:53:31 PM
I support it the bill, should be enforced everywhere. Also need more Border Patrol Agents. It's sad really how much crime is coming from Mexico, as well as drugs.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on October 15, 2010, 03:23:35 PM
Behold:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act

That's the law.  Basically, it lists who is eligible or ineligible to immigrate to this country, the amount of people who can immigrate from a certain country, blah blah blah.
Care to quote a smaller portion than the entire fucking law?

Quote
As for the rest of your arguments, though, I'm not really sure what you're arguing here.  What part of our current immigration policy do you disagree with?
The restriction of immigration of lawful people with a complete lack of moral basis.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: sillyrob on October 18, 2010, 07:20:58 AM
Arizona is home to 300,000 unemployed citizens. I don't see the problem with removing 500,000+ illegals and giving their jobs away to people who belong here.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on October 18, 2010, 08:55:17 PM
Arizona is home to 300,000 unemployed citizens. I don't see the problem with removing 500,000+ illegals and giving their jobs away to people who belong here.
Please give the moral basis that the current residents have any more right to the land,and the jobs within, than the Mexican immigrants do.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Mykael on October 18, 2010, 09:56:11 PM
Arizona is home to 300,000 unemployed citizens. I don't see the problem with removing 500,000+ illegals and giving their jobs away to people who belong here.
You'd give the jobs to Native Americans?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: EireEngineer on October 25, 2010, 03:50:28 AM
Arizona is home to 300,000 unemployed citizens. I don't see the problem with removing 500,000+ illegals and giving their jobs away to people who belong here.
Please give the moral basis that the current residents have any more right to the land,and the jobs within, than the Mexican immigrants do.
Its fairly simple. The ancestors of those born here have earned that right for their descendants through their toil in the endeavor of improving this nation. To think otherwise negates the entire concept of having a nation, or a society in general. Societies rise and fall in relation to the efforts, talents, and abilities of their people,their ability to defend them,  and reap the rewards or harsh consequences of them accordingly. To say that the descendants of others have just as much right to the benefits of this nation establishes a slippery slope.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on October 25, 2010, 06:15:26 PM
Arizona is home to 300,000 unemployed citizens. I don't see the problem with removing 500,000+ illegals and giving their jobs away to people who belong here.
Please give the moral basis that the current residents have any more right to the land,and the jobs within, than the Mexican immigrants do.
Its fairly simple. The ancestors of those born here have earned that right for their descendants through their toil in the endeavor of improving this nation. To think otherwise negates the entire concept of having a nation, or a society in general. Societies rise and fall in relation to the efforts, talents, and abilities of their people,their ability to defend them,  and reap the rewards or harsh consequences of them accordingly. To say that the descendants of others have just as much right to the benefits of this nation establishes a slippery slope.
Ah, so do you advocate removing all the Europeans, and returning the land to the Native Americans? Or do you believe that white people have the right to be here because Europeans were more willing to kill and poison other people?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: berny_74 on October 25, 2010, 07:17:40 PM
Ah, so do you advocate removing all the Europeans, and returning the land to the Native Americans? Or do you believe that white people have the right to be here because Europeans were more willing to kill and poison other people?

More willing or more able?
And how many generations should it take for one be considered "native"?

Berny
7th Generation immigrant.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on October 25, 2010, 07:21:34 PM
More willing. Please study American history, the Europeans have always been more violent than the Native Americans. The Native Americans could have easily stopped the early European settlers, but the godless heathens, for the most part, preferred to help the different people rather than prosecute them, apparently.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: EireEngineer on October 29, 2010, 05:00:28 PM
Arizona is home to 300,000 unemployed citizens. I don't see the problem with removing 500,000+ illegals and giving their jobs away to people who belong here.
Please give the moral basis that the current residents have any more right to the land,and the jobs within, than the Mexican immigrants do.
Its fairly simple. The ancestors of those born here have earned that right for their descendants through their toil in the endeavor of improving this nation. To think otherwise negates the entire concept of having a nation, or a society in general. Societies rise and fall in relation to the efforts, talents, and abilities of their people,their ability to defend them,  and reap the rewards or harsh consequences of them accordingly. To say that the descendants of others have just as much right to the benefits of this nation establishes a slippery slope.
Ah, so do you advocate removing all the Europeans, and returning the land to the Native Americans? Or do you believe that white people have the right to be here because Europeans were more willing to kill and poison other people?
To the victor go the spoils.  It would be one thing if the Mexicans wanted to try an armed reconquista. That, at least, I could respect.   Every population on the planet has been pushed off their ancestral land by some other group, some just whine about it more than others. And your assertion that Native Americans were somehow peaceful is patently false.  Most tribes warred with each other routinely, with rape, pillage, and slavery being just as common among them as the Europeans.  In fact, when the Spaniards confronted the Inca in Cajamarca, the Inca brought a force of 7000.  Sadly, he wasnt smart enough to arm them, in his hubris figuring it would raise his status to defeat these "gods" unarmed.

