Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 195

Thread: Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

  1. #131
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I don't see the down side here. I really don't.
    We'll see if there's a downside once we can compile data on the effect of the law. What I'm saying is that I'm not going to jump up and down and call this a great law already because a bunch of hispanics, the demographics of which we don't even know, left AZ. If we end up catching up too many innocent people than we'll have to get rid of the law. If lawful citizens feel that they must leave in significant number because of the law, then there's a problem with the law. All this requires the aggregation of more data before we can say anything with certainty; but I for one am holding off judgment till I can see exactly how the dynamics of this law plays out in the system.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #132
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    We'll see if there's a downside once we can compile data on the effect of the law. What I'm saying is that I'm not going to jump up and down and call this a great law already because a bunch of hispanics, the demographics of which we don't even know, left AZ. If we end up catching up too many innocent people than we'll have to get rid of the law. If lawful citizens feel that they must leave in significant number because of the law, then there's a problem with the law. All this requires the aggregation of more data before we can say anything with certainty; but I for one am holding off judgment till I can see exactly how the dynamics of this law plays out in the system.
    Negative, if lawful citizens feel they must leave in significant number because of the law, there is not a problem with the law, there is a problem with their FAIL understanding of the law.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  3. #133
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Negative, if lawful citizens feel they must leave in significant number because of the law, there is not a problem with the law, there is a problem with their FAIL understanding of the law.
    It would depend on the number which are affected. If it's a small number, then sure; there's reason to claim there was misunderstanding of the law. In which case, it should be clarified. If there is mass exodus of legal citizens due to the law than that can point to bigger problems with the law such as the law itself or the ways in which it is implemented.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    University of San Diego
    Last Seen
    04-14-11 @ 02:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    672
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It would depend on the number which are affected. If it's a small number, then sure; there's reason to claim there was misunderstanding of the law. In which case, it should be clarified. If there is mass exodus of legal citizens due to the law than that can point to bigger problems with the law such as the law itself or the ways in which it is implemented.
    The idea that this law is somehow forcing millions of legal citizens to flee the state, even before it is fully implemented, suggests only their own ignorance.

  5. #135
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    There's a large deal of issues with this...and I'm not going to even touch on the very nature of the bias of your sources particular analysis where they examine only the claims made by those in support of the bill while looking into none of the suggested inaccuracies claimed by those opposing it...but we'll focus on the three things you listed:
    Damn you are wordy...

    It actually looks at claims on both sides, and finds neither to be quite right.



    This is like passing a law saying we're going to not allow abortions, accept in cases where its deemed constitutional by the courts, and then people coming out going "GRRRR! They're banning abortions!"

    Well, yeah, only if you somehow ignore the other half of what it says.

    The Supreme court has continually has found that in a direct sense, exercising reasonable suspicion based singularly on the facet of race is unconstituional and thus illegal. You can also look at U.S. v. Montero-Camargo finding that race can't be part of a broader group of reasonings as well. Yes, the Supreme Court has allowed race to be used as a determining factor at times, but this is only when it is a part of a profile of a very specific suspect. For example if a 7-11 was robbed and the person inside stated they saw that it was a 6'5" black man with a hoodie then its not unconstitutional to focus on black individuals. However if they just said "It was a tall guy in a hoodie the cops could not go around focusing only on black people.

    If the law is saying "[These factors] can only be used in cases where its constitutionally allowed" then so what? Why should there be a big flap and complaint about the law allowing something...that's allowed by the law!
    The difference is enforcement. Prior to this law, the odds of any one making an active effort where slim to none. Now they have gone up significantly. It has the positive of finding more illegals, but has the negative that, since some profiling can be done, innocents are going to be much more likely to be bothered by the police. The unanswered question at this time is how much.

    The other question is whether Hispanic people with a definite accent is enough to be "reasonable suspicion", and that probably will end up before the courts soon.



    Ah, gotcha, so because they haven't given specific information out to the media and think tanks obviously that is a good indication that people criticizing the bill by saying its going to do things it legally can't really do are potentially correct. While doing this as well, lets ignore the fact that the state officials and law enforcement have said that they don't plan on racial profiling or implementing strategies to just grab people off the street. They haven't said exactly HOW they're going to go about it yet, so we must assume that they may very well do what they've stated publicly they won't and what the law and courts don't allow.

    Do you realize the entire notion above from your source is as asinine as saying that since Barack Obama has SAID he's a citizen but he hasn't actually shown us specifically his most specific form of citizenship then its absolutely reasonable to suggest that it remains to be seen that he's a citizen.

    Or to throw a bone to all the "Death panel" hating democrats out there reading this, its like saying that while Democrats said there will be no death panels, and because there's no language clearly laying out death panels, that because critics said there WOULD be death panels and we haven't got all the way through the implementation of the Health Care Bill yet that its reasonable suggest that it remains to be seen whether or not there will be "Death Panels" due to this bill since they haven't explicitely laid out the exact ways they're going to do things in regards to the portions of text people kept pointing at.
    You are reading way too much into the words. It says, quite clearly, that there are unknowns about how officers will be trained to establish "reasonable suspicion". Saying "we dunno" is not implying anything. There are no assumptions from the article, and I made none. We do not know means we do not know. Don't build that strawman. The point in my quoting that part was to show how Hispanics could be some what uneasy about things. Nowhere did I claim that in fact they would be unfairly targeted, nor have I ever said that. It is a question that will have to be answered.




    And yet even here, while still not racial profiling, is lacking severe information to make any kind of informed decision since "out of place" is entirely vague and to my knowledge not a legal standard like "reasonable suspicion" and it does not suggest if these factors alone can cause reasonable suspicion or if they may simply be part of a larger picture that leads to having such.

    And even then, I'd ask this...

    If we are to assume your sources alarm ringing is legit we must assume then that there is legitimate constitutional worry that racial profiling is completely legal (since the notion of saying the Arizona bill allows for it hinges on it being allowable under the courts) and that the federal government urges officers to determine immigration status checks on accents and looking "out of place", then where the hell is the outrage and boycotts towards the federal government then?
    The whole point that many of us have about potential problems with the law hinges on the fact that terms like "vague" and "unclear" can be used in discussing how the law will be handled. That is not a problem with the source, it's a problem with the guidelines. Yes, the federal government's rules suffer the same problem, but let's face it, the federal government really does not enforce immigration laws much, which is why Arizona went down this road.

    I think part of the problem is that you misunderstand my position on the law. Whether it is a good law or not is not known yet to my mind. I think we will find out when the details are wrinkled out, and when we see how it is enforced. If Hispanic citizens and those here legally are not bothered by police, then no problem. If that and it reduces the number of illegals in the state, then it's a good law. If Hispanics have issues with being harassed, then it will be a bad law. As things stand now though, I am not against the law, and maybe that neutrality is why I don't see everything as biased one way or another. It's something you have commented on yourself, how bias can very well be in the eye of the beholder.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #136
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    That is their own stupidity then.
    I disagree that it is stupidity. The legal hispanic residents might be choosing to leave simply because they disagree with the law. Not because they fear it.

    If the state passes a law that causes contributing members of society to leave that state by choice, the state has passed a stupid law.

    If the people who are leaving are doing so out of fear, and there is nothing to fear, then it's on them.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #137
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Damn you are wordy...
    LOL, yep

    It actually looks at claims on both sides, and finds neither to be quite right.
    Not from what I saw when reading through real quick. Everything seemed to come from the guise that the law is questionable and people supporting it are lying about what it does.

    The difference is enforcement. Prior to this law, the odds of any one making an active effort where slim to none. Now they have gone up significantly. It has the positive of finding more illegals, but has the negative that, since some profiling can be done, innocents are going to be much more likely to be bothered by the police. The unanswered question at this time is how much.
    Profiling in general is legal and completely fine. Racial profiling is not. This law doesn't allow for it any more than any other law. There's no magical right that I know of where someone has a right not to be "bothered" by the police. As long as the police act within both state and federal law, they can bother whoever and however many people they want in my mind and a law should stay on the books if its doing its job in regards to criminals. If the police break state or federal law then deal with them.

    How many innocents get "bothered" in no way shape or form proves the notion of racial profiling being made legal in the law.

    The other question is whether Hispanic people with a definite accent is enough to be "reasonable suspicion", and that probably will end up before the courts soon.
    Indeed, that said having a "Thick accent" is not "racial profiling" nor does it specify HISPANIC accent in the federal governments guidebook. Even then though, nothing they've shown documents that an accent alone is going to be acceptable as reasonable suspicion nor that its acceptable as such anywhere else in the country, state or federal.

    You are reading way too much into the words. It says, quite clearly, that there are unknowns about how officers will be trained to establish "reasonable suspicion". Saying "we dunno" is not implying anything. There are no assumptions from the article, and I made none. We do not know means we do not know. Don't build that strawman. The point in my quoting that part was to show how Hispanics could be some what uneasy about things. Nowhere did I claim that in fact they would be unfairly targeted, nor have I ever said that. It is a question that will have to be answered.
    Gotcha.

    You wait for that one to be answered, I'll wait for "Death Panels" to be answered, and we can both keep our "reasons to be concerned" it seems. I mean, since things not being officially laid out in definitive detail means anything could reasonable still happen.

    The whole point that many of us have about potential problems with the law hinges on the fact that terms like "vague" and "unclear" can be used in discussing how the law will be handled. That is not a problem with the source, it's a problem with the guidelines. Yes, the federal government's rules suffer the same problem, but let's face it, the federal government really does not enforce immigration laws much, which is why Arizona went down this road.
    However whether or not the federal government enforces it or not doesn't matter in regards to the cries of "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!" that so many lob around. And it appears, from your own source, that most of the things people scream about being unconstitutional are the vary things found in the Federal law.

    Additionally, the only thing I've seen people point out in the law as "vague" every single time I've asked for it is "Reasonable Suspicion". Which, unlike your terms your quoted, is actually less vague then it seems since its a recognized and long standing legal standard that has historical cases of it being used in a plethora of different law enforcement situations and whose constitutionality in regards to the criteria to meet it has been established in numerous various court cases.

    The only thing I've seen anyone quote specifically as "vague" is that "reasonable suspicion" MAY allow them to just randomly stop Hispanic people for being Hispanic and ask them for their papers...however that's not "Vague", that's patently untrue and flatly unconstitutional, not to mention no where present in this law.

    Is there some vagueness to it? Yes, there is, its meant to be. Just like Probable Cause is "vague", just like "Reasonable Doubt" is vague", just like preponderance of evidence is "vague", just like "mod discretion" is vague, and most other forms of legal code is. They're broad statements that are governed over by far more strict and narrow guidelines and laws that allow the law enforcement officers and those involved in the legal system a level of latitude when acting while providing a strict boundary around that openness. The issue I have is that everyone that complains about its "Vagueness" then proceeds to point to the vagueness supposedly allowing it to do things that are definitively outside of those boundaries.

    Please, specifically, you, tell me what you find "Vague" about the law.

    I think part of the problem is that you misunderstand my position on the law. Whether it is a good law or not is not known yet to my mind. I think we will find out when the details are wrinkled out, and when we see how it is enforced. If Hispanic citizens and those here legally are not bothered by police, then no problem. If that and it reduces the number of illegals in the state, then it's a good law. If Hispanics have issues with being harassed, then it will be a bad law. As things stand now though, I am not against the law, and maybe that neutrality is why I don't see everything as biased one way or another. It's something you have commented on yourself, how bias can very well be in the eye of the beholder.
    And see, I do not see it necessarily as a "bad law" if it Hispanics have issues with being harassed. That point alone does not prove it is "bad law", but that there is something wrong with regards to it. It COULD be a bad law. It COULD be bad enforcement guildelines. It COULD be individual departments having bad policy. It COULD be individual officers acting incorrectly.

    Oh, and its also possible that the claims of "harassment" could end up being relatively hollow and far over reported and over exaggerated or fully not harassment at all but fully justified under the law but we don't hear it the specifics from the media but only the sob stories.

    The difference is I'm not going to believe its a "Bad law" simply because a bunch of hispanic citizens in Arizona make claims that they got unfairly harassed. If its found to be systemically problematic with evidence of legitimate harassment then yes. If its found to be unconstitutional somehow at a federal level, then yes. Those would be bad laws. If a bunch of baseless accusations of "harassment" come out, or a handful of legitimate accusations? No, that's not what I'd decree as a "bad law" in and of itself.

    Mind you, my issue is a good deal less with your general view of the law as it is with your sources presentation and implication of their own view in the manner at which they come at the story and the majority of people who use the very arguments you're using however don't use them to argue a neutral point but to argue that the law is unjust and must go.

  8. #138
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,272
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

    Zyphlin...not going to quote this out again, since it's getting massive long again. Just going to hit on a few points.

    First: I am not arguing legality. As best I know, the law is legal, and I suspect that the police will mostly try and stick within the legal framework. We are talking at cross purposes. I am not saying the law might be bad as in it's illegal, only that it might be bad in it's effect.

    Second: I never claimed the law made racial profiling legal.

    Third: While it does not specify Hispanics, that is who it is going to effect. How many people are in Arizona, legally or illegally, with, for example, thick accents who are not Hispanic.

    Fourth: You are again seeing much more in the "not known" comment than is there. It is not some conspiracy or remote long shot that Hispanics might have a concern with how the training turns out. We knows the law allows a certain amount of profiling, and there is some vague language.

    Fifth: Vagueness: Source: Senate Bill 1070

    I am referring to the highlighted section that says the police cannot consider race, color etc, except as allowed by law. This section is annotated in part with this:

    quote]According to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement: “The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-87 (1975).

    However, there are many open questions. Most of the cases allowing racial profiling involve Border Patrol officers enforcing federal immigration law. It is not clear that the U.S. Supreme Court or Arizona Supreme Court will extend these rulings to state officers enforcing state immigration law, or to state officers who have general law enforcement responsibilities.

    In addition, speaking of Southern California, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that there are so many lawful immigrants or visitors and U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry that racial appearance can no longer be used. United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The same logic arguably applies to Arizona. [/quote]

    So what you have is that just in saying "as allowed by law" leaves real questions, since certain aspects are untested. I consider that "vague".

    Sixth: I would take a claim of harassment serious, no matter the race, gender or whatever. I would not automatically assume it is true, but I would consider the possibility,
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #139
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Areopagitican View Post
    The idea that this law is somehow forcing millions of legal citizens to flee the state, even before it is fully implemented, suggests only their own ignorance.
    Well I don't know if it's millions right now. But fair point none the less.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #140
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I disagree that it is stupidity. The legal hispanic residents might be choosing to leave simply because they disagree with the law. Not because they fear it.
    Then it is still their own stupidity. Spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to move, and having to change jobs, just because you don't like a law that won't even effect you. Stupidity.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •