Arizona Immigration Law: Examining the Debate

[IcedEcliptic]

Maybe though if we make it harder, uphold our current laws, and have a president that doesn't appologize for us, maybe then it will die down a bit. Besides if they have a harder time getting across, and I hate to say this, they happen to die (smugglers I mean not people coming here for work) then it's called weeding out the herd. Sorry if that sounds cold, but you don't live here do you? See it everyday like I do.

I live "here" now, and am a naturalized citizen, but you are right that I am not from the same continent. I have seen this thing in other countries however, it is not so dissimilar. I do not know that your president apologizes for you, and he is very popular around the world, compared to the last one who was fairly despised. I grant that popularity is not a measure of success or doing the right thing, but I don't see how "thinning the herd" leads to anything but a stronger herd! That's the point of the practice, yes? My point is in line with this, that any people who still make the passage will be the hard-cases.

 

[Meghan222]

I live "here" now, and am a naturalized citizen, but you are right that I am not from the same continent. I have seen this thing in other countries however, it is not so dissimilar. I do not know that your president apologizes for you, and he is very popular around the world, compared to the last one who was fairly despised. I grant that popularity is not a measure of success or doing the right thing, but I don't see how "thinning the herd" leads to anything but a stronger herd! That's the point of the practice, yes? My point is in line with this, that any people who still make the passage will be the hard-cases.

You misunderstood me on two counts. First I meant weeding out the herd of smugglers. And even with a bigger herd, they would still be weeded out. Furthermore a bigger herd is easier to spot. And on the second point is that here was in reference to Arizona. I live HERE. Where the bill is currently an issue. And HERE is a huge issue with crime. And hate bush all you want but the fact of the matter is that he kept us a heck of a lot safer after 9-11. Look how many attacks have happened since Obama. Fort Hood, time square ect ect.

 

[BobG]

Evangelical white, male heterosexual Christians are very loud, like Islamic fundamentalists or any other fundamentalist group. They have political power, and they have painted that description with a broad brush. This is what happens when a group enjoys special treatment compared to others for centuries, and that structure begins to collapse. It is life, but it's also wrong to hate such people. Fear them perhaps, for their mindless conviction that they are right, and the rest of us are bound for hell, but not hate.

Oh yes, what is it about these evangelical pastors that they keep turning out to be gay, closeted, and hateful themselves? The Daily Show last night was hilarious with that "Family Research Council" man with a "renboy". I laughed so hard I had tears coming out of my eyes. If you are gay, be gay, don't hate yourself and others for you cannot handle this.

Fundamentalists have a mindless conviction that the rest of us are bound for hell, but at least they don't interfere in our progress.

Evangelicals range from very conservative (perhaps just a step this side of fundamentalist) to moderate, since they are very intent on finding a way to interact with the rest of the populace, which is the only way a religion can win converts.

The compromises Evangelicals made a century ago in splitting with fundamentalists have been successful in growing their religion and in accumulating political power - but the political power part has really only built up steam since the 50's (the Billy Graham era and his successors). Granted, that's our entire lives for most of us, but it's not centuries.

Or maybe that's splitting hairs since other religious groups at various times have at least been influential enough to add a little momentum to a cause even if not powerful enough to drive a cause. Baptists supporting separation of church and state (except their version was to eliminate preferential treatment for a specific religion; not to abolish Christian influence on government); religious groups providing a lot of fire to both the abolitionist movement and to the prohibitionist movement; etc.

A large majority of Evangelicals are social conservatives, to the point it would be fair to say the religion has an anti-gay bent to it.

All of the preceding points are fair criticisms in another thread, but have little to do with anti-Hispanic sentiment or racism in general, and Evangelicism is not racist by ideology (although geographic correlations of racism probably cut just as strongly through Evangelical churches as the rest of the region their congregations happen to be in (i.e. - an Evangelical church in a region with little racism would be much more likely to speak out against racism than a church in a region with a lot of racism).

All in all, your post looks like a random shot against religion just for the heck of it.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Fundamentalists have a mindless conviction that the rest of us are bound for hell, but at least they don't interfere in our progress.
<snip>

I'm going to stop you right there, because the first glaring issue is: fetal stem cell research. Explain to me again how they don't interfere in our progress.

 

[Char. Limit]

You misunderstood me on two counts. First I meant weeding out the herd of smugglers. And even with a bigger herd, they would still be weeded out. Furthermore a bigger herd is easier to spot. And on the second point is that here was in reference to Arizona. I live HERE. Where the bill is currently an issue. And HERE is a huge issue with crime. And hate bush all you want but the fact of the matter is that he kept us a heck of a lot safer after 9-11. Look how many attacks have happened since Obama. Fort Hood, time square ect ect.

I don't hate Bush, even though I disagree with some of his policies. I don't know the man personally, so I can't really hate him. You, however, seem to hate Obama. Why don't you tell us the truth... You disagree with his policy, rather than hating him for things beyond his control, like domestic terrorist attacks?

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I don't hate Bush, even though I disagree with some of his policies. I don't know the man personally, so I can't really hate him. You, however, seem to hate Obama. Why don't you tell us the truth... You disagree with his policy, rather than hating him for things beyond his control, like domestic terrorist attacks?

I was afraid of Bush, but didn't hate him. I think I hated Dick Cheney and Karl Rove however. I don't really love or hate politicians, they are more alike than not.

 

[BobG]

Why do you associate immigrant with drunk driver...that sound like prejudice!

No one associates immigrants with drunk drivers.

They associate random stops of innocent people with sobriety check points - one instance where random stops of innocent people justified by apprehending a guilty few managed to hold up in the USSC. It's the innocent people stopped that have the similarity - not the guilty, since the guilty have committed different crimes from each other.

(As also mentioned, it's an imperfect comparison since in the overwhelming majority of the stops, the "approved" stops didn't even include checking the driver license or registration, let alone testing random drivers for sobriety.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Depends on the state. And most states if you are violating any laws they can ask you for identification. And that was my point, you have to be breaking a law. I don't know about you but I was taught that I should have it no matter what anyway. Kind of a just in case senerio.

It does not depend on the state. According to the US Supreme Court you are not required to present ID to an officer unless they have "probable cause". The law we are discussing here specifically seeks to reduce the requirement on officers, in the case of checking citizenship, to "reasonable suspicion" which according to the USSC does not allow for a requirement to produce ID. As far as the constitution is concerned if an officer wishes to check your citizenship status (investigate your "papers") they must have "probable cause".

The issue here is not protecting illegal immigrants it is criticism of a blatantly unconstitutional law. How do you feel about the reduction of constitutional protections? What would you think of a law that requires you to present proof of having health insurance to authorized persons who will report you for investigation to the IRS if you fail to do so?

 

[cronxeh]

What would you think of a law that requires you to present proof of having health insurance to authorized persons who will report you for investigation to the IRS if you fail to do so?

Funny you mentioned that. I believe with the new health care legislation, this task might be up to Department of Health and Human Services law enforcement branch. These guys are feds with guns and have broad powers of enforcement

 

[CRGreathouse]

Funny you mentioned that. I believe with the new health care legislation, this task might be up to Department of Health and Human Services law enforcement branch. These guys are feds with guns and have broad powers of enforcement

If you have an opportunity at some point to give a citation, feel free -- I'd like to read up on this.

 

[mheslep]

40-50 yards wide, two trenches, a road, fencing, all monitored, for 600+ miles to protect you from the scaaaary Mexicans?

That's a fairly smug insult to the people on the border having to deal with the problem. Obviously that doesn't concern you.

What a waste of money and resources, and a clever way to rapidly teach them how to build better tunnels, as in Korea and Israel.

One million people per year won't go through rat hole tunnels.

 

[Meghan222]

I don't hate Bush, even though I disagree with some of his policies. I don't know the man personally, so I can't really hate him. You, however, seem to hate Obama. Why don't you tell us the truth... You disagree with his policy, rather than hating him for things beyond his control, like domestic terrorist attacks?

No you are right, I HATE Obama, it has nothing to do with his color, although that will be the conclusion a lot will jump to. I hate him for two reasons, being a liar with no consiquences, and being an arrogant man who thinks he is God. And he does. In fact, when we were both, Obama and I, living in Chicago, he made a joke, much like his "I wasn't born in a manger" crap. His joke was that he was Jesus here to save the world. He grew in popularity after that. He maintains it was a joke, but 90% of all jokes are based on some fact. He knows we know he's not God, but he thinks he is. And yes to top it off I HATE his policy. This is a fantasic country. Better than any other nation ever. He wants a dictatorship, with the illusion of demacracy. But we were given a republic. "What have you given us sir." A man to Benjamin Franklin. "A republic, if you can keep it." He replied. I want my country back! And furthermore, he does have some control over domestic terrorism. If he would stop appoligizing for us, and start inforcing our current laws, instead of knocking down leaders who deserve repect, I.E. officers, military ect ect. Then maybe there would be less attacks. You may not like bush but he kept us safe. I am so sick of talking to people who are ignorant on both sides. They know one side of each arguement, so they can argue their side, but they don't investigate their own. Why is that? Ignorance is bliss? I didn't agree with Bush 100% of the time, but by comparrison, Bush was the best ever, in comparison to Obama. Wanna argue with that, look at the facts.

 

[Meghan222]

It does not depend on the state. According to the US Supreme Court you are not required to present ID to an officer unless they have "probable cause". The law we are discussing here specifically seeks to reduce the requirement on officers, in the case of checking citizenship, to "reasonable suspicion" which according to the USSC does not allow for a requirement to produce ID. As far as the constitution is concerned if an officer wishes to check your citizenship status (investigate your "papers") they must have "probable cause".

The issue here is not protecting illegal immigrants it is criticism of a blatantly unconstitutional law. How do you feel about the reduction of constitutional protections? What would you think of a law that requires you to present proof of having health insurance to authorized persons who will report you for investigation to the IRS if you fail to do so?

Um taking that out of context. Yeah I also said that IF PULLED OVER OR OTHERWISE DETAINED! That would constitute probable cause!

 

[Meghan222]

It does not depend on the state. According to the US Supreme Court you are not required to present ID to an officer unless they have "probable cause". The law we are discussing here specifically seeks to reduce the requirement on officers, in the case of checking citizenship, to "reasonable suspicion" which according to the USSC does not allow for a requirement to produce ID. As far as the constitution is concerned if an officer wishes to check your citizenship status (investigate your "papers") they must have "probable cause".

The issue here is not protecting illegal immigrants it is criticism of a blatantly unconstitutional law. How do you feel about the reduction of constitutional protections? What would you think of a law that requires you to present proof of having health insurance to authorized persons who will report you for investigation to the IRS if you fail to do so?

Oh and one more thing, um I live in Arizona, I ACTUALLY read the bill thank you, and you have to be detained for SOME VIOLATION OF THE LAW! So they were already breaking the law in some form. Furthermore if I had to carry around any paperwork, which eventually you will have to carry around proof of health insurance, THANK YOU OBAMA, I would rather do so, to prove I am a legal citizen. How many legals do you know? And how many illegals? I know quite a few on both, and frankly legals want this, Arizona wants this, and illegals know they have to take responsiblity. If you are driving without insurance on your car, do you speed?? No, you are careful not to break laws so you aren't in trouble. I have no qualms against illegals, but they are illegal. Meaning they broke a law. I think we need to put them at the back of the line of citizenship if they are here "for work" and then if they have broken any laws other than coming here, they get deported. Or imprisoned. Which ever.

 

[Meghan222]

I'm going to stop you right there, because the first glaring issue is: fetal stem cell research. Explain to me again how they don't interfere in our progress.

And on stem cell research, you know for a guy that will argue with everyone, and thus far it looks like you do, you are certainly not very versed in the things you claim to know. You watch a lot of msnbc do you? Cause it certainly seems that way. They are not against stem cell research. They are against the way it is done. Right now it is done by creating beings, or aborted babies, then using them for research. However did you know that they can use imbilical cords, and it has much more than either a dead baby or a dead being would ever produce. Here's a thought, if you have ever had a kid you know they offer to hold a portion of the imbilical cord so if your child gets sick or something they can reproduce the cells to help the child get better. But it's like $5000 or something like that to do. Why did no one else think of this, how about we (as a country) offer to hold portions of it for free in exchange for using the rest for research. I can't see any objections to that. And no one dies for it. It's funny the argument is that stem cell research saves lives, but no one says, by taking them.