What we are talking about is a policy that allows forign nationals to take advantage of social services without paying into the system at all.  Their ancestors never paid in, their children are unlikely to contribute much, and while they are here they consume social services at a far higher rate than citizens do precisely because they are breaking the law.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on October 29, 2010, 05:03:19 PM
Quote
What we are talking about is a policy that allows forign nationals to take advantage of social services without paying into the system at all.  Their ancestors never paid in, their children are unlikely to contribute much, and while they are here they consume social services at a far higher rate than citizens do precisely because they are breaking the law.
Do you realize I am proposing making their work legitimate, allowing them to be taxed and contribute? Also, "paying into the system" would only make sense if we had a surplus.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: johnson17 on November 25, 2010, 07:52:19 PM
Hubris is ruining this country. It makes me sick to see this racism. What makes you better then the mexicans?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 25, 2010, 08:28:16 PM
Hubris is ruining this country. It makes me sick to see this racism. What makes you better then the mexicans?

There is nothing in the law that is explicitly racist.  The law requires "reasonable suspicion" to demand proof of citizenship.  Racial profiling has frequently been held to be illegal by the courts.  There are some good reasons to oppose this law, but to simply cry out the generic "That's racist!" is not one of them.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: sillyrob on November 26, 2010, 04:38:31 AM
Hubris is ruining this country. It makes me sick to see this racism. What makes you better then the mexicans?
Where is the racism in this bill? Have you read it, or have you allowed yourself to succumb to the liberal media like every other douchebag in this thread opposed to it? Read it, then come back to me.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benocrates on November 29, 2010, 01:34:42 PM
Hubris is ruining this country. It makes me sick to see this racism. What makes you better then the mexicans?
Where is the racism in this bill? Have you read it, or have you allowed yourself to succumb to the liberal media like every other douchebag in this thread opposed to it? Read it, then come back to me.

Assuming the phrase 'reasonable suspicion' is in the bill, the de facto room for racism is in the word 'reasonable'. As has been highlighted, reasonably will have to be decided in the courts.
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: sillyrob on November 30, 2010, 01:53:23 AM
Hubris is ruining this country. It makes me sick to see this racism. What makes you better then the mexicans?
Where is the racism in this bill? Have you read it, or have you allowed yourself to succumb to the liberal media like every other douchebag in this thread opposed to it? Read it, then come back to me.

Assuming the phrase 'reasonable suspicion' is in the bill, the de facto room for racism is in the word 'reasonable'. As has been highlighted, reasonably will have to be decided in the courts.
Assuming you haven't read the damn bill I'm going to ignore this comment. If you had you'd understand that the person has to have first broken the law. So, if Pedro is speeding and a cop pulls him over, and Pedro cannot show any proof of his legal status, then why is that racist?
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: Benocrates on November 30, 2010, 08:37:51 AM
Hubris is ruining this country. It makes me sick to see this racism. What makes you better then the mexicans?
Where is the racism in this bill? Have you read it, or have you allowed yourself to succumb to the liberal media like every other douchebag in this thread opposed to it? Read it, then come back to me.

Assuming the phrase 'reasonable suspicion' is in the bill, the de facto room for racism is in the word 'reasonable'. As has been highlighted, reasonably will have to be decided in the courts.
Assuming you haven't read the damn bill I'm going to ignore this comment. If you had you'd understand that the person has to have first broken the law. So, if Pedro is speeding and a cop pulls him over, and Pedro cannot show any proof of his legal status, then why is that racist?

First off, your post is rather contradictory because it seems like you really didn't ignore the comment. But that's besides the point. I thought I made it clear that I haven't read the bill, and I was assuming something in a way that left itself open to correction.

Second, you still haven`t addressed the issue of reasonable suspicion. Well, if you have then you have defined reasonable suspicion as breaking any law. This would presumably include jaywalking, failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, etc. I don`t see how this kind of activity can make you a reasonable suspect for immigration violation other than happening to be Hispanic (e.g. Pedro).
Title: Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
Post by: sillyrob on December 01, 2010, 06:34:54 PM
Hubris is ruining this country. It makes me sick to see this racism. What makes you better then the mexicans?
Where is the racism in this bill? Have you read it, or have you allowed yourself to succumb to the liberal media like every other douchebag in this thread opposed to it? Read it, then come back to me.

Assuming the phrase 'reasonable suspicion' is in the bill, the de facto room for racism is in the word 'reasonable'. As has been highlighted, reasonably will have to be decided in the courts.
Assuming you haven't read the damn bill I'm going to ignore this comment. If you had you'd understand that the person has to have first broken the law. So, if Pedro is speeding and a cop pulls him over, and Pedro cannot show any proof of his legal status, then why is that racist?

First off, your post is rather contradictory because it seems like you really didn't ignore the comment. But that's besides the point. I thought I made it clear that I haven't read the bill, and I was assuming something in a way that left itself open to correction.

Second, you still haven`t addressed the issue of reasonable suspicion. Well, if you have then you have defined reasonable suspicion as breaking any law. This would presumably include jaywalking, failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, etc. I don`t see how this kind of activity can make you a reasonable suspect for immigration violation other than happening to be Hispanic (e.g. Pedro).
When you get stopped by the police, they ask you for ID. Having an Arizonan driver's license already proves legal status. However, if you have a Mexican driver's license, don't speak a word of English, and cannot provide some sort of paper to prove you're legal, then why should we assume you might be?