A Practical Question About the AZ Law

[jillian]

Last axe to grind on this post. . . racial profiling.

I see a lot of people arguing that the AZ law should be shot down as unconstitutional because its reasonable to assume that some officers in AZ will probably apply the law in an unfair proportion to people who look Mexican. Mind you, there's nothing in the law that singles out Mexicans or brown people. . . the racial profiling concerns are an assumption, based on the common perception (LOL. . . the -fact-) that the vast, vast majority of illegal immigrants in that area are from Mexico, that some police will be prone to racism and will target only brown people.

This, I must tell you, is a bullshit argument.

There's also widely held perceptions in many areas that, in those areas, people who use crack cocaine are, by en large, people of color. Likewise, in other places, it's a commonly held perception that meth is a drug used, in those areas, primarily by white people. Therefore, we must likewise assume that, in such areas, the enforcement of laws restricting possession of cocaine and meth will, by some officers, be unfairly applied to people only of one particular race. Should we therefore cease to enforce these laws, as well?

Should it -only- be laws where the perception is that offenders are mostly of one race in the state in question that we stop enforcing? Or maybe all laws? Is it crazy to assume that, since there's bound to be police in every state who, knowingly or unknowingly, apply laws unfairly between people of different colors, the enforcement of any law will lead to some amount of racial profiling? Since the widespread enforcement of -any- law leads to many cases of that law being applied unfairly by a racist police officer, wouldn't shutting down AZ's immigration statute for this reason imply that we should shut down -all- laws to avoid discrimination?

and speaking of exactly what i was referring to....

nice soliloquy...

totally nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Last axe to grind on this post. . . racial profiling.

I see a lot of people arguing that the AZ law should be shot down as unconstitutional because its reasonable to assume that some officers in AZ will probably apply the law in an unfair proportion to people who look Mexican. Mind you, there's nothing in the law that singles out Mexicans or brown people. . . the racial profiling concerns are an assumption, based on the common perception (LOL. . . the -fact-) that the vast, vast majority of illegal immigrants in that area are from Mexico, that some police will be prone to racism and will target only brown people.

This, I must tell you, is a bullshit argument.

There's also widely held perceptions in many areas that, in those areas, people who use crack cocaine are, by en large, people of color. Likewise, in other places, it's a commonly held perception that meth is a drug used, in those areas, primarily by white people. Therefore, we must likewise assume that, in such areas, the enforcement of laws restricting possession of cocaine and meth will, by some officers, be unfairly applied to people only of one particular race. Should we therefore cease to enforce these laws, as well?

Should it -only- be laws where the perception is that offenders are mostly of one race in the state in question that we stop enforcing? Or maybe all laws? Is it crazy to assume that, since there's bound to be police in every state who, knowingly or unknowingly, apply laws unfairly between people of different colors, the enforcement of any law will lead to some amount of racial profiling? Since the widespread enforcement of -any- law leads to many cases of that law being applied unfairly by a racist police officer, wouldn't shutting down AZ's immigration statute for this reason imply that we should shut down -all- laws to avoid discrimination?

It doesn't matter. Those who WANT illegal immigration, or at least those who want to belittle or diminish or demean whomever wants the immigration laws enforced, are of course going to bring in charges of racism. And they aren't interested in looking for any kind of consensus on how to deal with existing problems. Racism seems to be the last bastian of the Left and they seem to find some way to target it at most conservative concepts; i.e. conservative concepts such as enforcement of immigration laws being good for both U.S. citizens AND those who want to come here, but we need to streamline the system.

The governor and others in Arizona can argue until doomsday how the law does not and will not include racial profiling, but the Left will continue to build straw man after straw man to keep that charge alive.

 

[Navy1960]

How many murders, rapes armed robberies and child molestations committed by illegals will it take before you would support doing something about it?

Point is this Law doesnt do anything about it! not one thing, and if we really wanted to do something about it we would put the same resrouces into the border we put into say building schools and roads into the Afghanistan rather than cutting border security or ignoring it like we have been for the last 25 years. To use crime statistics as means to justify passing a law which will not only cost Arizona a lot of money in terms of its economic health and solve nothing in terms of illegal alien activity when clearly crime has gone down across the board here in Arizona a bit off the mark. Personally I don't care if the crime is committed by an illegal alien, or citizen if we don't have the enforcement resources to take them off the streets because we are too busy fighting these needless laws in the courts we all suffer.

The desired result, provided ICE actually deports a few thousand illegals handed over to them under this law, would be for illegals to "self deport"
Granted, as many would likely just pick up and move to California or New Mexico.
Where they go is of little concern to Arizona, but a sudden influx of illegals into New Mexico, might just be the impetus needed for a similar law there.

Couple of things there, the demographics in N.M. are somewhat different than they are in Arizona and in fact the hispanic population there is no doubt much more a political force than it is here. Passing a law like SB1070 in N.M. would be political suicide in N.M. as it would no doubt find the legislators who voted for it without a job. Arizona's resident hispanic population is around 29% and increasing and soon will approach N.M. These kinds of laws like SB1070 might sound good to some but as I have pointed out don't accomplish a thing other than cost the state Millions in taxpayer dollars as well as Billions in lost revenue to local business. The other thing to consider here too, is that with the changing demographics here in Arizona Laws like SB1070 will have a short shelf life once the hispanic population approaches the size it does in N.M. Some food for thought here, even the Arizona hispanic Republicans who are very much pro-life, are very much opposed to SB1070 if that tells you anything.

Experts say the the primary factor behind the exodus was the lack of jobs during the recession, but tighter border enforcement and tough immigration laws also played a role.

Arizona's illegal-immigration population plunges

While these laws serve to discourage some from staying in the state, one factor I have not heard discussed much on this thread is the current economic climate in Arizona is a huge factor in that exodus as well. Arizona is in the top when it comes to a bad housing market and with a lack of new home construction and construction jobs in general the economic climate here is at this moment very poor for the kinds of jobs that generally attract immigrant labor. Even the Agriculture business here is in decline as a result of importing foods from Mexico and S. America.

Federal immigration officials in Arizona deported 56,198 people last year, a nearly 40 percent drop from the previous year, and the first decrease since 2005. But while deportations in Arizona are down, they are up nationally. ICE deported a record number of illegal immigrants last year, 396,906 nationwide compared with 392,862, ICE officials said.
Use of busing system to deter returning illegal immigrants increases

The Arizona number includes illegal immigrants arrested in Arizona as well as those arrested in other Western states and transferred to detention centers in Arizona for removal.

Here's the thing, with the lack of investment in Border Security and ICE in general, and the sheer cost involved in this conveyor belt of illegal immigrants, this issue will never be solved with laws like SB1070 and in fact laws like SB1070 do nothing but end up costing the citizens of Arizona. With the average deportation hearing sometimes taking up to 27 months in some cases and even then those "low priority" cases are sometimes and often are dropped all SB1070 is doing is using local Law Enforcement resources for little gain. I find it interesting that people are so willing to spend the Arizona taxpayers money and cost this state Billions, and yet say nothing when there is no more money to hire Officers, or when 500 teachers and 300 firefighters get laid off here. Yet we do have the money to keep Illegal Immigrants in our jails at up to 20,000 a year to make a point. Seems a little bit backwards to me. I tend to think that if anyone really wanted to solve this problem they would at least advocate for the same investment on the border that we make in the other 190 plus nations we are in, in protecting our borders rather than sit back and watch while they cut it.

As to it's constitutional merits, I tend to think that a state has the ability to police itself under the constitution and thats well establised. However, I do tend to think that when a state makes defacto laws that perscribe punishments for violations of Federal Crimes, that tends to be somewhat of an area in which the state does not have the autority to do. It's my feeling though based on the Courts Questions in this case and the sheer bumbling and rambling presentation on the part of the Govt. that this law will more than likely be upheld, and in so doing it will further drive a large voting segment of the population away from the Republican party, Marco Rubio notwithstanding.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Last axe to grind on this post. . . racial profiling.

I see a lot of people arguing that the AZ law should be shot down as unconstitutional because its reasonable to assume that some officers in AZ will probably apply the law in an unfair proportion to people who look Mexican. Mind you, there's nothing in the law that singles out Mexicans or brown people. . . the racial profiling concerns are an assumption, based on the common perception (LOL. . . the -fact-) that the vast, vast majority of illegal immigrants in that area are from Mexico, that some police will be prone to racism and will target only brown people.

This, I must tell you, is a bullshit argument.

There's also widely held perceptions in many areas that, in those areas, people who use crack cocaine are, by en large, people of color. Likewise, in other places, it's a commonly held perception that meth is a drug used, in those areas, primarily by white people. Therefore, we must likewise assume that, in such areas, the enforcement of laws restricting possession of cocaine and meth will, by some officers, be unfairly applied to people only of one particular race. Should we therefore cease to enforce these laws, as well?

Should it -only- be laws where the perception is that offenders are mostly of one race in the state in question that we stop enforcing? Or maybe all laws? Is it crazy to assume that, since there's bound to be police in every state who, knowingly or unknowingly, apply laws unfairly between people of different colors, the enforcement of any law will lead to some amount of racial profiling? Since the widespread enforcement of -any- law leads to many cases of that law being applied unfairly by a racist police officer, wouldn't shutting down AZ's immigration statute for this reason imply that we should shut down -all- laws to avoid discrimination?

and speaking of exactly what i was referring to....

nice soliloquy...

totally nothing to do with the thread topic.

Yeah, it was a massive tangent, but this thread seemed closely related enough to be a good place to air it out. I don't feel bad about it, either. I don't know if you've noticed, but every thread goes in and out of massive tangents as it progresses.

 

[jillian]

Last axe to grind on this post. . . racial profiling.

I see a lot of people arguing that the AZ law should be shot down as unconstitutional because its reasonable to assume that some officers in AZ will probably apply the law in an unfair proportion to people who look Mexican. Mind you, there's nothing in the law that singles out Mexicans or brown people. . . the racial profiling concerns are an assumption, based on the common perception (LOL. . . the -fact-) that the vast, vast majority of illegal immigrants in that area are from Mexico, that some police will be prone to racism and will target only brown people.

This, I must tell you, is a bullshit argument.

There's also widely held perceptions in many areas that, in those areas, people who use crack cocaine are, by en large, people of color. Likewise, in other places, it's a commonly held perception that meth is a drug used, in those areas, primarily by white people. Therefore, we must likewise assume that, in such areas, the enforcement of laws restricting possession of cocaine and meth will, by some officers, be unfairly applied to people only of one particular race. Should we therefore cease to enforce these laws, as well?

Should it -only- be laws where the perception is that offenders are mostly of one race in the state in question that we stop enforcing? Or maybe all laws? Is it crazy to assume that, since there's bound to be police in every state who, knowingly or unknowingly, apply laws unfairly between people of different colors, the enforcement of any law will lead to some amount of racial profiling? Since the widespread enforcement of -any- law leads to many cases of that law being applied unfairly by a racist police officer, wouldn't shutting down AZ's immigration statute for this reason imply that we should shut down -all- laws to avoid discrimination?

and speaking of exactly what i was referring to....

nice soliloquy...

totally nothing to do with the thread topic.

Yeah, it was a massive tangent, but this thread seemed closely related enough to be a good place to air it out. I don't feel bad about it, either. I don't know if you've noticed, but every thread goes in and out of massive tangents as it progresses.

No. There are dozens of threads on which you could have that discussion. I was hoping for a pragmatic analysis. Certainly, I can't force you to. But I am actually enjoying the input of the people who are addressing the actual question. The whole "immigrants suck" thing doesn't do it for me.

 

[Artevelde]

and speaking of exactly what i was referring to....

nice soliloquy...

totally nothing to do with the thread topic.

Yeah, it was a massive tangent, but this thread seemed closely related enough to be a good place to air it out. I don't feel bad about it, either. I don't know if you've noticed, but every thread goes in and out of massive tangents as it progresses.

No. There are dozens of threads on which you could have that discussion. I was hoping for a pragmatic analysis. Certainly, I can't force you to. But I am actually enjoying the input of the people who are addressing the actual question. The whole "immigrants suck" thing doesn't do it for me.

Yes, you prefer a more simplistic "deporting illegal immigrants sucks" approach.

 

[Foxfyre]

Navy, you're giving all the leftist and libertarian arguments. I know some at CATO support your point of view and the leftist press is reporting all the things you are reporting.

But I just looked at the statistics. Arizona's GDP is up and unemployment is down since the law went into effect. Tourism seems to be doing just fine and dandy. Arizona's unemployment rate is roughly that of the national average and down significantly over the last two years.

Where is all the hardship the law is producing?

Arizona economy booming despite controversy — RT

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

and speaking of exactly what i was referring to....

nice soliloquy...

totally nothing to do with the thread topic.

Yeah, it was a massive tangent, but this thread seemed closely related enough to be a good place to air it out. I don't feel bad about it, either. I don't know if you've noticed, but every thread goes in and out of massive tangents as it progresses.

No. There are dozens of threads on which you could have that discussion. I was hoping for a pragmatic analysis. Certainly, I can't force you to. But I am actually enjoying the input of the people who are addressing the actual question. The whole "immigrants suck" thing doesn't do it for me.

There are indeed dozens of posts regarding the AZ law where I could have aired this sentiment, but this one was at the top of the forum list. It's regrettable if I'm trampling on your enjoyment of the input of the people addressing the actual question (who I can't help but notice that, for the most part, you're repeatedly accusing of not addressing the actual question. . . ), but unfortunately I primarily post on this board for -my- enjoyment.

Now, when did I say anything along the lines of "immigrants suck"? I'm not going to force you to read my posts, but holy shit at least read them if you're going to snidely sum them up and throw them back at me. I can't even say this is an overly simplistic take on what I said. . . it's not a take on what I said at -all-

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Also, the two posts I dropped on this thread right before the one you decided to quote were actually relating -directly- to the topic of the Federal government having to enforce their law or not, but you point out the third post where I went on the tangent then tried to flip my rebuttal to a specific argument into an expressed sentiment of hate for immigrants., -and- accuse me of messing up your fun by not commenting on the actual post (which I did).

Did I piss in your fruit loops or something, and I'm not aware of it? Any particular reason for this hostility, or am I just lucky?

 

[Foxfyre]

Also, the two posts I dropped on this thread right before the one you decided to quote were actually relating -directly- to the topic of the Federal government having to enforce their law or not, but you point out the third post where I went on the tangent then tried to flip my rebuttal to a specific argument into an expressed sentiment of hate for immigrants., -and- accuse me of messing up your fun by not commenting on the actual post (which I did).

Did I piss in your fruit loops or something, and I'm not aware of it? Any particular reason for this hostility, or am I just lucky?

You'll note I've received the same hostility.

I think it's written into the leftist handbook somewhere that if. . .

You say that we should enforce immigration laws:

1. You are racist
2. You hate immigrants
3. You hate Mexicans
4. You have no sense of compassion or justice.
5. You are a hateful person.
6. You participate in and/or support racial profiling and discrimination
etc.

God forbid that we should actually look at and discuss whether there is necessity for the law, the actual administration of the law, and whether it is producing unintended bad consequences and/or is doing more good than harm or is neutral.

At least Navy is making a well thought out and coherant argument for why the law is bad law. So far I don't know whether I agree with him about that or not--the evidence seems to not be in favor of his argument.

I do think it is a reasonable debate to have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't believe we ever have to conced the right way of doing things for expediency. I think if we're no more moral than groups we despise, then there isn't anything to protect.

That said, and to get back to my initial area of interest... what happens to these people when the Fed tells them to get lost? You have 50 states. If each passes similar laws, and each is constantly whining to the feds... then what? What can a state compel the federal government to do? I don't think they can compel the Feds to do anything to enforce a State law. I'm pretty sure this particular court won't see it that way and there will be years of litigation on the subject.

As for money.... i think we have more important things to spend money on than removing peaceful people who haven't committed any crimes... like pay for infrastructure.... like pay for education... etc.

Buy the premise, buy the move. But reject the premise and the movie becomes fodder for the Razzies.

I reject your premise. We are not conceding the right way of doing things. (I presume you mean to be understood to contend that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question about where they come from is doing things in some nebulous "wrong way").

No matter how you strive to reframe it: we have a right to insist that those folks who are here are either citizens or otherwise admitted properly and permitted to remain here. Asking them such a question is far from improper. Calling for some kind of documentation to verify it is also not improper.


And your "let's get back to 'my' question concern is similarly unpersuasive. If all 50 states had the identical law as Arizona, that would entail ONLY calling upon our illustrious Federal Government to do something ABOUT the very thing the FEDERAL Law is created TO address. I will not pretend to be "sorry for the inconvenience" to the "Federal Government" when I call upon them to DO THEIR JOB.

Doesn't that mean we have to be pulling people over based on what they look like, and we're only actually dealing with 'brown aliens'?

That would be a shame, if it happened. Unfortunately for the Twitterheads, like you, that issue was specifically not raised by the administration during the arguments. The reason for that is pretty simple, if you think about it. The fact is that is precisely what ICE does when they are enforcing federal laws, so them complaining about Arizona doing it would be, at best,hypocritical.

ICE has the authority to ask anyone in this country to declare their citizenship at any point in time. Yes, that applies to you, even if you are in Salt Lake City and look like a Mormon. Why shouldn't police have the same authority, and how is giving it to them a violation of federal law?

Before anyone gets all upset about papers please, all US citizens have to do is declare their citizenship, and ICE will leave them alone, unless they have probable cause to detain them. In fact, anyone can simply refuse to answer the question, and walk away. In theory.

 

[BDBoop]

like you

Yup. That's as far as I read.

 

[Ravi]

Buy the premise, buy the move. But reject the premise and the movie becomes fodder for the Razzies.

I reject your premise. We are not conceding the right way of doing things. (I presume you mean to be understood to contend that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question about where they come from is doing things in some nebulous "wrong way").

No matter how you strive to reframe it: we have a right to insist that those folks who are here are either citizens or otherwise admitted properly and permitted to remain here. Asking them such a question is far from improper. Calling for some kind of documentation to verify it is also not improper.


And your "let's get back to 'my' question concern is similarly unpersuasive. If all 50 states had the identical law as Arizona, that would entail ONLY calling upon our illustrious Federal Government to do something ABOUT the very thing the FEDERAL Law is created TO address. I will not pretend to be "sorry for the inconvenience" to the "Federal Government" when I call upon them to DO THEIR JOB.

Doesn't that mean we have to be pulling people over based on what they look like, and we're only actually dealing with 'brown aliens'?

That would be a shame, if it happened. Unfortunately for the Twitterheads, like you, that issue was specifically not raised by the administration during the arguments. The reason for that is pretty simple, if you think about it. The fact is that is precisely what ICE does when they are enforcing federal laws, so them complaining about Arizona doing it would be, at best,hypocritical.

ICE has the authority to ask anyone in this country to declare their citizenship at any point in time. Yes, that applies to you, even if you are in Salt Lake City and look like a Mormon. Why shouldn't police have the same authority, and how is giving it to them a violation of federal law?

Before anyone gets all upset about papers please, all US citizens have to do is declare their citizenship, and ICE will leave them alone, unless they have probable cause to detain them. In fact, anyone can simply refuse to answer the question, and walk away. In theory.

This is astounding reasoning from a guy that thinks TSA agents want to get into his pants.

Also, it is incorrect.

The ACLU and the Michigan Immigrants Rights Center have filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Luis Valdez and his mother Telma Valdez. Telma was born in Guatemala but is a legal, permanent U.S. resident. Her son Luis is a U.S. citizen.

The lawsuit alleges ICE agents illegally detained the two in February of last year when Valdez and his mother pulled up to a relative’s home in Grand Rapids for a visit. He says U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers approached them with their guns drawn.

It’s alleged the agents illegally detained and interrogated the two; even after they produced proof they are legal U.S. residents.

The suit alleges the agents assaulted Luis’ mother, once during the detainment and when the agent released them. She reportedly suffered minor injuries that required medical care.

“It’s pretty hard to watch that. It’s difficult not being able to do anything. I told them that I was a US citizen but it didn’t seem to have very much effect on them. They didn’t seem to care at all,” Luis Valdez said.

Eventually, the two were released from custody without being charged. The ACLU says the incident was a result of illegal racial profiling.

"It is clear that if this mother and son were not Latino, they would not have been handcuffed, assaulted and detained. Not only is this type of racial profiling illegal, but it is counterproductive and erodes community trust," said ACLU of Michigan staff attorney Miriam Aukerman.

Lawsuit alleges ICE agents illegally detained, assaulted Grand Rapids residents | Michigan Radio

 

[Liability]

I don't believe we ever have to conced the right way of doing things for expediency. I think if we're no more moral than groups we despise, then there isn't anything to protect.

That said, and to get back to my initial area of interest... what happens to these people when the Fed tells them to get lost? You have 50 states. If each passes similar laws, and each is constantly whining to the feds... then what? What can a state compel the federal government to do? I don't think they can compel the Feds to do anything to enforce a State law. I'm pretty sure this particular court won't see it that way and there will be years of litigation on the subject.

As for money.... i think we have more important things to spend money on than removing peaceful people who haven't committed any crimes... like pay for infrastructure.... like pay for education... etc.

Buy the premise, buy the move. But reject the premise and the movie becomes fodder for the Razzies.

I reject your premise. We are not conceding the right way of doing things. (I presume you mean to be understood to contend that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question about where they come from is doing things in some nebulous "wrong way").

No matter how you strive to reframe it: we have a right to insist that those folks who are here are either citizens or otherwise admitted properly and permitted to remain here. Asking them such a question is far from improper. Calling for some kind of documentation to verify it is also not improper.


And your "let's get back to 'my' question concern is similarly unpersuasive. If all 50 states had the identical law as Arizona, that would entail ONLY calling upon our illustrious Federal Government to do something ABOUT the very thing the FEDERAL Law is created TO address. I will not pretend to be "sorry for the inconvenience" to the "Federal Government" when I call upon them to DO THEIR JOB.

Doesn't that mean we have to be pulling people over based on what they look like, and we're only actually dealing with 'brown aliens'?

Not even remotely.

If anybody gets pulled over, it is supposed to be for an initially valid purpose. Like a truck crossing the double yellow or a car speeding, etc., etc., etc.

Once validly stopped, the cops are directed to make a perfectly valid inquiry.

Why, did you know that an illegal alien could be a Canadian? It's true!

 

[Liability]

I don't believe we ever have to conced the right way of doing things for expediency. I think if we're no more moral than groups we despise, then there isn't anything to protect.

That said, and to get back to my initial area of interest... what happens to these people when the Fed tells them to get lost? You have 50 states. If each passes similar laws, and each is constantly whining to the feds... then what? What can a state compel the federal government to do? I don't think they can compel the Feds to do anything to enforce a State law. I'm pretty sure this particular court won't see it that way and there will be years of litigation on the subject.

As for money.... i think we have more important things to spend money on than removing peaceful people who haven't committed any crimes... like pay for infrastructure.... like pay for education... etc.

Buy the premise, buy the move. But reject the premise and the movie becomes fodder for the Razzies.

I reject your premise. We are not conceding the right way of doing things. (I presume you mean to be understood to contend that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question about where they come from is doing things in some nebulous "wrong way").

No matter how you strive to reframe it: we have a right to insist that those folks who are here are either citizens or otherwise admitted properly and permitted to remain here. Asking them such a question is far from improper. Calling for some kind of documentation to verify it is also not improper.

And your "let's get back to 'my' question concern is similarly unpersuasive. If all 50 states had the identical law as Arizona, that would entail ONLY calling upon our illustrious Federal Government to do something ABOUT the very thing the FEDERAL Law is created TO address. I will not pretend to be "sorry for the inconvenience" to the "Federal Government" when I call upon them to DO THEIR JOB.

