Arizona immigration law....

[MachNU]

I am amazed that no one has brought up a thread talking about Arizona's laws about enforcing the Federal Laws on illegal immigration. Now I now it pushes the envolope on probable cause on determining wether someone is illegal or not...but at the same time its needed.

Obama Administration - "The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."

So basically when a State Court starts upholding a FEDERAL law they are sued and have injunctions placed on there attempts at upholding the law.

Yet San Francisco can claim they are a "Sanctuary City" and no Judical or Federal Action is brought against them?

Whats your whole take on the situation that is going on in Arizona? Do you agree with the State trying to take it upon itself to control and halt its rising immigration problem? Do you think its right for the Federal Court Judge to say that a Federal Law being upheld by a state is unconstitutional?

[BanginJimmy]

We have and we beat it to death. So far, nothing is happening that everyone didnt expect. In 2 or 3 years it will be in the Supreme Court where it will win because it is basicly local enforcement of federal law.



http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showthread.php?288316-Arizona-governor-passes-SB1070-law.....

[MachNU]

We have and we beat it to death. So far, nothing is happening that everyone didnt expect. In 2 or 3 years it will be in the Supreme Court where it will win because it is basicly local enforcement of federal law.



http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showthread.php?288316-Arizona-governor-passes-SB1070-law.....


Yeah I saw the thread about the governor passing the bill, but I was referring to the ruling by the Federal Courts.

[BanginJimmy]

Yeah I saw the thread about the governor passing the bill, but I was referring to the ruling by the Federal Courts.

I got you. Again, this is not a surprise by any means. The 9th circuit will soon uphold the Federal Court's ruling then it will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

[MachNU]

I got you. Again, this is not a surprise by any means. The 9th circuit will soon uphold the Federal Court's ruling then it will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

I also agree there ruling will get appealed. But its amazing that a Federal Court judge would deam a state not able to uphold a Federal law and then proceed to sue that state for wrong doing. Yet as I state eariler places like San Fransisco can deam themselves a "Sanctuary City!"

[gerardojdm]

I think that the governor of Arizona is a piece if shit along with rest of the people who support this unequal act. There's just so many things that i have no word to express myself. It's clear that Racism still exist and will never end.

[BanginJimmy]

I think that the governor of Arizona is a piece if shit along with rest of the people who support this unequal act. There's just so many things that i have no word to express myself. It's clear that Racism still exist and will never end.


And as your post proves, ignorance is also quite prevalent.

Lets humor you for a moment though.

Name a single portion of the law that is racist.


Its clear from your single, simple minded post that you have no clue what the law entails.

Why is it every time a liberal doesnt like something they claim its racist to try to make it go away?

[MachNU]

I think that the governor of Arizona is a piece if shit along with rest of the people who support this unequal act. There's just so many things that i have no word to express myself. It's clear that Racism still exist and will never end.

Have to agree with Jimmy...what is wrong with a Law that is passed to uphold a FEDERAL law? Is it racism when the INS comes and arrest someone for being illegal? Also for someone who hates racism you were the first person to draw the card. Racism never dies in this day and age because no one will let it die...everyone is always wanting to draw that card and be the first to call the other a racist!

[Total_Blender]

1.) Only the feds can determine who is/isn't a citizen of the UNION.

2.) Violates the 4th amendment because it makes being dark skinned probable cause for LEO's to assume one in involved in criminal activity.

3.) 30% of AZ's population are legal latino immigrants. A lot of law enforcement's time and $$ will be wasted on verifying citizenship for every single latino who get pulled over for something stupid like a seat belt violation.

4.) People should not be required to have their citizenship "papers" on them at all times where they can be stolen etc. That stuff (not driver's license, but birth certificate/green card/work visa/passport/etc) belongs in a safe, not on one's person where it can be stolen. Also, the information sharing provisions in the bill are going to enable identity theft and fraud.

5.) Latino owned businesses are already starting to pull out of AZ and relocate to other states. Schools and municipal governments that see major portions of their revenue from the sales and property taxes paid by these citizens are going to lose that revenue.

6.) Proponents of this law say that there is a clause specifically forbidding racial profiling. But that clause says "except to the extent permitted by the Unites States or Arizona constitution". At first glance that seems OK, but the US Constitution doesn't specifically grant any protections against racial profiling.

7.) The law also has "birther provisions". Just another cheap appeal to the "lowest common denominator" voters the GOP loves so much.

8.) If the leaders in AZ were serious about the immigration problem they would go after the businesses that hire illegals and provide the jobs that bring them here. The Tyson chicken plants and other big agribusinesses advertise in Mexico that they have jobs available for illegals in the US. These companies know that they are hiring illegals.

AZ could also sue the federal gov't for not enforcing the law. But thats not going to generate as much publicity to voters as drafting legislation would. Whereas a lawsuit would put the spotlight only on the Gov. and State's Attorney, legislation becomes a platform for every Republican up for any election in the state.

[bu villain]

Have to agree with Jimmy...what is wrong with a Law that is passed to uphold a FEDERAL law?

Actually there is nothing wrong theoretically however case law has addressed this before. Basically, if the federal gov thinks that state enforcement is adversly affecting the overall ability of the federal government to implement the law effectively, then that's a problem.

For example, ICE has only a limited capability of dealing with illegal immigrants. If all of a sudden AZ sends them one hundred thousand illegals whose crimes are say speeding and being an illegal immigrant, that takes their focus away from going after the most harmful illegals (gang members, robbers, murderers, etc). It's simply not the best use of resources.

[BanginJimmy]

1.) Only the feds can determine who is/isn't a citizen of the UNION.

Wrong. Law enforcement all over the country is able to check citizenship. This law only allows cops to do it for any lawful contact.


2.) Violates the 4th amendment because it makes being dark skinned probable cause for LEO's to assume one in involved in criminal activity.

Wrong again. The law specifically says cops cannot question anyone without probable cause. Probable cause is more than skin color.


3.) 30% of AZ's population are legal latino immigrants. A lot of law enforcement's time and $$ will be wasted on verifying citizenship for every single latino who get pulled over for something stupid like a seat belt violation.

Wrong once again. Cops are only going to check the people they think might be illegal. Latinos that dont have a drivers license and dont speak english are going to attract attention, not someone that speaks prefect english and has a license.


4.) People should not be required to have their citizenship "papers" on them at all times where they can be stolen etc. That stuff (not driver's license, but birth certificate/green card/work visa/passport/etc) belongs in a safe, not on one's person where it can be stolen. Also, the information sharing provisions in the bill are going to enable identity theft and fraud.

Dont you ever get tired of being wrong?


• Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all
times.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf

page 8 under rights and responsibilities


5.) Latino owned businesses are already starting to pull out of AZ and relocate to other states. Schools and municipal governments that see major portions of their revenue from the sales and property taxes paid by these citizens are going to lose that revenue.

The loss will be marginal as others move in to take their places. A successful business that is not easily replaced would not move because of this law if they were operating within the law to start with.


6.) Proponents of this law say that there is a clause specifically forbidding racial profiling. But that clause says "except to the extent permitted by the Unites States or Arizona constitution". At first glance that seems OK, but the US Constitution doesn't specifically grant any protections against racial profiling.

thats the same language that is written in any and every law written in this country.


7.) The law also has "birther provisions". Just another cheap appeal to the "lowest common denominator" voters the GOP loves so much.

Wrong again. If you are talking about removing automatic citizenship for anchor babies that is being discussed in DC, not AZ.


8.) If the leaders in AZ were serious about the immigration problem they would go after the businesses that hire illegals and provide the jobs that bring them here. The Tyson chicken plants and other big agribusinesses advertise in Mexico that they have jobs available for illegals in the US. These companies know that they are hiring illegals.

Already on the books and doing quite well but its not slowing down the 10's of thousands of illegals that cross the border every year.


AZ could also sue the federal gov't for not enforcing the law. But thats not going to generate as much publicity to voters as drafting legislation would. Whereas a lawsuit would put the spotlight only on the Gov. and State's Attorney, legislation becomes a platform for every Republican up for any election in the state.

When talking politics, this is a bad thing why?

Also as we have seen, the minority party is ALWAYS against any kind of reforms to our immigration policy or closing the borders. Like the GOP is now with Obama's push for amnesty the dems were against immigration reform when Bush was in office.

[BanginJimmy]

Actually there is nothing wrong theoretically however case law has addressed this before. Basically, if the federal gov thinks that state enforcement is adversly affecting the overall ability of the federal government to implement the law effectively, then that's a problem.

Feds case had nothing to do with this. The feds case is that the AZ impedes the feds enforcement of immigration law.

[bafbrian]

Wrong again. The law specifically says cops cannot question anyone without probable cause. Probable cause is more than skin color.

Wrong once again. Cops are only going to check the people they think might be illegal. Latinos that dont have a drivers license and dont speak english are going to attract attention, not someone that speaks prefect english and has a license.

Your two points contradict one another. If cops are only going to check the people they think might be illegal, concurrent with your other statement regarding probable cause, that would equate to a cop determining probable cause based on opinion, not necessarily fact. Essentially, a cop could stop an individual if they think something, have a gut feeling, or a sign, that an individual is an illegal. How can you intertwine thought (one's opinion) and probable cause (fact)?

Just because someone doesn't have a license on them, doesn't mean they are illegal, neither does not speaking English. AZ, like many other states, offer Driver's License examines in a multitude of languages.

[BanginJimmy]

Your two points contradict one another. If cops are only going to check the people they think might be illegal, concurrent with your other statement regarding probable cause, that would equate to a cop determining probable cause based on opinion, not necessarily fact. Essentially, a cop could stop an individual if they think something, have a gut feeling, or a sign, that an individual is an illegal. How can you intertwine thought (one's opinion) and probable cause (fact)?

Just because someone doesn't have a license on them, doesn't mean they are illegal, neither does not speaking English. AZ, like many other states, offer Driver's License examines in a multitude of languages.

I'm going to play semantics games. Probable cause is used as a guide for a multitude of laws and in most cases probable cause is a judgment call. No drivers license and not speaking english are just examples, not the only criteria.

[bafbrian]

I know, wanted to see if you try to justify opinion as probable cause. That is one of the major problems with the AZ law, probable cause was not clearly defined, leaving it to the officer could lead to racial profiling.

The law itself is controversial not because of its implementation, but rather the additions that it made to current law. Those additions are viewed as discriminatory to the point to which opponents of the law states that the provision permit racial profiling. I can agree with that deduction, but I understand the counterpoint of AZ enforcing law already on the federal books. It all seems to be a clusterfuck situation that will eventually move to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court were to uphold the AZ law, it would set a precedent and would create a "Domino Effect" of other states following suit. Imagine what would happen then.

[BanginJimmy]

I know, wanted to see if you try to justify opinion as probable cause. That is one of the major problems with the AZ law, probable cause was not clearly defined, leaving it to the officer could lead to racial profiling.

The law itself is controversial not because of its implementation, but rather the additions that it made to current law. Those additions are viewed as discriminatory to the point to which opponents of the law states that the provision permit racial profiling. I can agree with that deduction, but I understand the counterpoint of AZ enforcing law already on the federal books. It all seems to be a clusterfuck situation that will eventually move to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court were to uphold the AZ law, it would set a precedent and would create a "Domino Effect" of other states following suit.

Again, people talk about racial profiling like it is a bad thing when it isnt. Race is simply a piece of the profile, not the entire profile. Lets not be PC for a moment and think logically. You are on the Mexican border searching for illegals. You come across a group of latinos walking along a trail 500yards from the border. They tell you, in spanish as none speak a word of english, they are legal citizens just going out on a hike in the desert? DO you believe them? Now, if all of them were white, black, or asian and spoke perfect, american english would your opinion change? I know mine would and maybe 1 time in a thousand I am wrong but I will take those odds.

What additions to current law are you talking about? Forcing local enforcement of the law? How is a that a bad thing? I dont care how things are viewed, I care about what they are. Are there some cops that are going to abuse this law? damn right there are, but thats no reason to ignore the problem. Cops abuse all laws on the books for personal or professional gain all the time, are you saying we should dump those also?

Imagine what would happen then.

I dont know, federal law would actually be enforced?

[bafbrian]

Again, people talk about racial profiling like it is a bad thing when it isnt. Race is simply a piece of the profile, not the entire profile. Lets not be PC for a moment and think logically. You are on the Mexican border searching for illegals. You come across a group of latinos walking along a trail 500yards from the border. They tell you, in spanish as none speak a word of english, they are legal citizens just going out on a hike in the desert? DO you believe them? Now, if all of them were white, black, or asian and spoke perfect, american english would your opinion change? I know mine would and maybe 1 time in a thousand I am wrong but I will take those odds.

What additions to current law are you talking about? Forcing local enforcement of the law? How is a that a bad thing? I dont care how things are viewed, I care about what they are. Are there some cops that are going to abuse this law? damn right there are, but thats no reason to ignore the problem. Cops abuse all laws on the books for personal or professional gain all the time, are you saying we should dump those also?


I dont know, federal law would actually be enforced?

Either you don't know or are severely misinformed. You do realize people south the of the border can be shades of white or black right? Not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans. Furthermore, racial profiling is bad. Their is no gray area for that. It is either good or bad, not its ok when the situation permits it. Again, you are confusing assumption for fact. Ignorance and assumption are not excuses to racially profile people.

As for the AZ law, I don't know all the stipulations of the law right now, but I am sure I could find them, juxtapose them to the federal law, and highlight the additions.

[tstaubly]

everyone throws the idea of profiling around as a bad thing. should you stop someone solely based on the color of their skin? of course not. but think about it. as an officer if you see certain crimes, being committed by a certain kind of suspect that look, act speak, the same way. you will begin to start looking for other people based on those characteristics due to your past experiences.

lets move away from the border for a second and think about here in Atlanta.

how many chargers or impalas on 24's with a loud ass system and a thugged out black guy driving do you have to find large quantities of dope on before you start stopping every black dude in a donked out charger you see.

if you consistently see a certain type of person (profile) committing a certain type of crime. idc who you are, you will start looking for those ppl.

and when it come to checking citizenship. the officer cant check their status unless they have probable cause to believe they are here illegally or they are being questioned for another crime. the most common person deported was arrest for driving without a license. not like the officer was harassing them. they were breaking the law.

profiling is an effective tool to catch criminals if used appropriately. the "hes a Mexican, hes here illegally" mentality is wrong, but they should be able to check your citizenship if you are an immigrant. legal or not.

[Total_Blender]

and when it come to checking citizenship. the officer cant check their status unless they have probable cause to believe they are here illegally or they are being questioned for another crime.
.

This law makes skin color the "probable cause" you speak of.

[quote=Baggin Jimmy]Wrong. Law enforcement all over the country is able to check citizenship. This law only allows cops to do it for any lawful contact. [//quote]

Its true that they are able to check but once they checked they have to turn them over to INS. This law makes it to where AZ is prosecuting them too.

[bu villain]

Feds case had nothing to do with this. The feds case is that the AZ impedes the feds enforcement of immigration law.

I actually wasn't specifically speaking to the argument that the government is making right now, I was simply answering his question about what could be wrong with enforcing a federal law at the state level.

I'm not convinced yet the law is unconstitutional on the grounds of usurping government authority, but I do think its a bad idea and gives law enforcement too much discretion. Maybe you trust the government (cops) more than I do.

[bu villain]

lets move away from the border for a second and think about here in Atlanta.

how many chargers or impalas on 24's with a loud ass system and a thugged out black guy driving do you have to find large quantities of dope on before you start stopping every black dude in a donked out charger you see.

if you consistently see a certain type of person (profile) committing a certain type of crime. idc who you are, you will start looking for those ppl.

This is exactly why people are against such profiling. Your whole justification is that someone looks like a criminal which can be completely arbitrary. In my opinion as an IRS agent, rich white guys who wear suits cheat on their taxes quite a bit, lets only audit them. Being effective is not an excuse for being unjust.

Just answer this one question:

If there is even one racist cop in AZ, what is to stop him from harassing every latino person he pulls over for speeding about their legal status?

[BanginJimmy]

If there is even one racist cop in AZ, what is to stop him from harassing every latino person he pulls over for speeding about their legal status?

Right now, what is there to stop the exact cop from stopping every latino he sees with a minor infraction and either ticketing or arresting them? Answer, absolutely nothing.


Laws cannot be simply thrown out because what might happen without even a shred of proof that anything unconstitutional actually did happen.

[blaknoize]

This law will, in effect, will have every non-American born, non-English speaking person feel very uncomfortable. Looking over their shoulders for no reason other than them being a different type of person with a different set of lifestyles or languages.

This law was created to rid the state of "MEXICANS" and other non-English speakers from the state. It like no one can live in peace. Fuk even if they did get here illegally, the business who hired them should of said something, but no, they give the business to much profit and do not have to report them on their fiscal statement since its all under the table.

I agree with a previously mentioned post about preventing the businesses from hiring illegals.

You drive a green F-150 with blackout tailights and duals with flames on the hood. Get followed because they 'KNOW" your probably a mexican or other. Wait till u roll a stop sign or other. Pull u over and the fun begins.

[green91]

Honestly this is a democratic ploy in order to garner latino votes (those who are lawful citizens of course.) This is necessary since they have pushed so many bills through that Americans in general do not want and know they must stoop to new lows to attempt to even get a percentage of votes.

IF i were a naturalized latino american, id be outraged that i'd had to go through the difficult citizenship process and done things the lawful way when the federal government doesn't even care to enforce its own laws, and infact apparently promotes people to break the law.

As a lawful citizen myself, i'll gladly show my US identification, my drivers license indicating Ive earned my PRIVILEGE to drive, my lawfully REQUIRED insurance card, and welcome anyone to check my SPOTLESS criminal record. nothing to hide, nothing to worry about.

the arizona immigration law doesn't give any LEO the ability to pull someone over based on their color of skin. just requires that officers that pull anyone over with PROBABLE CAUSE to check legal status of said persons.

http://www.bordersheriffs.com/

[blaknoize]

Those who are also citizens have NOTHING to hide, with or without violations. But knowing you can be checked just for PROBABLE CAUSE as its listed, is unfair.

MAYBE cops should just stop by your house and knock on your door and question you because u live near someone who sells drugs or have been seen on their lot. Or better yet, they should just get an auto-search warrant and check your home. Not because they have a need to, but because there happens to be a PROBABLE CAUSE as you've been spotted on that persons property who happens to sell in your neighborhood.

[BanginJimmy]

Those who are also citizens have NOTHING to hide, with or without violations. But knowing you can be checked just for PROBABLE CAUSE as its listed, is unfair.

MAYBE cops should just stop by your house and knock on your door and question you because u live near someone who sells drugs or have been seen on their lot. Or better yet, they should just get an auto-search warrant and check your home. Not because they have a need to, but because there happens to be a PROBABLE CAUSE as you've been spotted on that persons property who happens to sell in your neighborhood.

You do know that your example isnt even legitimate. Since you obviously dont know what probable cause is let me try to explain in very simple terms.

Probable cause is a set of circumstances that gives an officer reason to believe that you are in violation of a law or statute. In the context of the AZ law probable cause would consist of things like no understanding of the english language, no drivers license, congregating in areas known for illegals, such as the home depot with day laborers, and any number of other specifics that local police would know. No single one of these criteria is would be probable cause, but if a cop comes in contact with someone that fits several of these, then it does constitute probable cause.



