New Arizona law on immigration is stirring it up
-
bman618So riding a horse in colonial time was a privilege I guess too. In this era, we are a mobile society and I'd argue the right to mobility through transportation is not a privilege.
And I am 110 percent against DUI checkpoints. Being stopped at random by the government in my opinion is unconstitutional. Government, regardless of level, will always grab for more power. That's why we need an educated and informed people. -
FatHobbit
If you fail to meet whatever criteria the state sets they do take your drivers license and revoke that privilege.majorspark wrote:
So because you are sitting in a vehicle and transporting yourself under the good graces of the state and are driving through a certain area of town, it is ok for you to be stopped at random and observed for any signs of illegal activity? But if you are walking or riding a bike it would not?FatHobbit wrote: Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Also since it is a privilege granted to us by the state and we have no individual right as a law abiding citizen to provide and engage modern transportation, the state could at its discretion revoke the privilege for some citizens and have them rely on mass transit. I mean why not if the individual has no right transport himself about the state?
I wasn't trying argue for checkpoints. I think that's why they are legally allowed to do it. It seems now like you are arguing against why they can detain random people on the street and force them to prove that they are citizens. I'm a little confused.majorspark wrote:This right and privilege thing is just a way to separate the individual from some of his individual rights that do not descend from government into some priviledge that is granted by government. I mean how far can we go with this. Is it a privilage to own your own home? How about fishing or hunting? You need a license to do both. I am not against licencing by the state. Just saying the state granting you a license to engage in an activity lawfully, does not turn your right to engage in the activity into a privilege descending from the state.
The 9th amendment really spells this out quite well.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
In other words they chose to highlight a few of them in the bill of rights. A right not listed in the constitution by no means limits the abundant rights retained by the people to engage in lawfull activity in life and liberty to pursue happiness.
I bet there is someone here who can explain their formula better than I can, but I think it should be illegal for them to select a car full of young teen agers instead of grandma and grandpa just because of their age or race or the music they are listening to.majorspark wrote:
I read the governor of Arizona spoke of well defined process or formula to determine who to detain. Any formula is going to rely on statistics and probabilities. In other words a profile. Unless they were rigidly forced to stop every tenth car. Even if the 10th car was gradma and grandpa and the 9th was full of young punks. But something tells me that is not how it is set up.FatHobbit wrote: I'm not sure the questioning is at the officers discretion. I think they have a formula to determine which cars to stop. If they started stopping all the cars with drivers who looked Mexican (or black or muslim etc...) then they would be profiling and someone would complain.
As for stopping cars at checkpoint I would imagine they direct their attention toward young males. But since youg males tend not to complain about being profiled (unless they are non-white) this type of profiling is ok.
I agree. I think amnesty is a slap in the face to everyone who followed the law and waited their turn.Writerbuckeye wrote:
This.jmog wrote:
Bullcrap, so people break the law and we just give them a pass?BCSbunk wrote:
All Illegal immigrants should be given amnesty. The Arizona law is Hitler in action sorry for violating Godwins law.
I must call Hitler where it strikes and again the filthy right wing is Hitler they should be so proud of themselves.
My family came over from Scotland about 150 years ago, you know what? They came over through legal channels and became citizens the legal way, why is that such a hard thing to do/expect of the illegals?
I would be "ok" if every illegal was given some fine for doing illegal and then given the same option to become citizens as all immigrants are by going throught he proper channels/tests/etc.
However, just saying "well, we know you broke the US laws, but here's your free citizenship anyway because there are just too many of you to deal with".
The left wants to reward these criminals by giving them citizenship and all its perks without making them go through the same processes EVERY OTHER LEGAL IMMIGRANT HAS HAD TO GO THROUGH. -
Sykotyk
To drive on public roads (which we the people pay for, maintain, and regulate), you must be licensed and carry that certification with you at all times while driving. To be pulled over requires you show proof that you're legally licensed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.
So, getting pulled over in a car would require you to show your license to validate you being legally licensed to operate the vehicle you're currently driving.
