• 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

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

And the Nazis saw no problem with eating breakfast in the morning, either.

According to you, anyone who had breakfast must therefore be a Nazi.

Perhaps you should Google "Godwin's Law" before posting again.
 
It doesn't matter what they change, the left will still oppose it and cry "racism"... it's just what they do.

I should hope so. Someone has to protect the poor and oppressed. They have the humane society for needy animals, but no protection for needy people.

ricksfolly
 
Honestly, to the hard-left ultrapartisans is there anything that the Republicans do that isn't racist? I'm so sick of the far-left using racism as a fall back criticism for good laws and bills.
 
Isn't that exactly what the "invasion" that nationalists keep whining about is? :shrug:

If you are talking about the invasion of Illegal Aliens, then yes..... and at least in Arizona they are fighting back.

If you are talking about the invasion of Traitorous ass hats in Congress that has been going on for far too long….. Think November. :mrgreen:
 
Are they? Northeastern Arizona isn't "fighting back," nor is Pima County. It doesn't even have anything to do with ideological "solidarity." They just don't like the idea of Indian-looking people with Spanish names who might lack government-issued identification being targeted.
 
Are they? Northeastern Arizona isn't "fighting back," nor is Pima County. It doesn't even have anything to do with ideological "solidarity." They just don't like the idea of Indian-looking people with Spanish names who might lack government-issued identification being targeted.

Who gives a **** what the ass holes in the big liberal cities want..... they aren't the ones that are getting shot on their own land by the invaders.

They also don't seem to have the votes to stop it.
 
And the Nazis saw no problem with eating breakfast in the morning, either.

According to you, anyone who had breakfast must therefore be a Nazi.

Perhaps you should Google "Godwin's Law" before posting again.

I don't need to google Godwin's Law. I know well what it is.

And if you've read through this, I've already proposed a law worded in a way that would let Arizona feel like it's doing something without causing all the furor.

All they'd have to say is, "If an officer is already in the act of arrest or issuing a citation, the officer must ask for proof of citizenship."

Then, you've not pointed out one specific group of citizens, nor have you made it possible for an officer to stop anyone he "reasonably suspects" of being in the state illegally. They wouldn't have taken the economic hit.

Instead, they've just rallied around it.

I've already stated that I believe illegal immigration is a problem; but the solution isn't in making life more difficult for the 1/3 of your citizens who happen to look just like the ones there illegally.
 
Why don't we just give everyone in the entire country the "mark of the devil" and be done with it ?;)

Or lets just give all people of color a yellow star or pink triangle that they can wear after its been verified that they have their papers....then they can be easily identified. :doh
 
Or lets just give all people of color a yellow star or pink triangle that they can wear after its been verified that they have their papers....then they can be easily identified. :doh

Except that this isn't about "people of color"; it's about criminals. Justice is blind to color...why aren't you?
 
I don't need to google Godwin's Law. I know well what it is.

And if you've read through this, I've already proposed a law worded in a way that would let Arizona feel like it's doing something without causing all the furor.

All they'd have to say is, "If an officer is already in the act of arrest or issuing a citation, the officer must ask for proof of citizenship."
Then, you've not pointed out one specific group of citizens, nor have you made it possible for an officer to stop anyone he "reasonably suspects" of being in the state illegally. They wouldn't have taken the economic hit.

Instead, they've just rallied around it.

I've already stated that I believe illegal immigration is a problem; but the solution isn't in making life more difficult for the 1/3 of your citizens who happen to look just like the ones there illegally.


This is, in effect, what it says. The words might be different, but the meaning is the same. Or are you saying that an officer should not ask for ID unless thay are being arrested?
 
Who gives a **** what the ass holes in the big liberal cities want..... they aren't the ones that are getting shot on their own land by the invaders.

They also don't seem to have the votes to stop it.

Northeast Arizona doesn't contain "big liberal cities," but does contain quite a few people who can say a thing or two about their ancestors being shot on their own land by the invaders. That's why I can only laugh at the audacity of Europeans calling any Indians "invaders."

Legislation in the statehouse doesn't touch the population here, whatever it may "theoretically" do. The residents here are reddish brown skinned Indians often in possession of Spanish surnames, who are less focused on government-issued ID than most people because of their more limited applications. And people simply don't think in terms of cost-benefit analysis, so all it takes is the mistaken deportation of one Navajo to raise a massive furor.
 
This is, in effect, what it says. The words might be different, but the meaning is the same. Or are you saying that an officer should not ask for ID unless thay are being arrested?

Despite them saying "that's what it says", what is says is "legal contact".

"Legal contact" can include "incidental contact". That means "hello" can be enough to arouse suspicion.

I'm sorry but I have a problem with that. That can wrap way too many legal citizens and immigrants into the net.

I would think that those who want to protect liberty and freedom would worry about such things.
 
Except that this isn't about "people of color"; it's about criminals. Justice is blind to color...why aren't you?

Actually Jall...it isn't. That is the main problem with this type of law.
Do you really believe that a blonde hair/blue eye is going to be suspect in Arizona of being Canadian and subjected to being stopped, detained, searched etc?
 
Actually Jall...it isn't. That is the main problem with this type of law.
Do you really believe that a blonde hair/blue eye is going to be suspect in Arizona of being Canadian and subjected to being stopped, detained, searched etc?

It depends. First LE is not just going to stopping people. If they have a reason to stop someone and they have a reason to believe that that person is in the US illegally, then they can check status. So yes, if a blond hair / blue eye person met the conditions, I would expect them to be asked/checked on thier status. Would it not be a factor if it is known that thousands of them are crossing the border from Canada illegally each day.

Do you fail to understand that LE has to have a reason to contact the person first. And even then they may not check the persons status.

If you witness a crime, better not describe the persons skin, hair, eye color. Wouldn't you be setting up the innocent people to be by racial profile:mrgreen:
 
Except that this isn't about "people of color"; it's about criminals. Justice is blind to color...why aren't you?

This law was definitely made against a specific ethnicity though, you can't deny that. How many white people will be stopped and questioned? Doubtful many at all. Justice may be "blind", but the government and the law is not.
 
I ran across an article the other day that referenced a dissent by Judge Jacques Wiener of the US Court of Appeals for the 5Th Circuit in the case of USA v. Eugenio Zapata-Ibarra in 2000. What he was talking about was the enormity of leeway the courts gave to law enforcement as justifiable suspicion. He footnoted actual cases in which these reasons for 'suspicions' were perfectly acceptable.

And I certainly do not write in criticism of the DEA, the Customs Service, or the Border Patrol in general or this case's individual agent in particular: Quite to the contrary, I am embarrassed that the federal courts have forced the dedicated, at-risk officers of these agencies to engage in the charade of "articulating facts" just so that we can point to something as the underpinnings of our retrospective findings of "reasonable suspicion" when we uphold vehicle stops that otherwise offend the Fourth Amendment. It is we, not law enforcement, who have constructed the straw man of articulatable facts and we who then accept as justifiable suspicion virtually anything and everything thus articulated:


The vehicle was suspiciously dirty and muddy, or the vehicle was suspiciously squeaky-clean;
The driver was suspiciously dirty, shabbily dressed and unkept, or the driver was too clean;
The vehicle was suspiciously traveling fast, or was traveling suspiciously slow (or even was traveling suspiciously at precisely the legal speed limit);
The [old car, new car, big car, station wagon, camper, oilfield service truck, SUV, van] is the kind of vehicle typically used for smuggling aliens or drugs;
The driver would not make eye contact with the agent, or the driver made eye contact too readily;
The driver appeared nervous (or the driver even appeared too cool, calm, and collected);
The time of day [early morning, mid-morning, late afternoon, early evening, late evening, middle of the night] is when "they" tend to smuggle contraband or aliens;
The vehicle was riding suspiciously low (overloaded), or suspiciously high (equipped with heavy duty shocks and springs);
The passengers were slumped suspiciously in their seats, presumably to avoid detection, or the passengers were sitting suspiciously ramrod-erect;
The vehicle suspiciously slowed when being overtaken by the patrol car traveling at a high rate of speed with its high-beam lights on, or the vehicle suspiciously maintained its same speed and direction despite being overtaken by a patrol car traveling at a high speed with its high-beam lights on;
and on and on ad nauseam.

223 F.3d 281
 
Actually Jall...it isn't. That is the main problem with this type of law.
Do you really believe that a blonde hair/blue eye is going to be suspect in Arizona of being Canadian and subjected to being stopped, detained, searched etc?

No one is going to be just stopped because the officer is bored. If you can't show some ID, then it is automatically suspicious. If the blond haired/blue eyed canadian can't show ID, then check his status, too.

This isn't about "people of color". It's about criminals.
 
No one is going to be just stopped because the officer is bored. If you can't show some ID, then it is automatically suspicious. If the blond haired/blue eyed canadian can't show ID, then check his status, too.

This isn't about "people of color". It's about criminals.

Perhaps in an ideal world you are correct. However, in application it isn't the case.
I will say that Arizona did take a step in the right direction when they modified the law. It still isn't a good law though and there are better ways at addressing the immigration issue, however, politicians don't want to REALLY address the problem, they prefer these feel-good soundbite laws.
 
This law was definitely made against a specific ethnicity though, you can't deny that. How many white people will be stopped and questioned? Doubtful many at all. Justice may be "blind", but the government and the law is not.

Yes, the majority of illegals are Mexicans (unfortunately) - and here you are holding a grudge against the WRONG people.

If a lot of innocent people will be scorned, scrutinized and frustrated it's not the policeman's fault, it's the fault of all the people who broke the law and committed the wrong.

When I went to buy cold meds for myself and my kids and I was told I could only buy ONE item instead of the two I picked out and I had to give my ID and personal info so it could be jotted down on a list - I didn't get mad at the pharmacist or even the lawmakers who made the ridiculous measure.
I got pissed at the druggies who CAUSED the foul situation to begin with.

The entire week - when my kids had meds and I didn't - and I developed and sinus infection - I was still pissed at the druggies and NOT the pharmacist or the lawmakers.

Don't displace your angst. Directing it at the wrong people will NOT solve the problem.
 
Perhaps in an ideal world you are correct. However, in application it isn't the case.
I will say that Arizona did take a step in the right direction when they modified the law. It still isn't a good law though and there are better ways at addressing the immigration issue, however, politicians don't want to REALLY address the problem, they prefer these feel-good soundbite laws.

OK, so how would you address it?
 
This law was definitely made against a specific ethnicity though, you can't deny that. How many white people will be stopped and questioned? Doubtful many at all. Justice may be "blind", but the government and the law is not.

Does Arizona have a serious problem with white illegal aliens? And again, no one is going to just get stopped and questioned. All the law does is permit an immigration status check during the course of other lawful contact with a suspect.

I'm ok with that.
 
OK, so how would you address it?

You have to eliminate the economic base that is drawing them here.
You do so by cracking down on the companies that are employing them for below market wages.
You prosecute the companies that are employing them.
Once that dries up, no jobs....means less people coming seeking work.

Of course, corporate America doesn't want this to happen because they like the cheap labor. The legislators that are tied to the corporations aren't going to do it, because they want to please the corporations.

That's a start. However, the solution is definitely much more difficult.
How do you deal with the millions of people who are already here. How do you deal with families where some of the children are US Citizens?
How do you deal with people that were brought over here by their parents and are now in their 20's-30's and have lived in the United States their entire lives?
These are the questions that "amnesty" deals with and gets most people riled up.
I think there has to be some form of Amnesty. Not a blanket Amnesty program for everyone here, but a selective Amnesty program which isn't easy.

We also have to address the issue with corruption on both sides of the border. The answer isn't "Wait in line", because common folk aren't even given a place in that line. Bribes and corruption ensure that those getting the immigration slots are those that are financially able to secure it. As long as there is no avenue for people to immigrate, they will do so illegally especially if they are desperate enough to try to make a better life for themselves and their children.
 
Perhaps in an ideal world you are correct. However, in application it isn't the case.
I will say that Arizona did take a step in the right direction when they modified the law. It still isn't a good law though and there are better ways at addressing the immigration issue, however, politicians don't want to REALLY address the problem, they prefer these feel-good soundbite laws.

Too bad you are in a small minority.

May 12 (Bloomberg) -- Almost three-quarters of Americans support a provision of a new Arizona immigration law that requires people to produce documents verifying they are in the U.S. legally, a survey said.

About 73 percent of those polled by the Washington-based Pew Research Center for the People & the Press said they approve of the plan, while 23 percent said they disapproved, according to the survey released today. About 67 percent said they agree with letting police detain anyone who can’t verify their legal status, compared with 29 percent who disapproved.

Arizona Immigration Law Backed by Most Americans, Survey Finds - BusinessWeek

:lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom