• 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

Chappy

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Excerpted from “Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law; Legislators ban race from being used by police as a factor to identify illegal immigrants. The initial law allowed the use of race to form the suspicion but said it could not be the sole factor.” By Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times, April 30, 2010 | 10:27 a.m.
[SIZE="+2"]A[/SIZE]rizona lawmakers late Thursday narrowed a controversial immigration law signed last week by the governor in hopes of quelling a national firestorm over suggestions it will force police to racially profile Latinos while looking for illegal immigrants.

… The initial law forbade race from being used "solely" to form the suspicion but not from being a factor. Civil rights lawyers contended that it essentially legalized racial profiling.

In the final hours of their legislative session, after three federal lawsuits were filed contending the law is unconstitutional, lawmakers removed the word "solely," explicitly banning race from being used at all by police. …
Click to expand...

My emphasis.

Seems like an improvement; but, is it enough?
 
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.
 
Chappy said:
My emphasis.

Seems like an improvement; but, is it enough?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what they change, the left will still oppose it and cry "racism"... it's just what they do.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeh, that way all people are treated equally! Who is say that only those darkey Hipanic types are illrgals.
 
Chappy said:
My emphasis.

Seems like an improvement; but, is it enough?
Click to expand...

My take is that this is at least by this action a latent admission that this law saw clawed. It may still be flawed.
 
You do know this is based on a federal law
 
All AZ has to do is require proof of legal residency when applying for a DL or State ID card, then require all residents, over the age of 18, to have one, and ask EVERYBODY, when stopped or detained, for their card.

The same as they do everywhere else. No card? Then there's your reasonable suspicion no matter what color they are.

But, it matters not. The pro-illegal's would just find something else to whine about.
 
Grim17 said:
It doesn't matter what they change, the left will still oppose it and cry "racism"... it's just what they do.
Click to expand...

Is that what your mythical left is saying, racism? Or are they saying that the rights of innocent American citizens can be trampled on just to get at the bad guys? I also find it rather ironic the NEO RIGHT and the Novo TeaCup brigade makes all this noise about how they believe in the Constitution and all but when it comes to protecting Americans of all colors and place of birth the right not to be harassed by the government they look the other way.
 
Captain America said:
All AZ has to do is require proof of legal residency when applying for a DL or State ID card, then require all residents, over the age of 18, to have one, and ask EVERYBODY, when stopped or detained, for their card.

The same as they do everywhere else. No card? Then there's your reasonable suspicion no matter what color they are.

But, it matters not. The pro-illegal's would just find something else to whine about.
Click to expand...

Why don't we just give everyone in the entire country the "mark of the devil" and be done with it ?;)
 
Chappy said:
My emphasis.

Seems like an improvement; but, is it enough?
Click to expand...

But did they take out the death panels that I just made up but now 100% know is the purpose of the bill?
 
F107HyperSabr said:
Why don't we just give everyone in the entire country the "mark of the devil" and be done with it ?;)
Click to expand...

That's called a "Social Security Number" and it is issued at birth here in the USA. I don't think there will be tattoo's on babies foreheads for a while, but chip implants are just around the corner. :rofl
 
I'm surprised that there was an explicit mention of race contained in the initial draft, or even that they believed it might be remotely acceptable.
 
Captain America said:
All AZ has to do is require proof of legal residency when applying for a DL or State ID card, then require all residents, over the age of 18, to have one, and ask EVERYBODY, when stopped or detained, for their card.

The same as they do everywhere else. No card? Then there's your reasonable suspicion no matter what color they are.

But, it matters not. The pro-illegal's would just find something else to whine about.
Click to expand...

Exactly...... new law in Oregon.

You have to show an SS. card, proof on where you live (utility bill will do), and a long form BC. to get or renew a Driver License.

If you are not an obvious citizen (BC. shows US. born) you have to show documentation that you are here legally before a license will be issued.

This law is brand new this year.

Problem solved. This is the coming trend, the Feds won’t take care of the illegal alien problem so the States will……. Get used to it.
 
This what the hoopla is all about....

Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, removing the word "solely" weakens the restriction against racial profiling..... but not by much.
Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.
Click to expand...

Notice that the cops are required to check lawful status...... it ain't optional. So no matter what color your skin is, if there is a "lawful stop, detention or arrest", you get checked This is good.
A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

The law's sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, characterized the race and ethnicity changes as clarifications "just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that's been played."

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said allowing immigration-status contacts for civil violations such as weed-infested yards or too many occupants in a residence could spur complaints of racial profiling.

Pearce defended that provision, saying there shouldn't be a restraint on when police act on a reasonable suspicion that somebody is in the country illegally. "It is a lawful contact," Pearce said.
Click to expand...

Arizona lawmakers OK several changes to immigration law - Phoenix Arizona news, breaking news, local news, weather radar, traffic from ABC15 News | ABC15.com

I don't see where these small changes altered the law one little bit. It never was about racial profiling, but if you libs feel better, I'm pleased as punch.

If you don‘t feel better? Tough ****.
 
Cochise said:
I'm surprised that there was an explicit mention of race contained in the initial draft, or even that they believed it might be remotely acceptable.
Click to expand...

There wasn't anything in the original bill that could truthfully be construed as the mention of race or racial profiling ..... how do I know this? I read the bill.

Learn to read and then think for yourself, don't fall for the Lib talking points or MSM propaganda.
 
The bill use to say that race could not be used "solely" as the basis for the suspicion that someone might be illegal. So, Cochise is correct, the bill not only explicitly mentioned race but explicitly said it could be part of the suspicion. At least that egregious legalization of racial profiling has now been removed.
 
Chappy said:
The bill use to say that race could not be used "solely" as the basis for the suspicion that someone might be illegal. So, Cochise is correct, the bill not only explicitly mentioned race but explicitly said it could be part of the suspicion. At least that egregious legalization of racial profiling has now been removed.
Click to expand...

Got it. The old bill said race couldn't be the sole reason to check status, so it explicitly said that race could be used? Do you think about what you post before you post it?
 
Crunch said:
Got it. The old bill said race couldn't be the sole reason to check status, so it explicitly said that race could be used? Do you think about what you post before you post it?
Click to expand...

It would have been better to say that it was an implicit statement. To write that race could not be a "sole" reason is a fairly obvious insinuation that it could be a partial reason. Otherwise, why not initially insert the current language?

And the damage cannot be undone by changing the language; their intentions are already apparent and were made so at the beginning.
 
The intention's are to stop all the illegal Mexican aliens crossing their borders. As the law allows.

You guys can whine and moan all day but that ain't gonna change the FACT that the illegal aliens look and speak like Mexicans. And that, somehow, is whitey's fault? Like I said earlier, I wish terrorists and baby rapers were so easily identified. But, still, that's all whitey's fault. Right. Got it. ;)

I remember when anyone with a KLOL sticker on their bumper (Houston radio station) was pulled over and searched. In fact, the wrote a book about that called Terror on Highway 59. re: Humpy Parker

Where was La Raza when they were profiling hippy white kids?

http://www.hcnonline.com/articles/2008/08/12/eastex_advocate/news/3208terror_on_hwy_59_reprint.txt
 
Last edited:
Why is it that those who like to cloak themselves in the label of "Conservative" and try to talk about "small government" are the ones who cheer the loudest every time big government/big brother flexes its power?
 
Captain America said:
You guys can whine and moan all day but that ain't gonna change the FACT that the illegal aliens look and speak like Mexicans.
Click to expand...

Mexicans don't have a "look"; they're a national and not a racial group, and their leaders are white. Your reference is to Indians.
 
Cochise said:
Mexicans don't have a "look"; they're a national and not a racial group, and their leaders are white. Your reference is to Indians.
Click to expand...

My bad. I meant the "Indians" from Mexico.

There. Better Cochise? :roll:
 
disneydude said:
Why is it that those who like to cloak themselves in the label of "Conservative" and try to talk about "small government" are the ones who cheer the loudest every time big government/big brother flexes its power?
Click to expand...

Let's see........ oh yeah, the Constitution.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

See? This is a perfect example of a State exercising it's right, and fits right into conservative principles.
 
Crunch said:
Let's see........ oh yeah, the Constitution.



See? This is a perfect example of a State exercising it's right, and fits right into conservative principles.
Click to expand...


That's fine....but just don't try to claim that you are for "small government".

That's the difference between Barry Goldwater true "Conservatives" and the people who like to use the label "conservative" today. Goldwater and his crew truly believed in small government. Todays "Conservative" is a champion of big brother big government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom