• 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!

Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law

No, if you think this won't be abused then you're a fool. Also, they should take out the part where the cops can be sued for not enforcing this. That or the cops should start pestering all the white people too...just to make sure. That guy could be Irish, French, English, Russian, German, etc. Once enough white people are bothered by the law, it will change.

No offense to you but I think this is just silly. First of all, we have to weigh resources and practicality versus the value of not hurting anyone's feelings. It's not like we have a massive Irish, French, English, Russian, German illegal immigration problem. We have a massive illegal Mexican immigration problem. More accurately, a massive illegal latino immigration problem. We don't have resources to ferret out the occasional german or Irishman. The goal is to move out as many illegals as possible with as few resources as possible. And with illegal mexicans, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Plus, legal immigrants should be willing to assist otherwise we might want to rethink their immigrant status, too.

Don't bother calling me racist, it's not going to have any effect. (that was directed to the thread in general, not you specifically, Ikari).
 
No offense to you but I think this is just silly. First of all, we have to weigh resources and practicality versus the value of not hurting anyone's feelings. It's not like we have a massive Irish, French, English, Russian, German illegal immigration problem. We have a massive illegal Mexican immigration problem. More accurately, a massive illegal latino immigration problem. We don't have resources to ferret out the occasional german or Irishman. The goal is to move out as many illegals as possible with as few resources as possible. And with illegal mexicans, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Plus, legal immigrants should be willing to assist otherwise we might want to rethink their immigrant status, too.

Don't bother calling me racist, it's not going to have any effect. (that was directed to the thread in general, not you specifically, Ikari).
Perhaps we should just throw out the law and let anarchy rule, every man for himself. If we ignore immigration laws, then why should we obey any other written law. It is apparent that those you oppose this bill think that they are above the law, but rest assure those who abide by our laws do not qualify.
 
Well, I'm stuck in an American frame of mind. Here, we are a melting pot. No matter of WHERE your ancestors came from, once you're American, you're American. If an individual sneaks under the border wire from Mexico, unless they just passed thrugh on their way from Central America, they're Mexican to me. Don't care if they're indians, white as snow, or whatever. To me, Mexican is a nationality, not a race. It is inclusive of ALL citizens in it's nation domain.

Well, I'm not going to bring up the snobbery (not yours), of using a term applied to two continents to refer to a single country, a practice resented in numerous other countries that are as "American" or more so, considering that the word came from the name of an Italian explorer that reached Brazil.

People always start lecturing me about the fact that America's colonizers aren't leaving, and European heritage and ancestry is here to stay. That's fine, for the most part! I'm just pushing for a paradigm shift in that I dislike people screaming about "rights" of absolute national sovereignty over territory that was stolen by the governments of Britain, Spain, Mexico, the United States, etc. When we go down that route (and I really don't want to, again), I can't help laughing at the descendants of the European interlopers who practiced genocide and ethnic cleansing attempting to label Indians "foreigners" and "aliens."
 
My favorite part of this bill is that Arizona was actually once Mexico; and that a large percentage of Mexicans can trace their ancestry on this continent back centuries further than most Caucasian-Americans.

Illegal immigration is a problem; I fully recognize that.

But Arizona is nearly 1/3 Hispanic. So the cops are supposed to stop 1/3 of the population and ask them for their papers?

If we're to believe that it's reasonable to suspect Hispanics of being potentially illegal; then how do you prevent all of the Hispanics (many of whom have ancestry in the state that can be traced back to even before Arizona was American territory) from being harassed for their papers?

What about Hispanic cops? Should they all be stopped and checked?

I know that those of you who defend this law will say that's silly, but how do you define the police officer's initial interaction being "legal". Technically, "Howdy" would be legal interaction. He or She is now required to ask said person to show their papers showing they're legal citizens or immigrants if they then suspect the person to be illegal.

You can't conceivably enact this law without it leading to racial profiling. It's simply not possible.

But, I have to thank the Arizona legislature for preventing those human-animal hybrids. God knows, Arizona was the breeding ground for ManBearPigs.
 
My favorite part of this bill is that Arizona was actually once Mexico; and that a large percentage of Mexicans can trace their ancestry on this continent back centuries further than most Caucasian-Americans.

Illegal immigration is a problem; I fully recognize that.

But Arizona is nearly 1/3 Hispanic.

Are you trying to say that all Hispanics are illegals or support illegal immigration?


So the cops are supposed to stop 1/3 of the population and ask them for their papers?



If we're to believe that it's reasonable to suspect Hispanics of being potentially illegal; then how do you prevent all of the Hispanics (many of whom have ancestry in the state that can be traced back to even before Arizona was American territory) from being harassed for their papers?

What about Hispanic cops? Should they all be stopped and checked?

The bill does not say they can randomly stop people to check there immigration status. Law Police contact must first be made before they can even question your legal status. In others you would first have to be stopped at a DUI check point, pulled over for some traffic offense or some other form of lawful police contact.


http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
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 know that those of you who defend this law will say that's silly,

I wouldn't say its silly on your part I would say its a damn lie to make false claims of racial profiling.

but how do you define the police officer's initial interaction being "legal"

Getting pulled over for a traffic offense, you match a suspect's description, DUI road block check and etc.

Technically, "Howdy" would be legal interaction.




No it isn't
He or She is now required to ask said person to show their papers showing they're legal citizens or immigrants if they then suspect the person to be illegal.

ONly if they have been stopped for some other reason.
You can't conceivably enact this law without it leading to racial profiling. It's simply not possible.

Yes you can. There is no racial profiling in the bill, nor does the bill create racial profiling.
 
Last edited:
Are you trying to say that all Hispanics are illegals or support illegal immigration?




The bill does not say they can randomly stop people to check there immigration status. Law Police contact must first be made before they can even question your legal status. In others you would first have to be stopped at a DUI check point, pulled over for some traffic offense or some other form of lawful police contact.


http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
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 wouldn't say its silly on your part I would say its a damn lie to make false claims of racial profiling.



Getting pulled over for a traffic offense, you match a suspect's description, DUI road block check and etc.






No it isn't

ONly if they have been stopped for some other reason.


Yes you can. There is no racial profiling in the bill, nor does the bill create racial profiling.

The bill merely says that the initial interaction must be legal. So any interaction is "legal" that isn't "I contacted the suspect because they had brown skin".

This bill is overboard. It's not addressing the issue at all. It's a distraction from upholding the law.

I've already said that I think illegal immigration is an issue; I just think this is a solution full of more problems than the initial problem its self.

As far as I know, it's already cost the party a couple of voters. My friend who is a lifelong Republican with a Latina wife and, as such, a half-Latina daughter, has said he won't support the party until the law is changed to make sure legal Hispanic citizens are treated fairly.

There's no doubt that this law would have negative impact upon legal American citizens of Hispanic origin. To ignore that fact is to ignore the needs of your fellow Americans who happen to look different from yourself.

I can think of two nations in history where "Your papers please" were the big statement. Those were Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

What if they discover an illegal Irish immigrant? I'll grant you that's more likely in New York than in Arizona, but if there's one, wouldn't all people of Irish descent be suspect?
 
What about Hispanic cops? Should they all be stopped and checked?

Why do you assume Arizona hasn't already done the usual background screenings on it's police force during the interview/hiring process?

It's like a game of make-believe and so many who are opposed to this law are playing it. Ie. let's imagine the most ridiculous, worst things possible and then act as if they'll really happen. ie. What if Hispanic cops had to pull themselves over? harharhar
It's ridiculous.
 
Why do you assume Arizona hasn't already done the usual background screenings on it's police force during the interview/hiring process?

It's like a game of make-believe and so many who are opposed to this law are playing it. Ie. let's imagine the most ridiculous, worst things possible and then act as if they'll really happen. ie. What if Hispanic cops had to pull themselves over? harharhar
It's ridiculous.

Well of course that's pushing it to its limits; but that was the point.

But, if you have a tail light out, should you suddenly face arrest if you forgot your wallet?

And let's face it; only an Hispanic person would suffer that fate. A Hispanic person who has forgotten their wallet or lost their ID would be considered arrest-worthy (until such time they can prove their identity).

This law is draconian and it is NOT what you guys are making it out to be.

If it were a simple law it would simply say, Arizona police should check immigration status as part of arrest procedures.

There - that's done. It doesn't put one group at greater risk than another. It doesn't force people to "show their papers" at any cop's whimsy. It says, if you commit a crime, additionally, your legal status will be checked. Which is NOT what the Arizona law currently says. It merely states that the initial contact by the officer must be "legal". And it requires him or her to check the status of anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being illegal.

That's vague and it can and will lead to draconian measures that will singularly be pointed at 1/3 of the Arizona population.

And it took me about five seconds to write a law that avoids all the controversy.

Then again, these Arizonans are thankfully protecting us from teachers with accents and human-animal hybrids.

I swear, there's a really big gas leak out there or something has gotten into the water supply.
 
Well, I'm not going to bring up the snobbery (not yours), of using a term applied to two continents to refer to a single country, a practice resented in numerous other countries that are as "American" or more so, considering that the word came from the name of an Italian explorer that reached Brazil.

People always start lecturing me about the fact that America's colonizers aren't leaving, and European heritage and ancestry is here to stay. That's fine, for the most part! I'm just pushing for a paradigm shift in that I dislike people screaming about "rights" of absolute national sovereignty over territory that was stolen by the governments of Britain, Spain, Mexico, the United States, etc. When we go down that route (and I really don't want to, again), I can't help laughing at the descendants of the European interlopers who practiced genocide and ethnic cleansing attempting to label Indians "foreigners" and "aliens."

Feel free to try and steal it back...... good luck with that. :roll:
 
Well of course that's pushing it to its limits; but that was the point.

But, if you have a tail light out, should you suddenly face arrest if you forgot your wallet?

And let's face it; only an Hispanic person would suffer that fate. A Hispanic person who has forgotten their wallet or lost their ID would be considered arrest-worthy (until such time they can prove their identity).

This law is draconian and it is NOT what you guys are making it out to be.

If it were a simple law it would simply say, Arizona police should check immigration status as part of arrest procedures.

There - that's done. It doesn't put one group at greater risk than another. It doesn't force people to "show their papers" at any cop's whimsy. It says, if you commit a crime, additionally, your legal status will be checked. Which is NOT what the Arizona law currently says. It merely states that the initial contact by the officer must be "legal". And it requires him or her to check the status of anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being illegal.

That's vague and it can and will lead to draconian measures that will singularly be pointed at 1/3 of the Arizona population.

And it took me about five seconds to write a law that avoids all the controversy.

Then again, these Arizonans are thankfully protecting us from teachers with accents and human-animal hybrids.

I swear, there's a really big gas leak out there or something has gotten into the water supply.

I love the spin. Maybe you have gotten to close to some moonshine in TN.
The english bill is to ensure that teachers speak so students can understand and the words are pronounced correctly. No teacher is loosing their jobs because of the bill.

"
The bill, which passed 16 to 12, would prohibit anyone in the state from "creating or attempting to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm."

From azcentral.com
The measure would also outlaw "transferring or attempting to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb," "transferring or attempting to transfer a nonhuman embryo into a human womb" and "transporting or receiving for any purpose a human-animal hybrid."

Louisiana passed a similar law in 2009, the same year Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) introduced the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2009. The Senate did not take up Brownback proposed law.

Read more: Arizona bill targets 'human-animal hybrids'

Where was your protest when Louisiana passed their law in 2009?
 
Has anybody found an actual definition for the term "lawful contact" anywhere? Some people say I must have already committed a crime, but I haven't found anything to support that interpretation. For all I know, "Good day sir!" could be interpreted as "lawful contact."
 
Has anybody found an actual definition for the term "lawful contact" anywhere? Some people say I must have already committed a crime, but I haven't found anything to support that interpretation. For all I know, "Good day sir!" could be interpreted as "lawful contact."

I think it's a cloudier version of the term "offensive contact" which, don't quote me though, means you have to have made contact with the officer because of some offending action like breaking a crime or suspicion.

EDIT: Actually, I found the definition from Kris Kobach at the Washington Times. He states that:


"That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach ...
 
Last edited:
I really see absolutely no problem with verifying US citizenship, especially when there is a massive illegal immigrant problem. Mexico's laws regarding illegal immigration are far more harsh, the sentences are also very heavy compared to ours. They guard their southern border heavily as well. Honestly if the likes of the Mexican government and Obama are criticizing this bill then that's all the more reason to support it and see it as something that will help Arizona.
 
Heck, I wouldnt even mind if they tazered the illegals. Why? Because they did something illegal. I think we should all call major cities in AZ and TELL THEM that we want their law to stand!​
 
Has anybody found an actual definition for the term "lawful contact" anywhere? Some people say I must have already committed a crime, but I haven't found anything to support that interpretation. For all I know, "Good day sir!" could be interpreted as "lawful contact."

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."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona | Washington Examiner

Contrary to the hysterical charges of racism being leveled at the statute, it does not permit a no-holds-barred inquisition of Hispanic people. Indeed, the state law demands more of police than federal law. To begin with, there is to be no inquiry about a person's immigration status unless the "contact" between the police officer and the person is "lawful" in the first instance.

There are three relevant gradations of contact between a police officer and a person: non-custodial, brief detention, and arrest. The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent "reasonable suspicion."

Brief detentions are known in the law as "Terry stops" — thanks to the famous Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, a police officer may only detain a person if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized suspicion — a cop who says to himself, "Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good," does not make the grade. Instead, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent. Courts are deferential to the judgment of police officers — the standard is not what any person would think of the facts observed but what an experienced cop acting reasonably and responsibly would think. But there must be specific, describable indicia of criminal activity.

The permissible duration of a Terry stop depends on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has not set in stone some magic moment where a brief detention evolves into an arrest. But arrest happens when the detention has become police custody. At that point, the officer must have probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed.

So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed. Absent that, the officer is not permitted to stop the person.

Arizona and 'Lawful Contact' - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online
 
I love the spin. Maybe you have gotten to close to some moonshine in TN.
The english bill is to ensure that teachers speak so students can understand and the words are pronounced correctly. No teacher is loosing their jobs because of the bill.

"
The bill, which passed 16 to 12, would prohibit anyone in the state from "creating or attempting to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm."

From azcentral.com
The measure would also outlaw "transferring or attempting to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb," "transferring or attempting to transfer a nonhuman embryo into a human womb" and "transporting or receiving for any purpose a human-animal hybrid."

Louisiana passed a similar law in 2009, the same year Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) introduced the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2009. The Senate did not take up Brownback proposed law.

Read more: Arizona bill targets 'human-animal hybrids'

Where was your protest when Louisiana passed their law in 2009?

Oh, believe me, I would've made fun of Louisiana back then if I'd known about their bill, too. And I'll chalk this up as just one more reason to make fun of Brownback.

From the Wall Street Journal:

"The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English."

It goes on to say that this is likely a result of hiring ESL teachers (some specifically recruited from South of the Border) to meet No Child Left Behind requirements.

And I love that "tink" (as it sounds to the enforcer) is proof of poor English instead of "think".

They were hired for their ability to speak two languages. And now, they're going to be fired for the very skill-set that brought them here.
 
I really see absolutely no problem with verifying US citizenship, especially when there is a massive illegal immigrant problem. Mexico's laws regarding illegal immigration are far more harsh, the sentences are also very heavy compared to ours. They guard their southern border heavily as well. Honestly if the likes of the Mexican government and Obama are criticizing this bill then that's all the more reason to support it and see it as something that will help Arizona.

And the Nazis saw no problem with stopping citizens to ask them for their citizenship papers.
 
And the Nazis saw no problem with stopping citizens to ask them for their citizenship papers.

Good thing this isn't about Nazis and no one is flagging people down for papers ;)
 
Good thing this isn't about Nazis and no one is flagging people down for papers ;)

Only those with brown skin who might have a tail light out or might linger too long on a street corner.
 
And the Nazis saw no problem with stopping citizens to ask them for their citizenship papers.

While Nazis may have been egregious in their treatment of Jews and other "undesirables", not every policy enforced by the Nazis was a bad policy nor was it even of Nazi origin.

It's not like Nazis were the first and only people to enforce immigration laws.
 
Wow. That really shows how little you know on this topic. Thats the most ignorant statement made in quite awhile.

It's expected, Jallman lives in CA. :mrgreen:
But I agree, pretty lame statement.
 
I think it's a cloudier version of the term "offensive contact" which, don't quote me though, means you have to have made contact with the officer because of some offending action like breaking a crime or suspicion.

EDIT: Actually, I found the definition from Kris Kobach at the Washington Times. He states that:


"That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach ...

Says Kris Kobach. What does he base that on? What law? Where? It's nowhere in the bill and I couldn't find it in Arizona state law.
 
Says Kris Kobach. What does he base that on? What law? Where? It's nowhere in the bill and I couldn't find it in Arizona state law.

That doesn't mean it's not a legal principle. :shrug:

And I am gonna go with an informed writer for a prestigious newspaper over your admitted ignorance on the matter. Just sayin'.
 
Back
Top Bottom