A good point was brought up earlier though about drivers license tests being available in multiple languages. This needs to stop. American english may not officially be the language of this country but reality says it is. If you want to live here, act like it and at least make an attempt to learn the language.

[Total_Blender]

the arizona immigration law doesn't give any LEO the ability to pull someone over based on their color of skin. just requires that officers that pull anyone over with PROBABLE CAUSE to check legal status of said persons.
l]

Again, the AZ law makes being brown skinned enough "probable cause" for the authorities to question you, pull you over etc. Suppose you are latino and you go out for a run around the neighborhood and leave your wallet, phone, etc at home. Then you get questioned by a cop. You don't have ID on you or any way to get in touch with anyone. Under the AZ law they could hassle you quite a bit.

Again, Republicans are all for a police state, as long as they are the ones who determine who gets "policed".

[green91]

Again, the AZ law makes being brown skinned enough "probable cause" for the authorities to question you, pull you over etc. Suppose you are latino and you go out for a run around the neighborhood and leave your wallet, phone, etc at home. Then you get questioned by a cop. You don't have ID on you or any way to get in touch with anyone. Under the AZ law they could hassle you quite a bit.

Again, Republicans are all for a police state, as long as they are the ones who determine who gets "policed".

No, this law DOES NOT give them the ability to pull somebody over without probably cause. You clearly don't understand probably cause. Furthermore, anybody of any color that gets pulled over without any identification is subject to hassle, in ANY state currently in the USA.

I support the laws of the country and state being enforced.

[Total_Blender]

Let me rephrase my argument. A Latino in such a situation as to be questioned by the police without ID will be assumed to be a non-citizen and will therefore be subject to more detainment/hassle than a non Latino.

Just how does this law not make race "probably cause (sic)"? It is right there in the text of the law that they can pull you over if they suspect you are illegal. What will the main factor be for them to have a suspicion as to who is/isn't illegal? Its race. This bill makes it legal for them to pull someone over for "driving while Latino." The part of the bill that claims "protection against racial profiling" is just bullshit, as it defers to the AZ and US constitutions, and I have said several times neither the AZ state constitution nor the US constitution offer any protection against racial profiling.

This bill is nothing more than a power play in election year politics for the Arizona GOP.

[Total_Blender]

I support the power of the Federal gov't to determine who is a citizen of the United States. I do NOT support the state of AZ in their attempt to usurp that power for themselves.

[bu villain]

Right now, what is there to stop the exact cop from stopping every latino he sees with a minor infraction and either ticketing or arresting them? Answer, absolutely nothing.

Why should something stop them? If someone breaks the law, they should be ticketed/arrested. However, if a department receives complaints about the cop unfairly treating only latinos, he can be reprimanded or fired for discrimination but with this law he can't because this law legitimizes that very same discrimination (according you some of you as long as the racial discrimination occurs near a home depot).


Laws cannot be simply thrown out because what might happen without even a shred of proof that anything unconstitutional actually did happen.

But it's not clearly constitutional. Section 8 of the constitution gives congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" In 1942, the US Supreme court case Wickard v Filburn concluded that any activity (even if only going on within a single state) can affect interstate economics, falls under the regulation of the federal government under the commerce clause. There are many more cases that deal with the federal government's ability to stop states from enforcing federal laws. You can probably find some with a quick google search. I'm not saying it is unconstitutional for sure but don't act like this is a clear cut case.

[BanginJimmy]

Why should something stop them? If someone breaks the law, they should be ticketed/arrested. However, if a department receives complaints about the cop unfairly treating only latinos, he can be reprimanded or fired for discrimination but with this law he can't because this law legitimizes that very same discrimination (according you some of you as long as the racial discrimination occurs near a home depot).

So you are saying that absolutely nothing changes with this law, but you are still against it. Is this just because Obama says its bad? None of your arguments even come close to justification for your hate.




But it's not clearly constitutional. Section 8 of the constitution gives congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" In 1942, the US Supreme court case Wickard v Filburn concluded that any activity (even if only going on within a single state) can affect interstate economics, falls under the regulation of the federal government under the commerce clause. There are many more cases that deal with the federal government's ability to stop states from enforcing federal laws. You can probably find some with a quick google search. I'm not saying it is unconstitutional for sure but don't act like this is a clear cut case.

How does this law have anything to do with commerce? This is an law to kick illegals out of the state/country. If anything, AZ's previous law that allows the state to go after businesses that hire illegals would fall into this category, yet I havent heard a single word about that law.

And yes, this law IS constitutional. There is nothing that impedes the feds from enforcing immigration law. The law specificly rules out profiling (to appease the PC crowd). This law doesnt even add anything to federal law, it simply requires state police to check immigration status. Anyone that is against this law is clearly stating they are in favor of criminal activity and just as clearly stating that they are against securing our southern border.

[BanginJimmy]

I support the power of the Federal gov't to determine who is a citizen of the United States. I do NOT support the state of AZ in their attempt to usurp that power for themselves.


I think you must try to be wrong as much as possible. The law is only about 20 pages and easily found online. Why dont you find the part of the law that says AZ is trying to determine who should be a citizen of the country.

[Total_Blender]

I think you must try to be wrong as much as possible. The law is only about 20 pages and easily found online. Why dont you find the part of the law that says AZ is trying to determine who should be a citizen of the country.

I read the law. Its not about them "trying to determine who should be a citizen of the country", its about them trying to determine who ISN'T a citizen of the country. again, the law does not rule out profiling. It references the profiling "protections" you speak of to two documents that contain no protections against profiling.

If the feds aren't enforcing the law, why not sue them? You talk about existing laws that "go after businesses" but are these existing laws even being enforced? It seems that if AZ would enforce their existing laws and pressure the feds to enforce theirs that AZ would not need new legislation.

I doubt politicians on either side are gonna put much pressure on the businesses that hire illegals, especially now that the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission) has made it easier for big business to finance campaigns.

This whole SB1070 deal is just AZ playing the victim.

[bafbrian]

Again, the AZ law makes being brown skinned enough "probable cause" for the authorities to question you, pull you over etc. Suppose you are latino and you go out for a run around the neighborhood and leave your wallet, phone, etc at home. Then you get questioned by a cop. You don't have ID on you or any way to get in touch with anyone. Under the AZ law they could hassle you quite a bit.

Again, Republicans are all for a police state, as long as they are the ones who determine who gets "policed".


Let me rephrase my argument. A Latino in such a situation as to be questioned by the police without ID will be assumed to be a non-citizen and will therefore be subject to more detainment/hassle than a non Latino.

Just how does this law not make race "probably cause (sic)"? It is right there in the text of the law that they can pull you over if they suspect you are illegal. What will the main factor be for them to have a suspicion as to who is/isn't illegal? Its race. This bill makes it legal for them to pull someone over for "driving while Latino." The part of the bill that claims "protection against racial profiling" is just bullshit, as it defers to the AZ and US constitutions, and I have said several times neither the AZ state constitution nor the US constitution offer any protection against racial profiling.

This bill is nothing more than a power play in election year politics for the Arizona GOP.

The problem is not that skin color can used as probable cause, but more so towards the vague description of "probable cause" written into the law. With such a vague description of "probable cause", as stated above, anyone can be subjected to this. This law's notion of "probable cause" gives LEO's too much power. A belief that power corrupts and that LEO's will use their discretion to determine "probable cause" is what gives many people pause with the AZ law.

[bu villain]

So you are saying that absolutely nothing changes with this law, but you are still against it. Is this just because Obama says its bad? None of your arguments even come close to justification for your hate.

You must have misunderstood me. It makes it so racist cops have a defense for harassing latinos.


How does this law have anything to do with commerce? This is an law to kick illegals out of the state/country. If anything, AZ's previous law that allows the state to go after businesses that hire illegals would fall into this category, yet I havent heard a single word about that law.

It has to do with commerce because an illegal workforce will have a huge impact on wages and prices nationally. Why do you think the government can make growing your own weed illegal even for personal use? It's the same reason. You can argue that it goes against the original intent of the constitution but you are fighting against decades of case law. Additionally, there are many laws that exist that the goverment could probably overturn for similar reasons but let's stick to this law for now.


And yes, this law IS constitutional. There is nothing that impedes the feds from enforcing immigration law. The law specificly rules out profiling (to appease the PC crowd). This law doesnt even add anything to federal law, it simply requires state police to check immigration status. Anyone that is against this law is clearly stating they are in favor of criminal activity and just as clearly stating that they are against securing our southern border.

I already explained why it impedes the feds from enforcing the immigration law IN THE WAY THEY SEE FIT. I don't know why being against the words of one law means someone is against securing our border. I am all for checking status when applying for jobs or in many other cases where all people are treated equally. I would even be more supportive of this law if it just said that police had to check every person they pulled over.

[VIP Style]

agreed. This will get ugly simply because alot of people are calling it racist if a officers probable cause for checking a persons green card is because of that man/womans race.
Again, people talk about racial profiling like it is a bad thing when it isnt. Race is simply a piece of the profile, not the entire profile.

[BanginJimmy]

You must have misunderstood me. It makes it so racist cops have a defense for harassing latinos.

But if they want to do that they already can. Nothing changes in that respect. The only difference is the penalty is more severe for their crimes.


It has to do with commerce because an illegal workforce will have a huge impact on wages and prices nationally.

This contradicts your own argument that you make later about agreeing with checking status when applying for employment. That also has to do with commerce and in that case it isnt even someone sworn to uphold the law doing the checks.



Why do you think the government can make growing your own weed illegal even for personal use?

For the same reason its illegal to cook your own meth, the final product is illegal in all 50 states. This is a Blender like statement and I was sure you were more intelligent than he is.




I already explained why it impedes the feds from enforcing the immigration law IN THE WAY THEY SEE FIT.

Considering the feds are making absolutely no attempt to enforce the law it has forced states, az being the first, but not the last, to do it for them. Again, you cannot find a single piece of this law that impedes the feds from enforcing their own laws. This law simply does what the feds should be doing themselves.



I don't know why being against the words of one law means someone is against securing our border.

If you are against police enforcing the laws concerning the security of our border then you are against securing the border, it really is that simple. If that is not the case then I would love to hear how you think we should secure the border without enforcing any of the laws designed to help secure it.



I am all for checking status when applying for jobs or in many other cases where all people are treated equally. I would even be more supportive of this law if it just said that police had to check every person they pulled over.


So you are all for wasting time and resources on people that are obviously not the criminals you are looking for in order to appease the criminals and those that support their behavior? That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Also by your own reasoning, only the fed govt should be able to do that. How can you even attempt to make an argument that businesses should have access to and be able to make use of that info, but police cannot?

The VAST majority of the problem on the US/Mexico border is latino illegals. Quit letting political correctness get in the way of common sense and simply admit it. From there you can just as easily admit that if you do specificly target illegals then you will arrest a disproportionate about of latinos compared to other races. That is not racism like you liberals want to assume. That is simply using common sense to combat a problem.

[bu villain]

But if they want to do that they already can. Nothing changes in that respect. The only difference is the penalty is more severe for their crimes.

We must be talking in circles around each other. Being able to consider such general traits as legitimate "probable cause" is different from now. Name one other law where race can even be considered a part of probable cause. Robbery? Murder? Rape? No, No, No.


This contradicts your own argument that you make later about agreeing with checking status when applying for employment. That also has to do with commerce and in that case it isnt even someone sworn to uphold the law doing the checks.

Wasn't my argument, its the US Supreme Court's (see Wicakrd v Filburn). You can take it up with them.



For the same reason its illegal to cook your own meth, the final product is illegal in all 50 states. This is a Blender like statement and I was sure you were more intelligent than he is.

Well in that case, could you please point me to where in the constitution it says the federal government can delare substances illegal? Or are you trying to say that the FEDERAL Controlled Substance Act is not a federal law?




Considering the feds are making absolutely no attempt to enforce the law it has forced states, az being the first, but not the last, to do it for them. Again, you cannot find a single piece of this law that impedes the feds from enforcing their own laws. This law simply does what the feds should be doing themselves.

Then AZ should sue the federal government. That is the appropriate response. And the federal government doesn't have to prove they are impeding anything. If they say the state is impeding them on something that is federal jurisdiction, that's all the have to do.




If you are against police enforcing the laws concerning the security of our border then you are against securing the border, it really is that simple. If that is not the case then I would love to hear how you think we should secure the border without enforcing any of the laws designed to help secure it.

I think the federal government should be enforcing them unless they ask for the state's help...period. It's a pretty simple concept called division of responsibilities. I already stated what to do if the fed isn't enforcing the law.


So you are all for wasting time and resources on people that are obviously not the criminals you are looking for in order to appease the criminals and those that support their behavior? That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Also by your own reasoning, only the fed govt should be able to do that. How can you even attempt to make an argument that businesses should have access to and be able to make use of that info, but police cannot?

The VAST majority of the problem on the US/Mexico border is latino illegals. Quit letting political correctness get in the way of common sense and simply admit it. From there you can just as easily admit that if you do specificly target illegals then you will arrest a disproportionate about of latinos compared to other races. That is not racism like you liberals want to assume. That is simply using common sense to combat a problem.

I don't actually support the impractical examples I gave, I was just saying that they would be more just. The VAST majority of illegal immigrants in AZ are Latino. I never claimed otherwise so please don't act like I did. The point is, you don't punish ALL Latino's for it. Just like my IRS example. If 95% of tax fraud is perpetrated by rich whites, that doesn't mean you start only auditing rich whites. I don't care how effective it is, it is morally reprehensable to me.

Obviously we have different morals. Your's say, do whatever it takes, mine say the end doesn't justify the means.

[BanginJimmy]

We must be talking in circles around each other. Being able to consider such general traits as legitimate "probable cause" is different from now. Name one other law where race can even be considered a part of probable cause. Robbery? Murder? Rape? No, No, No.

Every immigration law brings race into the question. Again, you are acting like race is the only criteria used but it isnt.



Well in that case, could you please point me to where in the constitution it says the federal government can delare substances illegal? Or are you trying to say that the FEDERAL Controlled Substance Act is not a federal law?

What does this have to do with immigration? You are the one that brought up illegal drugs, not me.





Then AZ should sue the federal government. That is the appropriate response. And the federal government doesn't have to prove they are impeding anything. If they say the state is impeding them on something that is federal jurisdiction, that's all the have to do.

Look at reality here. A suit against the federal govt would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to have any chance at federal action. You have the judge that knocked this law down would have thrown it out, then we all know the HIGHLY liberal 9th Circus would have also thrown it out. Both of these would have been thrown out for purely ideological reasons and with little to no basis in law.





I think the federal government should be enforcing them unless they ask for the state's help...period. It's a pretty simple concept called division of responsibilities. I already stated what to do if the fed isn't enforcing the law.

Well now we have this law and the fes still arent doing anything. In fact, they are working behind closed doors to find a way to grant a blanket amnesty without going through congress.




I don't actually support the impractical examples I gave, I was just saying that they would be more just. The VAST majority of illegal immigrants in AZ are Latino. I never claimed otherwise so please don't act like I did. The point is, you don't punish ALL Latino's for it. Just like my IRS example. If 95% of tax fraud is perpetrated by rich whites, that doesn't mean you start only auditing rich whites. I don't care how effective it is, it is morally reprehensable to me.

The only people that would be punished are those that are breaking the law. You want to toe the Obama line that would make you think that just being latino means you would be arrested on the spot, but anyone with at least a little common sense knows better.


Obviously we have different morals. Your's say, do whatever it takes, mine say the end doesn't justify the means.


Wrong, I dont believe the ends justifies the means in this case. I believe in a common sense approach to things, not basing all of my morals on political correctness.

[5speed]

I think everybody needs to stop worrying about hurting peoples feelings over this. If you are an illegal you will eventually be caught. It is Arizona that kept hiring illegals but didnt want to bitch about it until it made a bad impact on them.

[bu villain]

Since these arguments are becoming very fragmented, I will just sum up my opposition to this law.

1. In my opinion, since the original law itself is a federal law, the fed gov should be in charge of enforcement. It should be the fed gov's choice whether or not it enlists states to help.
2. Probable cause for being an "illegal immigrant" is too vague and thus too easy to abuse.

I believe most proponents of this law have a valid desire to acheive better enforcement of immigration policy. I have no problem putting more agents on the border, using technology to help stop illegal crossing, or employment checks. I say go for it! As someone who spent more than a year and thousands of dollars getting someone through the process of legal immigration, I stand behind the importance of using a legal process. But I also know first hand we need comprehensive immigration reform.

This law is nothing but a bandaid to a gaping wound and it comes with too steep a price by disregarding the appropriate division of authority and opening up avenues for abuse. Call me a liberal, anti-borders security, PC or any other names you want but this is my honest assessment. If you can't respect that at least, then how can you expect to have a meaningful debate.

[BanginJimmy]

Since these arguments are becoming very fragmented, I will just sum up my opposition to this law.

1. In my opinion, since the original law itself is a federal law, the fed gov should be in charge of enforcement. It should be the fed gov's choice whether or not it enlists states to help.
2. Probable cause for being an "illegal immigrant" is too vague and thus too easy to abuse.

I believe most proponents of this law have a valid desire to acheive better enforcement of immigration policy. I have no problem putting more agents on the border, using technology to help stop illegal crossing, or employment checks. I say go for it! As someone who spent more than a year and thousands of dollars getting someone through the process of legal immigration, I stand behind the importance of using a legal process. But I also know first hand we need comprehensive immigration reform.

This law is nothing but a bandaid to a gaping wound and it comes with too steep a price by disregarding the appropriate division of authority and opening up avenues for abuse. Call me a liberal, anti-borders security, PC or any other names you want but this is my honest assessment. If you can't respect that at least, then how can you expect to have a meaningful debate.


Your reasoning is fine but I have 2 questions to ask you.

1. If the feds refuse to enforce their laws who is supposed to do it?

2. If it is the feds responsibility to enforce border laws, shouldnt it also be their responsibility to pay the states for the services the illegals use?

3. Do you agree with Obama that immigration reform should be nothing more than a blanket amnesty?

[bu villain]

Your reasoning is fine but I have 2 questions to ask you.

1. If the feds refuse to enforce their laws who is supposed to do it?

I believe the correct action would be to sue the government and have it resolved in a court. Similar to what is happening with the AZ law now except that if that AZ law is thrown out, we are back to square one and have just wasted time and money that could have been spent on the lawsuit the state should have filed in the first place. On a side note, the federal government does enfore the law to some extent. How should we define what is adequate enforcement? They will never be able to stop every single illegal immigrant.


2. If it is the feds responsibility to enforce border laws, shouldnt it also be their responsibility to pay the states for the services the illegals use?

I could see that being a possible and reasonable outcome if a lawsuit was filed and it was determined the government was not making a reasonable attempt at enforcement.


3. Do you agree with Obama that immigration reform should be nothing more than a blanket amnesty?

No I do not think blanket amnesty is a good option. Wasn't a good idea when Reagan did it, not a good idea now.

[BanginJimmy]

I believe the correct action would be to sue the government and have it resolved in a court. Similar to what is happening with the AZ law now except that if that AZ law is thrown out, we are back to square one and have just wasted time and money that could have been spent on the lawsuit the state should have filed in the first place. On a side note, the federal government does enfore the law to some extent. How should we define what is adequate enforcement? They will never be able to stop every single illegal immigrant.

What extent does the fed govt actually enforce it? Have you looked at the guy that killed the nun in VA? He was turned over to ICE twice and both times was immediately released.

Also, what happens if you get another activist on the bench that throws out the case saying the govt is doing enough? What recourse do you follow then? The added time and money appealing to the 9th Circus then the Supreme Court?




No I do not think blanket amnesty is a good option. Wasn't a good idea when Reagan did it, not a good idea now.


That is the dems definition of comprehensive immigration reform.

[bu villain]

What extent does the fed govt actually enforce it? Have you looked at the guy that killed the nun in VA? He was turned over to ICE twice and both times was immediately released.

Not sure what your anecdote has to do with my question. Again, my question was How do you determine what level of enforcement is reasonable? I'm not asking whether you think the current level of enforcement is reasonable. I already know the answer to that question.


Also, what happens if you get another activist on the bench that throws out the case saying the govt is doing enough? What recourse do you follow then? The added time and money appealing to the 9th Circus then the Supreme Court?

There is nothing else to do. That is how our system works. You can't ignore the courts just because you don't agree with the outcome. The AZ method is exactly the same anyways except they pushed the government to take them to court instead of the other way around.


That is the dems definition of comprehensive immigration reform.

Ok good to know, doesn't change how I feel about it.

[BanginJimmy]

Not sure what your anecdote has to do with my question. Again, my question was How do you determine what level of enforcement is reasonable? I'm not asking whether you think the current level of enforcement is reasonable. I already know the answer to that question.

That is even easier. If you are an illegal and caught in the US, by any method, you are shipped to the border and dropped there. No more nice plane rides to whatever airport you like. No more catch and release policies just because they havent been convicted of a violent crime here in the US. Simply lock them up until the bus is full then bus them to the nearest border where they are handed over to the Mexican border police. Any property they have here is auctioned off to pay for their detention and bus trip.



There is nothing else to do. That is how our system works. You can't ignore the courts just because you don't agree with the outcome. The AZ method is exactly the same anyways except they pushed the government to take them to court instead of the other way around.

So we end up right where we are now. The states being forced to fend for themselves by fed inaction, but when they try to fend for themselves, they are attacked by the feds. Sounds to me like AZ is taking the right approach. I said earlier in this thread, I really dont believe Brewer really cares about this law. I think it was more of a wakeup call to Washington. No matter what happens with this law the feds are going to be forced to act in some way. If they work to secure the border AZ wins because ti will slow the flood of illegals into the state. If they dont work on securing the border, GOP wins a major national security victory politically. Its a win/win for AZ as long as it is in GOP hands.

[Total_Blender]

It still does nothing to actually stop the illegals from coming in. You can send them out all you want but as long as there are jobs for them waiting in AZ and conditions remain bad in Mex. and Central America they are going to keep coming in.

Its just a play for votes in an election year. If they were serious about using state authority to handle an immigration problem they would go after the employers that hire illegals. They are just trying to make the federal gov't look like the bad guy.

[Glides]

1. In my opinion, since the original law itself is a federal law, the fed gov should be in charge of enforcement. It should be the fed gov's choice whether or not it enlists states to help.


So, I want to make sure I get this straight, you say it should be the Fed gov's choice to enlist states to help....so should states just sit around and wait for the call? Or should they decide to police themselves and their legislature because the fed's aren't doing it? I'll make it easier for you. It's the police departments job to protect you. So when a person breaks into your house in the middle of the night and tries to kill your family, do you wait for the police to magically show up and take care of business...or do you handle it?


2. Probable cause for being an "illegal immigrant" is too vague and thus too easy to abuse.

Yes, you could be right. But illegal immigrants abuse our system every single day. So are we to suffer the abuse, or are we to cause them to suffer the abuse? Us or them? Once again, do you suffer abuse at the hands of the criminals that break into your house....or do you abuse them? In a Me or them situation, i'll choose me thank you.


I believe most proponents of this law have a valid desire to acheive better enforcement of immigration policy. I have no problem putting more agents on the border, using technology to help stop illegal crossing, or employment checks. I say go for it! As someone who spent more than a year and thousands of dollars getting someone through the process of legal immigration, I stand behind the importance of using a legal process. But I also know first hand we need comprehensive immigration reform.


So you have no problem spending MORE money to put more people in harms way, patrolling our borders, stopping illegal crossing and doing employment checks...but you are opposed to tackling the problem of those that are already here? I'm not sure your line of reasoning there. Illigal immigration is a plague, it costs an enormous amount to our citizens already...and you support spending MORE money to stop them from coming over but you can't get behind a policeman asking someone he suspects as an illegal immigrant for their identification?
But you would be all about a policeman asking a seedy character standing outside your apartment or home for their identification. How are the 2 any different? They are both possible criminals. illigal immigration is a crime contrary to beliefe and illegal immigratns are criminals. Any legal citizen doing what they are doing would be arrested, tried and either fined or convicted. How do people continue to rationalize this as some sort of crusader's fight?

It's mind boggling.

This law is nothing but a bandaid to a gaping wound and it comes with too steep a price by disregarding the appropriate division of authority and opening up avenues for abuse. Call me a liberal, anti-borders security, PC or any other names you want but this is my honest assessment. If you can't respect that at least, then how can you expect to have a meaningful debate.

I respect your opinion on this matter, but I have to disagree with you on your points. Whether it's a band-aid on a gaping wound, it's a start. And to not even start is to never even have tried.
That's how I see it. The funniest thing I saw in this whole debate was when Sherriff Joe Arpaio was at the rally yesterday and all the opponents of that law were telling him to "Go Home". He just laughed and asked how someone who was in his country illegally could yell at him to go home, he was home.

Classic.

[Browning151]

So, I want to make sure I get this straight, you say it should be the Fed gov's choice to enlist states to help....so should states just sit around and wait for the call? Or should they decide to police themselves and their legislature because the fed's aren't doing it? I'll make it easier for you. It's the police departments job to protect you. So when a person breaks into your house in the middle of the night and tries to kill your family, do you wait for the police to magically show up and take care of business...or do you handle it?



Yes, you could be right. But illegal immigrants abuse our system every single day. So are we to suffer the abuse, or are we to cause them to suffer the abuse? Us or them? Once again, do you suffer abuse at the hands of the criminals that break into your house....or do you abuse them? In a Me or them situation, i'll choose me thank you.



So you have no problem spending MORE money to put more people in harms way, patrolling our borders, stopping illegal crossing and doing employment checks...but you are opposed to tackling the problem of those that are already here? I'm not sure your line of reasoning there. Illigal immigration is a plague, it costs an enormous amount to our citizens already...and you support spending MORE money to stop them from coming over but you can't get behind a policeman asking someone he suspects as an illegal immigrant for their identification?
But you would be all about a policeman asking a seedy character standing outside your apartment or home for their identification. How are the 2 any different? They are both possible criminals. illigal immigration is a crime contrary to beliefe and illegal immigratns are criminals. Any legal citizen doing what they are doing would be arrested, tried and either fined or convicted. How do people continue to rationalize this as some sort of crusader's fight?

It's mind boggling.


I respect your opinion on this matter, but I have to disagree with you on your points. Whether it's a band-aid on a gaping wound, it's a start. And to not even start is to never even have tried.
That's how I see it.

Agreed on every point. If you ask a seedy character outside of an apartment building for ID though, you're liable to get into the same stupid mess because someone will scream discrimination because you picked him out because his clothes weren't as nice as yours or his hair wasn't neatly cut blah blah blah or some other stupid reason. Political correctness is killing this country, I don't give a damn if I hurt your feelings by asking you to obey the law, get over it or gtfo.


The funniest thing I saw in this whole debate was when Sherriff Joe Arpaio was at the rally yesterday and all the opponents of that law were telling him to "Go Home". He just laughed and asked how someone who was in his country illegally could yell at him to go home, he was home.

Classic.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?

[bu villain]

So, I want to make sure I get this straight, you say it should be the Fed gov's choice to enlist states to help....so should states just sit around and wait for the call? Or should they decide to police themselves and their legislature because the fed's aren't doing it? I'll make it easier for you. It's the police departments job to protect you. So when a person breaks into your house in the middle of the night and tries to kill your family, do you wait for the police to magically show up and take care of business...or do you handle it?

They shouldn't sit around. They should bring a lawsuit against the government. Illegal immigration is not some new issue, it's been an issue for decades. It's Arizona's fault if it sat on its hands for decades while the problem grew. Now it wants to side step the proper process because of its own inaction. I don't see how illegal immigration compares to attempted murder.



Yes, you could be right. But illegal immigrants abuse our system every single day. So are we to suffer the abuse, or are we to cause them to suffer the abuse? Us or them? Once again, do you suffer abuse at the hands of the criminals that break into your house....or do you abuse them? In a Me or them situation, i'll choose me thank you.

Except its not that clear cut. Its more like cause us and them to both suffer. Personally I believe there are better ways to fight back.


So you have no problem spending MORE money to put more people in harms way, patrolling our borders, stopping illegal crossing and doing employment checks...but you are opposed to tackling the problem of those that are already here? I'm not sure your line of reasoning there. Illigal immigration is a plague, it costs an enormous amount to our citizens already...and you support spending MORE money to stop them from coming over but you can't get behind a policeman asking someone he suspects as an illegal immigrant for their identification?

For some, priniciples are more valuable than money. You are misconstruing the issue because policemen already can ask anyone they pull over to see their driver's license. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is police being able to detain/question people because they are under suspicion of being "illegal". Being "illegal" is a crime of paperwork so "reasonable suspicion of being illegal" is basically saying that someone looks like they haven't filled out the right paperwork. Perhaps we should start questioning/detaining people who look like they don't fill out their taxes correctly, or people who look like they lied on their apartment leases. C'mon we all know who they are!


But you would be all about a policeman asking a seedy character standing outside your apartment or home for their identification. How are the 2 any different? They are both possible criminals. illigal immigration is a crime contrary to beliefe and illegal immigratns are criminals. Any legal citizen doing what they are doing would be arrested, tried and either fined or convicted. How do people continue to rationalize this as some sort of crusader's fight?

First of all, what is a "possible criminal"? And, NO I don't think a policeman should be able to force me to show him identification for standing outside my house or apartment when no crime has been committed. Would I mind if he asked me what I was doing? Of course not, but if he wouldn't let me go back inside until he verified I am the person on the deed to my house I would be pretty pissed. You wouldn't?

Illegal immigrants are criminals but that doesn't mean you get to investigate whoever you want until you find one. Just try to imagine if you took the same approach to all crimes.


I respect your opinion on this matter, but I have to disagree with you on your points. Whether it's a band-aid on a gaping wound, it's a start. And to not even start is to never even have tried.

We both agree that something needs to be done but I see this as a step backward rather than a step forward. In my view it's the sacrificing liberty for security issue.

[bu villain]

Agreed on every point. If you ask a seedy character outside of an apartment building for ID though, you're liable to get into the same stupid mess because someone will scream discrimination because you picked him out because his clothes weren't as nice as yours or his hair wasn't neatly cut blah blah blah or some other stupid reason. Political correctness is killing this country, I don't give a damn if I hurt your feelings by asking you to obey the law, get over it or gtfo.

Perhaps we should create a "seedy character" ghetto so it would be easier to keep our eyes on them.

[Browning151]

Perhaps we should create a "seedy character" ghetto so it would be easier to keep our eyes on them.

What? The point was, there's no possible way to identify anyone as criminal or not without there being a chance that someone will scream discrimination, racism or profiling. It doesn't matter how you write the law, someone will find a way that it "hurts their feelings" and then it will get thrown out because its not fair and equal to everyone.

[DynamicSound]

Perhaps we should create a "seedy character" ghetto so it would be easier to keep our eyes on them.

We already have one, it is called Clayton County. lol

[BanginJimmy]

It still does nothing to actually stop the illegals from coming in. You can send them out all you want but as long as there are jobs for them waiting in AZ and conditions remain bad in Mex. and Central America they are going to keep coming in.

I agree with you completely. The only way to secure the border will be with people working on the border. If AZ could afford it, I would be suggesting they put another 5k national guard on the border to actually secure it.


Its just a play for votes in an election year. If they were serious about using state authority to handle an immigration problem they would go after the employers that hire illegals. They are just trying to make the federal gov't look like the bad guy.

I agree that a lot of this, from both sides, is election year BS. They do have a law that goes after the illegals and by the little bit of reading I did on it it is working well, but the investigative work is very difficult unless you get tips about it. That is where the law is really falling short.

[bu villain]

What? The point was, there's no possible way to identify anyone as criminal or not without there being a chance that someone will scream discrimination, racism or profiling. It doesn't matter how you write the law, someone will find a way that it "hurts their feelings" and then it will get thrown out because its not fair and equal to everyone.

You're right that someone may always scream discrimination. However, sometimes there actually is discrimination even though most times there isn't. That's why we must be careful. The hunt for criminals is and should continue to be a process that balances the rights of the presumed innocent with the ability to catch criminals.