• 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!

Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law - USATODAY.com

Looks like the new law is having the desired effect. Now if they would just do the same (enforce our current laws) on a national scale, the problem would be solved. Good job Arizona.

Granted with some side effects, but you're right that it seems to be helping to have an effect in regards to the main purpose of the bill which was to reduce the amount of illegal immigrants in the state.

Now, admittedly, its an unfortunate thing that legals seem to be leaving as well. However there's a few things everyone should stop a moment, think about, and then re-evaluate the situation as I'm seeing a lot of people immediately emotionally jumping to the "Grrr its saying legal people are leaving! That shows its racists or you're racist for liking it" type of view...

1. The story gives little to no indication of how much the variation is. Is it primarily legals leaving? Primarily illegals? Pretty even split? Is it a handful of legals or illegals and the rest the opposite?

2. Adding too that, it gives us little to no details about the legals or illegals that are leaving. Are they young or old? Are they extended family to someone that is of the opposite legal status of them?

3. It gives little to no information about what is actually spurring the movement. Is it fair of discrimination, is it principled disagreement with the law, is it because their family is leaving, etc?

All of these factors matter and are important before really being able to condemn the possible leaving of legal Hispanics as being too excessive of a cost of this program. For example, if the majority of the "Legals" that are leaving are children who were born in the U.S. to two illegal parents and they're having to leave the state because their parents are then while I see that as unfortunate for the children I do not think that's a problem of the law nor something that is reason it shouldn't exist. While under 18 Children are tied in a significant way to their parents and their parents choices and while generally its unfortunate to "punish" the child for the Parents poor decisions such happens day in, day out in this country, and I see no reason why a special exception could be made here.

Similarly if most of the "Legals" are leaving because their family or friends are illegal and they're leaving, then again, I don't think this is an issue of the law or something to truly be concerned about. This is not forcing them to leave, it is not out of "Fear" or "pressure" from the government, it is them making a CHOICE to move so they may stay close to criminals that they care about.

Additionally, if people are leaving the state simply because they disagree with the law I see it as no different or more condemning of the law as some kind of "evil" thing than people leaving the state because they disagree with a tax increase, or too many business regulations being passed, or because it does/doesn't allow gay marriage or late term abortions, etc. You don't get extra sympathy for leaving a state because you dislike a law simply because you happen to be hispanic; you're not special, you're not a snow flake, its not unheard of that people leave an area for displeasure with the government there.

Now, if the majority ARE leaving because they feel they're going to be discriminated against I think that's unfortunate and I think Arizona should make an effort to reach out to those communities and educate them about the truth's of the law, of which is being twisted continually and routinely all the way up to the administration of the President and is likely stirring much of the fear leading to the fright of being "Discriminated against".

However, again, them THINKING they're going to be discriminated against and that being their reason to move doesn't mean the law is evil, or bad, or should be too blame for it any more than black individuals leaving a city because they THINK they could be discriminated against by being frisked simply for being black (Being frisked relies on the exact same legal standard as the card check does).

Ultimately, without that information, its hard to make a judgement on how bad the side effects being caused by this bill are. However, from what's stated in the article, illegals are leaving so at least in some way the main focus of the bill is having a positive effect on that particular issue.
 
No, logically you cannot comment on the demographics because you do not have the data to support a claim. All you can really say at this point is that there are a large number of hispanics leaving; be they legal or illegal. You have no proper breakdown of statistics to confidently say anything beyond that.

Again, when it comes to logic, Hispanics leaving is a completely unrelated issue from legal immigrants leaving. There is evidence of the former and not the latter.
 
Except there is nothing to suggest that a single legal immigrant has left because of this law.

It's inevitable that some legal citizens will chose to leave with illegal relatives.... and that is there right to do so. Of course the pro-illegal aliens will construe this to be people fleeing for their lives under a draconian and unjust law.

Ass hats will be ass hats.
 
Now, admittedly, its an unfortunate thing that legals seem to be leaving as well.

This does not "seem" to be happening at all.
 
Again, when it comes to logic, Hispanics leaving is a completely unrelated issue from legal immigrants leaving. There is evidence of the former and not the latter.

I'm not quite sure you get the idea of "logic". The data presented is that hispanics are leaving due to the law. That's what you can say. But you wish to go beyond that and state that it's only illegal immigrants leaving; but there's no data on that. There are no numbers which state how many of those leaving are legal and how many are illegal. You are making a supposition in assuming the majority are illegal, but you have no hard data to back the claim.
 