 

[BobG]

I got a real kick out of the Congressional candidate who rode an elephant across the Rio Grande, followed by a mariachi band.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diwJHN9gUrY

The only official concern was that the elephant might have ticks. :rofl:

If Bhakta's political career falls through, I think we've finally found the replacement for Geraldo Rivera. Chasing the illegal immigrant brings back memories of Geraldo trying to conduct an interview with a judge's "hitman" while chasing him through the streets of Akron, OH. :rofl:

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Oh and one more thing, um I live in Arizona, I ACTUALLY read the bill thank you, and you have to be detained for SOME VIOLATION OF THE LAW! So they were already breaking the law in some form.

I read the bill too, and I do not even live there.

a) You are wrong, the bill S.B.1070 did not state that you had to be detained or arrested. Just a few posts back I linked you an article that showed the language of the law was clarified in a follow-on bill (ie a bill separate and following after the original) for that exact reason.

b) Detained does not mean you broke the law. Detained means that the officer has some "reasonable suspicion" that you may have broken the law. "Reasonable suspicion" is less than "probable cause". Now, pay attention this time please, the law specifically states that it allows officers to check citizenship status based on "reasonable suspicion". As I stated in the post which you were here responding to, this law is specifically attempting to loosen the restrictions on officers from requiring "probable cause" (which is required according to the highest court of this "best nation ever") to only requiring "reasonable suspicion", which according to the highest court in the bestest nation ever would be illegal.

Just in case now, here is a copy of the original bill..
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Here is the article I already cited for you about the follow-on...
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Governor-signs-several-changes-to-Arizona/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx

And here is a short overview of court decisions regarding "reasonable suspicion" which I already cited earlier on in this thread...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/

 

[IcedEcliptic]

If you have an opportunity at some point to give a citation, feel free -- I'd like to read up on this.

He has not cited his previous series of statements, so I do not expect he will these.

That's a fairly smug insult to the people on the border having to deal with the problem. Obviously that doesn't concern you.

One million people per year won't go through rat hole tunnels.

I thought the smug insult would be building a fence over the entire southern border.

 

[BobG]

40-50 yards wide, two trenches, a road, fencing, all monitored, for 600+ miles to protect you from the scaaaary Mexicans? What a waste of money and resources, and a clever way to rapidly teach them how to build better tunnels, as in Korea and Israel.

That's a fairly smug insult to the people on the border having to deal with the problem. Obviously that doesn't concern you.

One million people per year won't go through rat hole tunnels.

A solution that reduces the flow is reasonable.

Additionally, is building a fence really more expensive than other options? A fence would cost $4 - 8 billion dollars, according to Michael Chertoff a few years ago. The Social Security Administration cracking down on fake Social Security Numbers would cost about $7 billion dollars a year.

Of course, if the fence were successful, "extra" income to the SSA would slow it's increases and possibly even decline if combined to apprehend illegal immigrants currently in the country. It would still have less impact than a cold turkey withdrawal from Social Security taxes paid to bogus SSNs.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

A solution that reduces the flow is reasonable.

Additionally, is building a fence really more expensive than other options? A fence would cost $4 - 8 billion dollars, according to Michael Chertoff a few years ago. The Social Security Administration cracking down on fake Social Security Numbers would cost about $7 billion dollars a year.

Of course, if the fence were successful, "extra" income to the SSA would slow it's increases and possibly even decline if combined to apprehend illegal immigrants currently in the country. It would still have less impact than a cold turkey withdrawal from Social Security taxes paid to bogus SSNs.

Cracking down on employers, once again, seems the cheapest and most effective method. One must check SSN's for many reasons, so that cost cannot be made to disappear, even if not a single person crosses that border. Given that SS is a doomed slush-fund anyway, I am not moved by the argument. I should add that the fence would require constant checking, patrols, and maintenance, repair, along with increased tunneling. This would slow the flow, as you say, but the cost of building the fence would be the beginning.

 

[cristo]

Locked, pending moderation.

 

[Josh111]

Arizona Law - What makes one removable from the US?

I have read this "controversial law" and have trouble finding any racist language in it. However, there is one thing I wondered about, Article 8 section E:

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

If it is already a offense to be in the US illegally. what is a offense that makes one removable from the US?

Also don't police already have the right to arrest someone who is a citizen of this country as a suspect? (The " PROBABLE CAUSE" SECTION ABOVE)