• 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

CriticalThought said:
You don't listen very well.
Click to expand...

What?

Nobody here is arguing against a law that targets illegals. They are arguing against a law that requires anyone to submit documents to police proving that they are legal or face being arrested. That gives the police quite a bit of power to find anyone with brown skin and ask for their papers.
Click to expand...

See that is your interpretation of the law not the actual law. You assume that it only targets a certain kind of person yet the law is very clear it does not target any race specifically and they must have probable cause before even asking for that id.

The law is too broad and gives the police too much discretion. If the law did only target illegals, then very few people would be complaining. But the law is poorly written and so it can serve as a tool of discrimination.
Click to expand...

Again you cannot point to any part of the law that targets a specific group of people only except the focus being on illegals which never once mentions race. You rely on your assumptions to discredit the law and that isn't honest.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
See that is your interpretation of the law not the actual law. You assume that it only targets a certain kind of person yet the law is very clear it does not target any race specifically and they must have probable cause before even asking for that id.
Click to expand...

The entire debate comes down to this section of the bill....

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

What is "reasonable suspicion"? That they have brown skin? That they speak with an accent? There could be a thousand different interpretations of what is reasonable in suspecting someone is an illegal.

It's the vagueness of those words that make this a poorly written bill. It leaves it to law enforcement to decide what a reasonable suspicion is and that is why the bill could be used to target legal Hispanics.
 
CriticalThought said:
The entire debate comes down to this section of the bill....

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

What is "reasonable suspicion"? That they have brown skin? That they speak with an accent? There could be a thousand different interpretations of what is reasonable in suspecting someone is an illegal.

It's the vagueness of those words that make this a poorly written bill.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. It trusts the police to know the streets and the people that occupy them. When there is a robbery do you not trust the police to know who looks suspicious? If you don't then there is no point in arguing since you can't trust the police to do their job.

It leaves it to law enforcement to decide what a reasonable suspicion is and that is why the bill could be used to target legal Hispanics.
Click to expand...

"COULD BE" "PERHAPS" "MAYBE"

Thats your entire argument. The threat of abusing the law which is ALWAYS a threat when any law is passed.

That isn't a reason not to have the law. Try again.
 
Last edited:
“I believe it's not going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think that it might.” — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer¹​

Oh, really? Methinks that Arizona's competitors for all types of travel are circling like sharks.

“The Arizona immigration bill signed into law today could have a chilling effect on international business travel, investment, and tourism in that state, as many people from around the world may think twice before visiting Arizona and subjecting themselves to potential run-ins with the police. As a city, New York may well benefit from another state undermining its own international competitiveness - we're happy to have those businesses and tourists come here.” — NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg²​

And, there are others calling for a boycott who rightly reflect on the injustice of the Arizona law.

“We want to send a message. There are consequences when you target a whole people.” — San Francisco Supervisor David Campos³​

All these reactions are happening much faster than 1990, the last time Arizona publicly stepped in ****.

Excerpted from “Calls to boycott Arizona multiply on social media” by Betty Beard and Dawn Gilbertson, The Arizona Republic, Apr. 27, 2010 12:00 AM
[SIZE="+2"]C[/SIZE]alls for boycotting Arizona and its businesses because of its new anti-illegal-immigration law have begun spreading virally, showing Arizona what it's like to be unpopular in a social-media era in which protesters can organize at the drop of a tweet. …
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
“I believe it's not going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think that it might.” — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer¹​

Oh, really? Methinks that Arizona's competitors for all types of travel are circling like sharks.

“The Arizona immigration bill signed into law today could have a chilling effect on international business travel, investment, and tourism in that state, as many people from around the world may think twice before visiting Arizona and subjecting themselves to potential run-ins with the police. As a city, New York may well benefit from another state undermining its own international competitiveness - we're happy to have those businesses and tourists come here.” — NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg²​

And, there are others calling for a boycott who rightly reflect on the injustice of the Arizona law.

“We want to send a message. There are consequences when you target a whole people.” — San Francisco Supervisor David Campos³​

All these reactions are happening much faster than 1990, the last time Arizona publicly stepped in ****.
Click to expand...

The only people who won't visit AZ due to this law are the idiots. AZ will be better off without them anyway.
 
texmaster said:
You are asked for your ID at banks, when you apply for a job and anytime you are stopped by police without it ever once violating the 4th ammendment so your claims that this law is any different is completely false.
Click to expand...

The banks or job applications are voluntary showing of ID and I can't get arrested for not having my ID with me.

The police don't have the right to just stop me for no reason. Pulled over for speeding? Fine, check ID and issue a ticket.

But let's say I'm walking down the street, and I don't have my wallet with me. A police officer can now approach me and force me to prove my citizenship. If I can't, he can detain me until my identity is proven.

Papiere, bitte.

edit: Would you support a law that allows police officers to verify purchase records and serial numbers of any and all firearms in the state? They go to the shooting range and start checking for permits. Don't have it on you? Gun confiscated and you're taken into custody until it gets sorted out.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
But let's say I'm walking down the street, and I don't have my wallet with me. A police officer can now approach me and force me to prove my citizenship. If I can't, he can detain me until my identity is proven.
Click to expand...
Why the **** do you guys keep ignoring the "probable cause" part of this law. It is no different than any other law with "probable cause" as the caveat.

Cops can search your person or property NOW with probable cause. Do you see them just running around doing it willy nilly? **** no. They have more important things to do than to harass people for no ****ing reason. In other words, without probable cause.
 
I applaud the Arizona legislators who passed this bill and the Arizona governor who signed it. It's refreshing to see politicians actually doing their job rather than avoiding offending anyone merely to keep it.
 
Chappy said:
“I believe it's not going to have the kind of economic impact that some people think that it might.” — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer¹​

Oh, really? Methinks that Arizona's competitors for all types of travel are circling like sharks.

“The Arizona immigration bill signed into law today could have a chilling effect on international business travel, investment, and tourism in that state, as many people from around the world may think twice before visiting Arizona and subjecting themselves to potential run-ins with the police. As a city, New York may well benefit from another state undermining its own international competitiveness - we're happy to have those businesses and tourists come here.” — NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg²​

And, there are others calling for a boycott who rightly reflect on the injustice of the Arizona law.

“We want to send a message. There are consequences when you target a whole people.” — San Francisco Supervisor David Campos³​

All these reactions are happening much faster than 1990, the last time Arizona publicly stepped in ****.
Click to expand...


So Arizona should allow illegal immigration because of a few pro-illegals scum? Using quotes from officials from Sanfransicko and NewYork whining about tough anti-illegal immigration is like using the KKK,LaRaza or black panthers to prove a point about race. Until Sanfransicko and NewYork stop being sanctuaries for illegals they should shut the hell up about others wishing to solve their own illegal immigration problem.
 
The liberal pundits w/ Al Sharpton this morning are sure this will galvanize the miniority vote for Democrats this 2010 against Republicans. It's already being used as a political / race wedge for political purposes. Since this singles out a specific racial group and it doesn't apply to little old caucasion ladies and Asian children, it's obviously racist and therefore requires riots in the street. The constant shills on MSNBC parroting Saturday Night Live's quote regarding "show me your papers please" with the German accent is about as over the top ad hominem one can get.

Maybe if Washington doesn't like it, they can come up with something better. :shrug:
 
jamesrage said:
Its probable cause that person is not a naturalized citizen or natural born citizen.
Click to expand...

That's about as ridiculous as saying that being Roman Catholic is probable cause for being a child molester.
 
My dad is very conservative who is very worried about this bill as well. He considers it part of a fascist regime. He is also a fire marshal who arrest people for committing arson's and such fire related crimes. I worry that he would be put in danger from someone who was bullied by this law, or something if this law was put on the national scale.. This is my worry as well that this is taken our freedoms away from us, because you don't speak the language, or the fact that you don't speak it very well.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Its probable cause that person is not a naturalized citizen or natural born citizen.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's true in a very limited number of locations in this United States...maybe some pockets of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico or in my own state, New Brunwick New Jersey... but applying that to the entire country would be incorrect. We can't just assume a person is not a citizen - and laws apply equally. If a person is stopped in these pockets/areas, it may be prudent to question them. My question is, let's say they find illegals - now what? Use the standard ICE or INS system? They'll be back over the border the next day...
 
I'm just going to be brief. For whatever reason, I am not appalled by this law. I dunno. I essentially carry my license with me at all times. If I had to show proof of citizenship by showing a passport, I'd carry that around with me at all times and would have no problem proving my citizenship.

According to an article I read, Arizona has something like 600,000 illegal immigrants. I'm sorry, but get out of my country!

(This is where I show my independence from Democrats. ;))
 
TheNextEra said:
That's about as ridiculous as saying that being Roman Catholic is probable cause for being a child molester.
Click to expand...

How?You have to pass a English comprehension test to be a citizen and if you were born and raised in the US you should already speak english.SO the only people who would not be fluent in English would those who are here legally and are already required by law to have their documents on them and those who are here illegally. So if you get pulled over or have to stop at a check point and have to have an interpreter to talk you then it obvious that you are either here illegally or you should have some immigration documents on you to prove that you are legally here in this country.
 
TheNextEra said:
That's about as ridiculous as saying that being Roman Catholic is probable cause for being a child molester.
Click to expand...

Because being roman catholic is required for being a child molester?


Because you know... English is required to pass a US citizenship test. Therefore, not knowing English is an indication that one is not a US citizen. They could, however, be visiting the US on a visa. In which case, they should be well aware that any time you are visiting a country on a visa, you need to keep your passport and visa on hand at ALL times.

And like... OMG... they might actually have to show it to someone. Oh the horror of it all. How will they EVER overcome such mistreatment?!
 
aps said:
I'm just going to be brief. For whatever reason, I am not appalled by this law. I dunno. I essentially carry my license with me at all times. If I had to show proof of citizenship by showing a passport, I'd carry that around with me at all times and would have no problem proving my citizenship.

According to an article I read, Arizona has something like 600,000 illegal immigrants. I'm sorry, but get out of my country!

(This is where I show my independence from Democrats. ;))
Click to expand...

Good for you!

But would you agree that simply deporting them does nothing with a porous border? Isn't the best way to dissuade illegals from coming and staying in this country to dry up the job market by investigating and applying heavy fines to the employers who give them jobs?

This bill addresses 30% of the problem... much more needs to be done IMO.
 
aps said:
I'm just going to be brief. For whatever reason, I am not appalled by this law. I dunno. I essentially carry my license with me at all times. If I had to show proof of citizenship by showing a passport, I'd carry that around with me at all times and would have no problem proving my citizenship.

According to an article I read, Arizona has something like 600,000 illegal immigrants. I'm sorry, but get out of my country!

(This is where I show my independence from Democrats. ;))
Click to expand...

Indeed.

I carry my passport with me everywhere even though I'm not required to, and my driver's license. I have no issue making sure authorities know who I am - whether I'm committing a crime or not.
 
Ockham said:
Perhaps that's true in a very limited number of locations in this United States...maybe some pockets of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico or in my own state, New Brunwick New Jersey... but applying that to the entire country would be incorrect. We can't just assume a person is not a citizen - and laws apply equally. If a person is stopped in these pockets/areas, it may be prudent to question them.
Click to expand...

In order to be a citizen you have to pass a english comprehension test.

My question is, let's say they find illegals - now what? Use the standard ICE or INS system? They'll be back over the border the next day...
Click to expand...

Then perhaps when they come back they will be California's,New Mexico's or Texas's or any other states that harbor illegal's problem. They will just find Arizona, Oklahoma and any other states that do not harbor illegals inhospitable to illegals.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
Why the **** do you guys keep ignoring the "probable cause" part of this law. It is no different than any other law with "probable cause" as the caveat.

Cops can search your person or property NOW with probable cause. Do you see them just running around doing it willy nilly? **** no. They have more important things to do than to harass people for no ****ing reason. In other words, without probable cause.
Click to expand...

The bill says all they need is "reasonable suspicion." What is that to be based on?
 
jamesrage said:
In order to be a citizen you have to pass a english comprehension test.
Click to expand...

If you are an IMMIGRANT yes, but not everyone who doesn't speak English is an immigrant. Some were BORN in this country and DO NOT speak English. It is NOT a requirement to pass an English comprehension test to be a citizen if you are BORN here.
 
TheNextEra said:
If you are an IMMIGRANT yes, but not everyone who doesn't speak English is an immigrant. Some were BORN in this country and DO NOT speak English. It is NOT a requirement to pass an English comprehension test to be a citizen if you are BORN here.
Click to expand...

It i a requirement that you go to school when are certain age though and in which case you are taught in english.
 
Deuce said:
The bill says all they need is "reasonable suspicion." What is that to be based on?
Click to expand...

Suspicions that are reasonable. Again, this is not the only application of such rules. Do cops just harass everyone on sight because they can supposedly make "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" to mean anything they want?

Of course not. Why in the world do you think this would be any different?
 
aps said:
I'm just going to be brief. For whatever reason, I am not appalled by this law. I dunno. I essentially carry my license with me at all times. If I had to show proof of citizenship by showing a passport, I'd carry that around with me at all times and would have no problem proving my citizenship.

According to an article I read, Arizona has something like 600,000 illegal immigrants. I'm sorry, but get out of my country!

(This is where I show my independence from Democrats. ;))
Click to expand...

I have one concern with the bill, and that is the potential for US citizens who are hispanic to get harassed, but that is only a potential problem that I hope does not materialize. Illegal immigration is a problem in this country, and in Arizona, and they should certainly be allowed to work to solve that problem by the best method available, which is getting illegals the hell out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom