• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

Lets say that you were a small business man in Sonora, Mexico making, lets say widgits. Your customer base is in AZ. AZ then passes this law. … As the small business man, do you care? Probably not. …
Is it enough to tell a widgit customer that you are no longer going to do business with him? Are you going to turn down work in this poor economy? …

You have described a business man who has no choice; he has to do business in Arizona. Is his behavior altered even if the legislation is profoundly offensive to him? Probably not, at least not right away.

But the business man who has a choice, does he pick Arizona or a different state? Arizona just gave him a reason to look elsewhere.

That's the problem when Arizona passes a law offensive to a whole class of people. They will change their behavior, even go out of their way because they are like everybody else, they don't like to be insulted.

And, people who want to do business with those people would do well by showing their support for their feelings, too.

We shall see just how much people alter their choices. My sense Arizona's economic recovery will be slowed; people will choose a different location to visit or invest.
 
70% of people in Arizona support this law, and according to what I just heard on the radio, it has resulted in a 15 point surge in the governors approval rating.

So let me fix your post for you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hazlnut
Given the huge negative blowback and liberal outcry, I'm beginning to question my own acceptance of the bill.

Maybe I'm not understanding how it's going to be utilized by local law enforcement.

Or maybe liberals are not understand the severity of the problem in terms of a drain on public services/funds.

I still think a more effective and less controversial approach would be harsher legislation focused on employers using undocumented workers. Make the fines steep and enforce the law. This would also bring more money into the state in the form of payroll taxes.

There... That's better.



Nicely done.
 
"That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "

Yes I'm aware that some guy says that, but what is he basing that on?
 
Yes I'm aware that some guy says that, but what is he basing that on?

Originally Posted by cholla
"That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "

Some guy is one of those who helped write the bill. His meaning (given above)is the one closest to the truth of what the bill is intended to mean.
 
You have described a business man who has no choice; he has to do business in Arizona. Is his behavior altered even if the legislation is profoundly offensive to him? Probably not, at least not right away.

But the business man who has a choice, does he pick Arizona or a different state? Arizona just gave him a reason to look elsewhere.

That's the problem when Arizona passes a law offensive to a whole class of people. They will change their behavior, even go out of their way because they are like everybody else, they don't like to be insulted.

And, people who want to do business with those people would do well by showing their support for their feelings, too.

We shall see just how much people alter their choices. My sense Arizona's economic recovery will be slowed; people will choose a different location to visit or invest.

Arizona's economy is already bad....and the only offensive intent of this law is against law breakers...
IF we can get the illegals out, businesses will have to hire American citizens as the economy improves, and employing law abiding citizens will certainly aid the process.
 

Excellent link, thanks.

Here is the parts of that article that I believe are most relevant to this discussion:

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

Even though this article puts an end to the excuses from the left, something tells me they will invent something else to bitch about.
 
Excellent link, thanks.

Here is the parts of that article that I believe are most relevant to this discussion:

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

Even though this article puts an end to the excuses from the left, something tells me they will invent something else to bitch about.

They'll just dismiss the evidence based off of their "feelings" on the subject.
 
The only reason that people like you don't want to see that happen is because you are racists who want to see law abiding Hispanic citizens being harassed and having their 14th amendment rights trampled upon.

Ugh Doh.
Doh flipped the Race Card.

B O R I N G and unfounded.

Go back to my link, listen to the first 15 minutes.
If there is harassment, then the officer is subject to a court proceeding.

Now, I have no doubt the illegals will use the courts as the Terrorists uses our media... like a bunch of whores.

Now. White people are asked what they're up to if seen loitering. Why not everyone? If illegals are known to loiter in a certain area, then why can't the cops go there and the ILLEGALS, and send their asses back to where they came from?

They are ILLEGAL. Not LEGAL. Overstayed their permitted visiting time. Are not allowed to be here... or their kids.

Go home and build your own America.

We cannot support all of you.

We can and will support freedom. (Our presidents used to too; perhaps the next one).

.
 
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."


Yeah, saw that already. But it's one thing for this guy to declare that's what it means, it's another for it to be legally defined this way. It's not in this law. Maybe it is in other Arizona law, or maybe by the legal system in general, but we still don't know for sure.

I think it probably is, but this doesn't prove it.
 
They'll just dismiss the evidence based off of their "feelings" on the subject.

Nothing like a pre-emptive strawman. And it's "based on" not "based off of."
 
Excellent link, thanks.

Here is the parts of that article that I believe are most relevant to this discussion:


Even though this article puts an end to the excuses from the left, something tells me they will invent something else to bitch about.

Well if you'd been reading the thread you would see that what we've been discussing is where the phrase "lawful conduct" is defined, legally speaking. I know that law professor says something about it, but what is he basing that statement on?

The other problem I have with the bill is the fact that there are circumstances in which I can be detained by the police for the sole "crime" of not having my birth certificate on me. We're literally just one vague term away from "Papers, please."
 
Originally Posted by cholla
"That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "

Some guy is one of those who helped write the bill. His meaning (given above)is the one closest to the truth of what the bill is intended to mean.

That's quite a leap you're making. "Lawful contact" is not defined in this immigration bill, so unless there's a definition for it elsewhere it's quite simply up to individual interpretation.
 
Originally Posted by cholla
"That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "

Some guy is one of those who helped write the bill. His meaning (given above)is the one closest to the truth of what the bill is intended to mean.

Something some guy who helped write the bill said has no legal force though.
 
I will be back in AZ in a few weeks, gonna see if the nearby Lowes and Home Depot still have the day loborers standing around. If they are still there, then this law is not being effective...
 
I will be back in AZ in a few weeks, gonna see if the nearby Lowes and Home Depot still have the day loborers standing around. If they are still there, then this law is not being effective...

So now all day laborers are illegals?

Maybe this will prove the law went too far, as predicted.

Your post certainly proves that you think you can judge an illegal by looking at him, just like some people here have expressed concern about.

(Yes, most of them are probably illegals, but you can't assume it).
 
So now all day laborers are illegals?

Maybe this will prove the law went too far, as predicted.

Your post certainly proves that you think you can judge an illegal by looking at him, just like some people here have expressed concern about.

(Yes, most of them are probably illegals, but you can't assume it).

I suppose those who are climbing the fence at this very moment can't be assumed to be illegal either...
 
That's quite a leap you're making. "Lawful contact" is not defined in this immigration bill, so unless there's a definition for it elsewhere it's quite simply up to individual interpretation.


Try this link [ame=http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GFRC_enUS203US203&q=lawful+contact+definition]lawful contact definition - Google Search[/ame]
 
Okay I'm fine with it as long as it is practiced in that context.


I am sure that with all the national attention on AZ now, the usual precautions will be observed. The radical, hate all the mexicans, beat the niggers, hose the non white, law enforcment people will be disapointed that they won't be able to freely discriminate as usual, but they will just have to get over it now.
 
Something some guy who helped write the bill said has no legal force though.

I thought you were trying to understand the law. Guess I don't know what you are looking for now.

There can be no legal force specifically pertaining to this law until it is challanged in a court of law, something that cannot be proven until it maybe happens sometime in the future.:roll:
 
I thought you were trying to understand the law.

No, I am trying to find a legally binding definition of "lawful contact," which is NOT in the law.
 
So now all day laborers are illegals?

Maybe this will prove the law went too far, as predicted.

Your post certainly proves that you think you can judge an illegal by looking at him, just like some people here have expressed concern about.

(Yes, most of them are probably illegals, but you can't assume it).

If they were legal and desperate for work they can apply for regular a job like everybody else can, they can go to temp services, or Labor Ready type temp services(a temp service that pays you the same day you work) and H2B VISA / H2B(Seasonal Worker Visa), and H2A VISAs(agricultural visa) are not self petitioned.Besides if they are standing around loitering the police can check them anyways or at least tell them to disperse.
 
I will be back in AZ in a few weeks, gonna see if the nearby Lowes and Home Depot still have the day loborers standing around. If they are still there, then this law is not being effective...


I was talking to two illegals yesterday and the one who has applied for his papers and is in line in the system, who speaks english pretty well, said that the other one, who does not speak english well, and others he had talked to, said the were going to go back to Mexico before the law goes into effect.
I gathered from them, that there is a network of illegals keeping track of this law and he wanted to find out from me, what "the american people" thought was going to happen.
 
So now all day laborers are illegals?

Maybe this will prove the law went too far, as predicted.

Your post certainly proves that you think you can judge an illegal by looking at him, just like some people here have expressed concern about.

(Yes, most of them are probably illegals, but you can't assume it).


I have lived and worked with mexicans for 45 years and you can certainly tell the difference between someone who is just up from Mexico or Guadamala and someone who has lived in th USA for a while.
If I, as a layman can do that, most police that actually see the papers of people, will have a much easier time of identifing the illegals.
 
Back
Top Bottom