I understand you "reject [my] premise". But my premise is not that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question is improper. My premise is that stopping someone because they LOOK like an alien (meaning they look hispanic) and demanding they identify their origin (whether that person is native born or an actual immigrant of whatever legal or illegal stripe) goes against everything we stand for. If you look hispanic, or speak with an accent, does that mean you should have to be subjected to a constant barrage of police action?

What if that action, instead of being directed at darker skiinned hispanics, was directed at big, burly, redheaded guys who might (or might not) be off the boat Irish? Does that change your paradigm?

As for geting back to my basic question. I have zero interest in yet another "i hate immigrants"/"you're a racist" back and forth rants. I wanted, and phrased my question specifically to get, an intelligent analysis from intelligent people about the actual reality left behind should the more onorous requirements of the AZ bill be allowed to stand. To that extent, I think the thread is largely successful, notwithstanding a few subliterate intellectual ciphers.

So whether you reject my premise or not, thanks for contributing to an interesting discussioin on the issue.

My premise is that stopping someone because they LOOK like an alien (meaning they look hispanic) and demanding they identify their origin (whether that person is native born or an actual immigrant of whatever legal or illegal stripe) goes against everything we stand for.

But that's not in the slightest little bit what the law addresses.

Again, it is only AFTER an otherwise lawful police encounter with an individual (such as a lawful traffic stop, etc) that the officer asks anybody (illegal alien, legal alien of citizen) "where are you from?" The question doesn't affect me even if I look like one of President Bush's brown skinned relatives. If I am here legally, the asking of the question is of no consequence.

It is only if I am here illegally that the asking of the question poses a problem for me.

And as to that "problem," I cannot pretend to have any particular sympathy for the person being questioned.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Doesn't that mean we have to be pulling people over based on what they look like, and we're only actually dealing with 'brown aliens'?

That would be a shame, if it happened. Unfortunately for the Twitterheads, like you, that issue was specifically not raised by the administration during the arguments. The reason for that is pretty simple, if you think about it. The fact is that is precisely what ICE does when they are enforcing federal laws, so them complaining about Arizona doing it would be, at best,hypocritical.

ICE has the authority to ask anyone in this country to declare their citizenship at any point in time. Yes, that applies to you, even if you are in Salt Lake City and look like a Mormon. Why shouldn't police have the same authority, and how is giving it to them a violation of federal law?

Before anyone gets all upset about papers please, all US citizens have to do is declare their citizenship, and ICE will leave them alone, unless they have probable cause to detain them. In fact, anyone can simply refuse to answer the question, and walk away. In theory.

This is astounding reasoning from a guy that thinks TSA agents want to get into his pants.

Also, it is incorrect.

The ACLU and the Michigan Immigrants Rights Center have filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Luis Valdez and his mother Telma Valdez. Telma was born in Guatemala but is a legal, permanent U.S. resident. Her son Luis is a U.S. citizen.

The lawsuit alleges ICE agents illegally detained the two in February of last year when Valdez and his mother pulled up to a relative’s home in Grand Rapids for a visit. He says U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers approached them with their guns drawn.

It’s alleged the agents illegally detained and interrogated the two; even after they produced proof they are legal U.S. residents.

The suit alleges the agents assaulted Luis’ mother, once during the detainment and when the agent released them. She reportedly suffered minor injuries that required medical care.

“It’s pretty hard to watch that. It’s difficult not being able to do anything. I told them that I was a US citizen but it didn’t seem to have very much effect on them. They didn’t seem to care at all,” Luis Valdez said.

Eventually, the two were released from custody without being charged. The ACLU says the incident was a result of illegal racial profiling.

"It is clear that if this mother and son were not Latino, they would not have been handcuffed, assaulted and detained. Not only is this type of racial profiling illegal, but it is counterproductive and erodes community trust," said ACLU of Michigan staff attorney Miriam Aukerman.

Lawsuit alleges ICE agents illegally detained, assaulted Grand Rapids residents | Michigan Radio

I am the guy that will argue all day that cops abuse their power, is you posting a story about cops abusing their power supposed to make me defensive?

Tell me something, why did ICE approach them? Do you think it was because they looked Hispanic? Didn't I just argue that ICE does that all the time, which is why they did not try to use it against Arizona? Did I also not point out that ICE has the authority to ask anyone in this country to declare their citizenship?

Thanks for making my point for me though.

 

[jillian]

Buy the premise, buy the move. But reject the premise and the movie becomes fodder for the Razzies.

I reject your premise. We are not conceding the right way of doing things. (I presume you mean to be understood to contend that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question about where they come from is doing things in some nebulous "wrong way").

No matter how you strive to reframe it: we have a right to insist that those folks who are here are either citizens or otherwise admitted properly and permitted to remain here. Asking them such a question is far from improper. Calling for some kind of documentation to verify it is also not improper.

And your "let's get back to 'my' question concern is similarly unpersuasive. If all 50 states had the identical law as Arizona, that would entail ONLY calling upon our illustrious Federal Government to do something ABOUT the very thing the FEDERAL Law is created TO address. I will not pretend to be "sorry for the inconvenience" to the "Federal Government" when I call upon them to DO THEIR JOB.

I understand you "reject [my] premise". But my premise is not that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question is improper. My premise is that stopping someone because they LOOK like an alien (meaning they look hispanic) and demanding they identify their origin (whether that person is native born or an actual immigrant of whatever legal or illegal stripe) goes against everything we stand for. If you look hispanic, or speak with an accent, does that mean you should have to be subjected to a constant barrage of police action?

What if that action, instead of being directed at darker skiinned hispanics, was directed at big, burly, redheaded guys who might (or might not) be off the boat Irish? Does that change your paradigm?

As for geting back to my basic question. I have zero interest in yet another "i hate immigrants"/"you're a racist" back and forth rants. I wanted, and phrased my question specifically to get, an intelligent analysis from intelligent people about the actual reality left behind should the more onorous requirements of the AZ bill be allowed to stand. To that extent, I think the thread is largely successful, notwithstanding a few subliterate intellectual ciphers.

So whether you reject my premise or not, thanks for contributing to an interesting discussioin on the issue.

My premise is that stopping someone because they LOOK like an alien (meaning they look hispanic) and demanding they identify their origin (whether that person is native born or an actual immigrant of whatever legal or illegal stripe) goes against everything we stand for.

But that's not in the slightest little bit what the law addresses.

Again, it is only AFTER an otherwise lawful police encounter with an individual (such as a lawful traffic stop, etc) that the officer asks anybody (illegal alien, legal alien of citizen) "where are you from?" The question doesn't affect me even if I look like one of President Bush's brown skinned relatives. If I am here legally, the asking of the question is of no consequence.

It is only if I am here illegally that the asking of the question poses a problem for me.

And as to that "problem," I cannot pretend to have any particular sympathy for the person being questioned.

so in other words, the police can come search your house without a warrant because if you have nothing to hide, then it's ok

 

[Liability]

I understand you "reject [my] premise". But my premise is not that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question is improper. My premise is that stopping someone because they LOOK like an alien (meaning they look hispanic) and demanding they identify their origin (whether that person is native born or an actual immigrant of whatever legal or illegal stripe) goes against everything we stand for. If you look hispanic, or speak with an accent, does that mean you should have to be subjected to a constant barrage of police action?

What if that action, instead of being directed at darker skiinned hispanics, was directed at big, burly, redheaded guys who might (or might not) be off the boat Irish? Does that change your paradigm?

As for geting back to my basic question. I have zero interest in yet another "i hate immigrants"/"you're a racist" back and forth rants. I wanted, and phrased my question specifically to get, an intelligent analysis from intelligent people about the actual reality left behind should the more onorous requirements of the AZ bill be allowed to stand. To that extent, I think the thread is largely successful, notwithstanding a few subliterate intellectual ciphers.

So whether you reject my premise or not, thanks for contributing to an interesting discussioin on the issue.

My premise is that stopping someone because they LOOK like an alien (meaning they look hispanic) and demanding they identify their origin (whether that person is native born or an actual immigrant of whatever legal or illegal stripe) goes against everything we stand for.

But that's not in the slightest little bit what the law addresses.

Again, it is only AFTER an otherwise lawful police encounter with an individual (such as a lawful traffic stop, etc) that the officer asks anybody (illegal alien, legal alien of citizen) "where are you from?" The question doesn't affect me even if I look like one of President Bush's brown skinned relatives. If I am here legally, the asking of the question is of no consequence.

It is only if I am here illegally that the asking of the question poses a problem for me.

And as to that "problem," I cannot pretend to have any particular sympathy for the person being questioned.

so in other words, the police can come search your house without a warrant because if you have nothing to hide, then it's ok

No. And that is not even remotely akin to anything I just said, either. You can do better than that unsophisticated and kind of petulant petty "argument," jilly.

WTF?

What I said was that the police first have to have the lawful right to engage in the law enforcement interaction with the individual.

Under that scenario, they ARE properly permitted to make the inquiry. The ONLY ones who have any basis to object to such an innocuous question are the fuckers who ARE here illegally. If they ask me that question, I might say, "from my mommy." Or, I might say, "from the Empire State." Or, I might say, "why? do I look like Bin Laden?" Or, I might say, "we are all kind of 'out of Africa' so to speak." Or, I might say, "well, if you go back far enough, I understand we're all star dust."

An illegal Snowback from Toronto might have to admit that he is here illegally. And?

 

[Ravi]

That would be a shame, if it happened. Unfortunately for the Twitterheads, like you, that issue was specifically not raised by the administration during the arguments. The reason for that is pretty simple, if you think about it. The fact is that is precisely what ICE does when they are enforcing federal laws, so them complaining about Arizona doing it would be, at best,hypocritical.

ICE has the authority to ask anyone in this country to declare their citizenship at any point in time. Yes, that applies to you, even if you are in Salt Lake City and look like a Mormon. Why shouldn't police have the same authority, and how is giving it to them a violation of federal law?

Before anyone gets all upset about papers please, all US citizens have to do is declare their citizenship, and ICE will leave them alone, unless they have probable cause to detain them. In fact, anyone can simply refuse to answer the question, and walk away. In theory.

This is astounding reasoning from a guy that thinks TSA agents want to get into his pants.

Also, it is incorrect.

The ACLU and the Michigan Immigrants Rights Center have filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Luis Valdez and his mother Telma Valdez. Telma was born in Guatemala but is a legal, permanent U.S. resident. Her son Luis is a U.S. citizen.

The lawsuit alleges ICE agents illegally detained the two in February of last year when Valdez and his mother pulled up to a relative’s home in Grand Rapids for a visit. He says U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers approached them with their guns drawn.

It’s alleged the agents illegally detained and interrogated the two; even after they produced proof they are legal U.S. residents.

The suit alleges the agents assaulted Luis’ mother, once during the detainment and when the agent released them. She reportedly suffered minor injuries that required medical care.

“It’s pretty hard to watch that. It’s difficult not being able to do anything. I told them that I was a US citizen but it didn’t seem to have very much effect on them. They didn’t seem to care at all,” Luis Valdez said.

Eventually, the two were released from custody without being charged. The ACLU says the incident was a result of illegal racial profiling.

"It is clear that if this mother and son were not Latino, they would not have been handcuffed, assaulted and detained. Not only is this type of racial profiling illegal, but it is counterproductive and erodes community trust," said ACLU of Michigan staff attorney Miriam Aukerman.

Lawsuit alleges ICE agents illegally detained, assaulted Grand Rapids residents | Michigan Radio

I am the guy that will argue all day that cops abuse their power, is you posting a story about cops abusing their power supposed to make me defensive?

Tell me something, why did ICE approach them? Do you think it was because they looked Hispanic? Didn't I just argue that ICE does that all the time, which is why they did not try to use it against Arizona? Did I also not point out that ICE has the authority to ask anyone in this country to declare their citizenship?

Thanks for making my point for me though.

Well, gee....you said if ICE detains someone and the someone declares their citizenship, ICE will leave them alone. I showed you to be incorrect.

 

[Ravi]

I understand you "reject [my] premise". But my premise is not that requiring an illegal alien to answer a question is improper. My premise is that stopping someone because they LOOK like an alien (meaning they look hispanic) and demanding they identify their origin (whether that person is native born or an actual immigrant of whatever legal or illegal stripe) goes against everything we stand for. If you look hispanic, or speak with an accent, does that mean you should have to be subjected to a constant barrage of police action?

What if that action, instead of being directed at darker skiinned hispanics, was directed at big, burly, redheaded guys who might (or might not) be off the boat Irish? Does that change your paradigm?

As for geting back to my basic question. I have zero interest in yet another "i hate immigrants"/"you're a racist" back and forth rants. I wanted, and phrased my question specifically to get, an intelligent analysis from intelligent people about the actual reality left behind should the more onorous requirements of the AZ bill be allowed to stand. To that extent, I think the thread is largely successful, notwithstanding a few subliterate intellectual ciphers.

So whether you reject my premise or not, thanks for contributing to an interesting discussioin on the issue.

My premise is that stopping someone because they LOOK like an alien (meaning they look hispanic) and demanding they identify their origin (whether that person is native born or an actual immigrant of whatever legal or illegal stripe) goes against everything we stand for.

But that's not in the slightest little bit what the law addresses.

Again, it is only AFTER an otherwise lawful police encounter with an individual (such as a lawful traffic stop, etc) that the officer asks anybody (illegal alien, legal alien of citizen) "where are you from?" The question doesn't affect me even if I look like one of President Bush's brown skinned relatives. If I am here legally, the asking of the question is of no consequence.

It is only if I am here illegally that the asking of the question poses a problem for me.

And as to that "problem," I cannot pretend to have any particular sympathy for the person being questioned.

so in other words, the police can come search your house without a warrant because if you have nothing to hide, then it's ok

The Mercedes-Benz exec was here legally and yet somehow he had a problem.

And lol, so did this guy:

First to be arrested was a German director of the Mercedes-Benz factory in Tuscaloosa for failing to carry his driver’s license. Next came the detention of Honda manager Ichiro Yada at a checkpoint in Leeds, Ala,

Yada produced a passport, U.S. work permit, and international driver’s license, none of which satisfied Leed’s law officers . They wrote Yada a ticket and released him on a signature bond.

Police say Yada should have had in his possession either an Alabama license or one issued by Japan. The charges were dismissed only when Yada’s attorney faxed a copy of his Japanese driver’s license to the judge.

Business Blog » Alabama nabs foreign auto execs in immigration crackdowns