As for checkpoints, I'm against them carte blanche. Already in the southern states when you drive near the border you're subjected to multiple border checkpoints. And to enter California requires you to pass an agricultural check point (aka, the fruit nazis).
As for this law, the problem is not the illegals being checked. It's the legal US citizens that will face discrimination because they 'look Mexican' that will be this law's downfall. Everyone can sit here and say how great the law is because they're white, black, asian, etc. They won't have to deal with the intrusive abuse of power that this law will be to those it targets.
Not everyone that 'fits the profile' will be an illegal. Some will be here legally with a visa, and some may be either U.S. born citizens or naturalized U.S. citzens.
The issue that the cop can stop you under no other suspicion than to DEMAND you PROVE your citizenship or right to be present here.
That's not a slippery slope. That's a cliff into the abyss when we allow this country to become a police state.
SykotykBenjamin Franklin wrote:They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -
FatHobbit
That is exactly what i was trying to say, but you said it much better.Sykotyk wrote: As for this law, the problem is not the illegals being checked. It's the legal US citizens that will face discrimination because they 'look Mexican' that will be this law's downfall. Everyone can sit here and say how great the law is because they're white, black, asian, etc. They won't have to deal with the intrusive abuse of power that this law will be to those it targets.
Not everyone that 'fits the profile' will be an illegal. Some will be here legally with a visa, and some may be either U.S. born citizens or naturalized U.S. citzens.
The issue that the cop can stop you under no other suspicion than to DEMAND you PROVE your citizenship or right to be present here.
That's not a slippery slope. That's a cliff into the abyss when we allow this country to become a police state. -
BCBulldog
I see two major concerns regarding this issue.
1. The new law will be used to racially profile hispanics regardless of their actual citizenship. There is no feasible way to enforce this law without it occurring.
2. The people of Arizona are so concerned with illegal immigration and border security that they are willing to not only pay for the incarceration of illegals, but also give up their rights to privacy and illegal search.
Both points bring me to the conclusion that the Federal government is not doing their job in protecting our borders. Everybody knows that illegal immigration is an issue that needs dealt with, but nobody can come up with a viable solution. We have spent nearly two trillion dollars on bailouts and will spend at least another one trillion on health care, but we can't find the money to truly secure our borders?! BS! -
majorspark
To answer your confusion as to my opinion iin your post above. I agree with Sykotyk's assessment. I was just pointing out that we allow these types law enforcement tactics in other areas. I just chose the checkpoints because it is what popped into my head and it seem that their is little outrage over them as compared to this immigration law.FatHobbit wrote:
That is exactly what i was trying to say, but you said it much better.Sykotyk wrote: As for this law, the problem is not the illegals being checked. It's the legal US citizens that will face discrimination because they 'look Mexican' that will be this law's downfall. Everyone can sit here and say how great the law is because they're white, black, asian, etc. They won't have to deal with the intrusive abuse of power that this law will be to those it targets.
Not everyone that 'fits the profile' will be an illegal. Some will be here legally with a visa, and some may be either U.S. born citizens or naturalized U.S. citzens.
The issue that the cop can stop you under no other suspicion than to DEMAND you PROVE your citizenship or right to be present here.
That's not a slippery slope. That's a cliff into the abyss when we allow this country to become a police state. -
I Wear Pants
To pull you over they must have a reason though. They can't just pull you over because they don't like Chevys or Fords or Toyotas. You have to be speeding or driving erratically or have a light out or now be on your cellphone or be texting. They can't pull you over for nothing.Sykotyk wrote: To drive on public roads (which we the people pay for, maintain, and regulate), you must be licensed and carry that certification with you at all times while driving. To be pulled over requires you show proof that you're legally licensed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.
So, getting pulled over in a car would require you to show your license to validate you being legally licensed to operate the vehicle you're currently driving.
As for checkpoints, I'm against them carte blanche. Already in the southern states when you drive near the border you're subjected to multiple border checkpoints. And to enter California requires you to pass an agricultural check point (aka, the fruit nazis).
As for this law, the problem is not the illegals being checked. It's the legal US citizens that will face discrimination because they 'look Mexican' that will be this law's downfall. Everyone can sit here and say how great the law is because they're white, black, asian, etc. They won't have to deal with the intrusive abuse of power that this law will be to those it targets.
Not everyone that 'fits the profile' will be an illegal. Some will be here legally with a visa, and some may be either U.S. born citizens or naturalized U.S. citzens.
The issue that the cop can stop you under no other suspicion than to DEMAND you PROVE your citizenship or right to be present here.
That's not a slippery slope. That's a cliff into the abyss when we allow this country to become a police state.
SykotykBenjamin Franklin wrote:They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
When they do pull you over they can ask for you license and ticket you if there was an infraction. They cannot search your car or make you get out of your vehicle without your consent or a warrant. Probable cause counts as a warrant in this situation if I understand the law correctly (your car smells like weed, they see a pound of coke in your backseat, you smell like booze, etc). -
Writerbuckeye
^^while true the law says they have to have a reason to pull you over, it's a VERY subjective standard.
I was pulled over coming home late one night in a driving rainstorm. The highway patrolman followed me for 10 miles and, just as I got to the city limits, he put the light on. He didn't want me to get away.
So it took him 10 miles in a driving rainstorm to decide that I had driven erratically enough to be pulled over. Uh huh. Sure it did.
This guy was looking for a DUI bust and he saw a young male out late at night, likely coming back from a bar (I was) and he was going to find a way to stop me to see if he could then get probable cause to take it a step further.
I disappointed him by not smelling of alcohol and denying I'd had anything to drink that evening (I'd had one drink 4 hours earlier but wasn't going to admit it, because he'd have had me.) With nothing else as cause, he let me go with a warning.
I despise the idea that the authorities might be able to abuse the law just as much as anyone here, but I completely understand (and support) Arizona's efforts to do something. The feds have screwed the pooch on this issue, and this administration is just as bad as the last because my understanding is they pulled the plug on the fence that was at least being built (virtual or otherwise). -
I Wear PantsHow much damn money would it take to build and watch a fence? And oh how far we've come from the nation of immigrants that builds itself up.
-
majorspark
Good post. In a previous post on this thread I mentioned a poll that 70% of Arizonans are in favor of this bill. I then made a sarcastic statement about them being racist bastards. The vast majority of those Arizonans who are in favor of this bill are not motivated by race. The just want to be safe and secure. As you said the are ready to give up some of their individual rights in order to be secure.BCBulldog wrote: I see two major concerns regarding this issue.
1. The new law will be used to racially profile hispanics regardless of their actual citizenship. There is no feasible way to enforce this law without it occurring.
2. The people of Arizona are so concerned with illegal immigration and border security that they are willing to not only pay for the incarceration of illegals, but also give up their rights to privacy and illegal search.
Both points bring me to the conclusion that the Federal government is not doing their job in protecting our borders. Everybody knows that illegal immigration is an issue that needs dealt with, but nobody can come up with a viable solution. We have spent nearly two trillion dollars on bailouts and will spend at least another one trillion on health care, but we can't find the money to truly secure our borders?! BS!
The feds have failed to secure the border. Arizona had to act. The way to handle this is to dry up the incentive to come here by illegal means.
These are some things Arizona could have done:
They could double down on anyone receiving a service or benefit from the state by having all provide proof of legal residence of the state of Arizona. Whether they have or not in the past clean the system out.
If an individual is arrested for any violation of Arizona state law they must provide proof that they are legally in the state.
Crack down on employers who employ illegals. If necessary require an employment ID to work in the state. -
Sykotyk
The situation i mentioned when getting pulled over was that WHEN you're pulled over for a valid suspicion, you must present your license, rather than just giving name (as per Supreme Court's opinion) since you are operating a motor vehicle and the law requires you always to carry your proof of licensing to operate it.
As for the law, I don't disagree with Arizona's need to do something about it, but they've jumped the shark and will actually set back the immigration debate by making it an us-vs-them problem.
We all came here in some way via immigration. it's rather hypocritical for us to deny other immigrants what we managed to already have attained (either directly or indirectly from our ancestors).
The issue when 'white people' came to this country, the only requirement was that you give your name, where you came from and why you're coming here, and they gave you the paperwork to show you were now a citizen at Ellis Island. Now, we've limited how many can come here. Well, the demand of being here far outweighs the numbers of open spots allowed.
My, how easily our attitudes change.The New Colossus
By Emma Lazarus, 1883
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Every American should be proud that others still want to come here by any means necessary.
Sykotyk -
Glory Days
yeah, things change in 100+ years. there is not an infinite amount of land, jobs, and homes etc.Sykotyk wrote:
My, how easily our attitudes change.The New Colossus
By Emma Lazarus, 1883
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Every American should be proud that others still want to come here by any means necessary.
Sykotyk -
Sykotyk
Land, yes.
Jobs follow people. Where there are people, there are jobs, it's the nature of the beast. Homes get built by the people because of the jobs they have. America didn't have 'jobs' sitting vacant for decades waiting for more people to show up. That's a rather foolish assertion.
Then, as long as there are people working, they will buy housing or pay for housing. For as great as you may think the welfare state is, storing poor people lego-style is rather efficient use of land and money from those participating in the system.
Our biggest problem is a loss of jobs in the manufacturing/production sector as those produced the most 'wealth' with the least amount of initial costs (factories, mills, refineries, etc).
Sykotyk -
I Wear PantsSince when did factories, mills, refineries, and other manufacturing have anything but incredibly high start up costs?
-
Ghmothwdwhso
Read the Bill.cbus4life wrote: I don't know what to make of it.
To be completely honest, i don't know how racial profiling won't happen as a result of this bill. And that is not good, last i checked. No reason a completely legal United States citizen should be stopped on the street and hassled about their citizenship status simply because of the color of their skin.
I hope it will turn out well, just don't know if it is possible...
I mean, what "information" do the police need to suspect that they are illegal immigrants, and question them? -
IggyPride00
I saw this post at a liberal blog site and it had me laughing because they are so enraged by this bill right now their heads are spinning. Linking some of the bigger atrocities this world has known (Slavery and Nazi Germany) to a bill trying to deal with an immigration problem the federal govt is failing to acknowledge exists seems like a major stretch to me.In pre-Civil War America, free blacks carried their papers with them. In many instances, those papers were the only guarantor of their freedom; the only thing that kept them safe from the slave catchers who would capture them, bind them, and sell them back into captivity. Those papers were the line between freedom and captivity.
In pre-World War II Germany, the Gestapo would stop German citizens on the street, demanding to see papers, papers proving they were Aryan, or an identification card that labeled them as Jews.
And in America, in Arizona, in 2010, the powers that be are once again demanding to see your papers.
In modern American history, it is unprecedented: The magnitude of this governmental intrusion into the lives of American citizens; the magnitude of this disruption of freedom; the magnitude of this unchecked expansion of police powers.
If the notion of an individual mandate sent a few thousands Teabaggers into the streets, screaming in protest, then Arizona's SB 1070 should cause them to erupt into a chorus of "I want my country back!" But from the Teabaggers, we have heard nothing.
On the other hand, I do find it interesting that the many of this country's newly born "get the govt out of my business" civil libertarians aren't enraged at institutionalizing the ability of government (in Arizona) to legally hassle anyone it wants merely on the suspicion of being an illegal. That seems like a power that could be very easily abused. -
dwccrew
It would take less than we are currently spending foolishly.I Wear Pants wrote: How much damn money would it take to build and watch a fence? And oh how far we've come from the nation of immigrants that builds itself up.
We are a nation of immigrants. Those immigrants built this nation up. Many of the ILLEGAL ones now are tearing it down. You insult our ancestors and predecessors that came to this country legally and were productive members of society when you compare them to illegal immigrants that are a drain on our nation and economy. -
I Wear PantsYou realize that the "real Americans" back then were using the same arguments that people are today? "They're lazy/unwashed/dirty/diseased/criminal scum/taking our jobs.". Literally the same arguments have been used against immigration since the country got off it's feet. I doubt many Mexicans are crawling through the desert, hoping fences, and wading rivers to get into the country simply to sit on their asses and do nothing.
-
majorspark
True, but many of those in the past you refer to entered legally. No matter what ones motivation we have to have order. We have laws, we consider some stupid but we still obey them. We should expect the same obedience to reasonable laws of those who want to integrate into our society.I Wear Pants wrote: You realize that the "real Americans" back then were using the same arguments that people are today? "They're lazy/unwashed/dirty/diseased/criminal scum/taking our jobs.". Literally the same arguments have been used against immigration since the country got off it's feet. I doubt many Mexicans are crawling through the desert, hoping fences, and wading rivers to get into the country simply to sit on their asses and do nothing. -
I Wear Pants
I disagree. I don't wear a seat belt because it's the law, nor do I stop at stop signs and lights because it's the law. I do it because it makes sense.majorspark wrote:
True, but many of those in the past you refer to entered legally. No matter what ones motivation we have to have order. We have laws, we consider some stupid but we still obey them. We should expect the same obedience to reasonable laws of those who want to integrate into our society.I Wear Pants wrote: You realize that the "real Americans" back then were using the same arguments that people are today? "They're lazy/unwashed/dirty/diseased/criminal scum/taking our jobs.". Literally the same arguments have been used against immigration since the country got off it's feet. I doubt many Mexicans are crawling through the desert, hoping fences, and wading rivers to get into the country simply to sit on their asses and do nothing.
Obeying laws because they are the law makes you a sheep. You should obey laws because you think they make sense. That's not to say you should automatically break every law that you disagree with but if the only reason you aren't doing something is that it's illegal then -
majorspark
Here is a link to the Arizona law. Judge for yourself.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Article 8 section B
To me it depends on the phrase "lawful contact". What is the definition of lawful contact? If it is contact based on violation of any Arizona state law, I would find no problem with this law. Just like someone stopped for speeding could be reasonably charged with a secondary offense of DUI.20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
I would not depend on the media on this. If some of you lawyers on here have time to read through this perhaps you could give a better perspective. I would define "lawful contact" as probable cause one is violating state law. But that could also be construed as vague definition. But this could be applied to any contact between law enforcement and any individual for any reasonable violation of state law and any other secondary offense that may become of the contact. -
FootwedgeInstead of the US military patrolling the Afgan/Pakestan border, bring them home and make our southern border air tight. The constitution said that the military is for protection purposes. Well then. how about using the military as it was intended.
The situation in Arizona is far worse than is being reported in the media. The Mexican drug cartels have infiltrated the state, and extortion crimes on Americans are skyrocketing. -
FootwedgeAn excellent article from Justin Raimondo who discusses the situation from a libertarian perspective.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/04/27/south-of-the-border/ -
believer
NAW...That'd make too much sense. We can't can't have our military leaders accused of racial profiling when they attempt to stop Pancho, Jose & Co. from illegally crossing the border.Footwedge wrote: Instead of the US military patrolling the Afgan/Pakestan border, bring them home and make our southern border air tight. The constitution said that the military is for protection purposes. Well then. how about using the military as it was intended.
The situation in Arizona is far worse than is being reported in the media. The Mexican drug cartels have infiltrated the state, and extortion crimes on Americans are skyrocketing. -
FatHobbit
It would only be racial profiling if they only stopped people who 'looked mexican'.believer wrote:
NAW...That'd make too much sense. We can't can't have our military leaders accused of racial profiling when they attempt to stop Pancho, Jose & Co. from illegally crossing the border.Footwedge wrote: Instead of the US military patrolling the Afgan/Pakestan border, bring them home and make our southern border air tight. The constitution said that the military is for protection purposes. Well then. how about using the military as it was intended.
The situation in Arizona is far worse than is being reported in the media. The Mexican drug cartels have infiltrated the state, and extortion crimes on Americans are skyrocketing.