I really don't see who else the law requiring proof of citizenship is going to target. Are they going to ask white people for proof they're not illegal immigrants from Sweden? They have every reason to be afraid the law will be used against the hispanic populace.

Well, every reason except for an actual understanding of what the law actually says. Other than that, sure.

Oh, and yeah, if I'm an officer there and I pull over a white guy who can't produce a driver's license then yeah, I'd follow up in trying to get proof of citizenship.

However, lets also face facts here. Are the majority of people that are going to get arrested with this going to be white? No. It would be extremely problematic if it did, either pointing to horrendous work done by government think tanks and agencies along with independent organizations or corrupt police work. Why do I say that? Because most numbers I've seen place the Hispanic population as being over 80% of the illegal immigrants in our country. Considering Arizona's location I do not think it would be unreasonable to assume that the number is likely more highly represented there. However, even if its not, it'd be safe to assume that when 80% of the illegals in the country are of a certain ethnicity that it would not be unusual if the majority of those caught with this law also happen to be of that ethnicity without being able to simply point to that and go "See, See, its targeting brown people!"
 
1. The story gives little to no indication of how much the variation is. Is it primarily legals leaving? Primarily illegals? Pretty even split? Is it a handful of legals or illegals and the rest the opposite?

2. Adding too that, it gives us little to no details about the legals or illegals that are leaving. Are they young or old? Are they extended family to someone that is of the opposite legal status of them?

3. It gives little to no information about what is actually spurring the movement. Is it fair of discrimination, is it principled disagreement with the law, is it because their family is leaving, etc?

While you and I do not always agree, I do appreciate your ability to understand data and to construct coherent and valid arguments.
 
Will someone be expected to present data to back up the claim that legal immigrants are leaving because of this law too?
Other than the article written by an asshat journalist who has no more credibility than you or I?
 
However, lets also face facts here. Are the majority of people that are going to get arrested with this going to be white? No. It would be extremely problematic if it did, either pointing to horrendous work done by government think tanks and agencies along with independent organizations or corrupt police work. Why do I say that? Because most numbers I've seen place the Hispanic population as being over 80% of the illegal immigrants in our country. Considering Arizona's location I do not think it would be unreasonable to assume that the number is likely more highly represented there. However, even if its not, it'd be safe to assume that when 80% of the illegals in the country are of a certain ethnicity that it would not be unusual if the majority of those caught with this law also happen to be of that ethnicity without being able to simply point to that and go "See, See, its targeting brown people!"

Additionally, I would conjecture that should this law prove too much of an inconvenience to too many white people, that this law would not be long in this world.
 
Will someone be expected to present data to back up the claim that legal immigrants are leaving because of this law too?
Other than the article written by an asshat journalist who has no more credibility than you or I?

Burden of proof is always upon the government. Thus the laws which are enacted must be demonstrated to address the illegal problems without greatly affecting legal citizens. However, I shall agree with you that the article is very poorly written.
 
There's nothing to suggest that it's 100% illegal immigrants either.

What is known is that 100,000 illegal immigrants have left. Unless it can be shown that more Hispanics than that have left, then the point remains that absent evidence, logically one cannot draw any conclusions about legal immigrants leaving because of this law, even if they can do so for illegal immigrants. There's nothing to suggest that 100% of Hispanics who left because of the law are illegal immigrants, but there's also nothing to suggest that it's not 100%.
 
Burden of proof is always upon the government. Thus the laws which are enacted must be demonstrated to address the illegal problems without greatly affecting legal citizens. However, I shall agree with you that the article is very poorly written.

The government isn't making this argument.
You are, and this asshat journalist is.
Your suggestion that the burden of proof for the claims that you support from this asshat's article are upon the government is trash.
Next?
 
I'm not quite sure you get the idea of "logic". The data presented is that hispanics are leaving due to the law. That's what you can say. But you wish to go beyond that and state that it's only illegal immigrants leaving; but there's no data on that. There are no numbers which state how many of those leaving are legal and how many are illegal. You are making a supposition in assuming the majority are illegal, but you have no hard data to back the claim.

The article states that 100,000 illegal immigrants have left. That's evidence. No such evidence exists for legal immigrants leaving.
Hispanic or not Hispanic does not factor into that logic.

Present the data to back up this claim.

I didn't present a claim. I stated that "This does not "seem" to be happening at all". In other words, in order for something to "seem" to be happening, there must be some evidence for it. If you claim that legal immigrants are leaving because of the law, the burden of proof is on you. I don't even know what data you wanted from me.
 
The government isn't making this argument.
You are, and this asshat journalist is.
Your suggestion that the burden of proof for the claims that you support from this asshat's article are upon the government is trash.
Next?

The government made the law. So yes, arguments to the validity of the law must be supported. Questions and concerns about the law may be posed and those of intellectually honest persuasion would address those questions and concerns.
 
People need to realize that Crunch's OP was simply a Freudian Slip. The desired effect was to chase out Hispanics. The law itself was" aimed at illegal immigrants".
 
I don't even know what data you wanted from me.

Numbers, that's all. Of all the people leaving, what percentage are illegal, what percentage are legal citizens who feel threatened by the law. What are the demographics? And an unrelated one to the law I think is rather intriguing...where are they going?
 
The government made the law. So yes, arguments to the validity of the law must be supported. Questions and concerns about the law may be posed and those of intellectually honest persuasion would address those questions and concerns.

Wow, in a circular fashion, I must repeat my original request because you missed it.

I grow tired of all these claims of sources, etc.

Other than an untrustworthy journalist, does anyone have any proof that Legal Immigrants are leaving Arizona because of this law, you know, to support the claim that was made by this journalist, that you folks so eagerly jumped in defense of him.

Do you understand me now?

This has nothing to do with the government....... Im having a hard time seeing how you can understand that.
 
What does the law consider probable cause?

Actually, that was an erroneous comment by that poster.

It does not require probable cause. That is actually a higher standard than what it needs, which is reasonable suspicion. What's that you ask? It is a legal standard stating that a person "has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences". IE an officer can not simply have a "hunch" but must instead have definitive, explainable, and lawful facts that he can relate to a judge or superior if needed as to why he had reasonable suspicion.

Now, this legal standard did not magically appear with this law, it has been in the books for quite some time all across the country. To perhaps give you reference, the ability of a police officer to frisk someone for, say a weapon or drugs, is ALSO based on the standard of reasonable suspicion.

Now, ask yourself this. Would it stand up in court, let alone to a police officers superior, if an officer attempted to justify the frisking of an African-American man he saw walking down the street by going "He had black skin, so I felt it was possible he could be carrying weed"?

If you answered no, you have some common sense or some legal knowledge, nice job.

No is the answer. Why's that? The U.S. Supreme Court has found that in a direct sense, exercising reasonable suspicion based singularly on the facet of race is unconstituional and thus illegal. Additionally, U.S. v. Montero-Camargo found that race can't be part of a broader group of reasonings as well. Its currently constitutional only to use race when looking for a specific suspect.

So the poster was wrong in regards to probable cause, its reasonable suspicion. However reasonable suspicion can lead an action that provides for probable cause which can lead to an arrest. For example stopping someone for speeding and finding them without a driver's license would give someone reasonable suspicion to believe they may be illegal since it requires proof of citizenship to get an ID. An individual then being unable to show citizenship provides probable cause, which can lead to an arrest, at which point further investigation is conducted.
 
Numbers, that's all. Of all the people leaving, what percentage are illegal, what percentage are legal citizens who feel threatened by the law. What are the demographics? And an unrelated one to the law I think is rather intriguing...where are they going?

I'd like those numbers too, but unfortunately not very much is known about that.
But the "claim" you quoted was not something that one could use numbers to "prove". That was what confused me.
 
I'd like those numbers too, but unfortunately not very much is known about that.

Which is precisely why I said that the demographics can not be spoken to with any amount of confidence. We don't know how many are legal and illegal. We know a bunch of people are leaving. Most likely is that it's a combination of legal and illegal immigrants, but we can't speak to the actual numbers. To properly evaluate the law and its affects we have to aggregate more data. However, I would also caution people about being exuberant about this effect because it is entirely possible that we've also caught up a significant number of legal citizens. In which case it is a bad law and will have to be removed. But we really need all the data to be able to speak to that
 
People need to realize that Crunch's OP was simply a Freudian Slip. The desired effect was to chase out Hispanics. The law itself was" aimed at illegal immigrants".

Where did you pull that out of?

Wait...... I know, never mind.
 
Perchance. And perchance their paranoia is warranted as well. Is it ok to make hostile laws which will affect certain sects of a population and catch up within it a significant number of legal citizens based solely on the excuse that it will get criminals as well? I don't think so. In fact, I find that to be a very dangerous line of thought.

It's no more or less hostile than the federal immigration law or the laws in 40 some other states. :shrug:
 
It's no more or less hostile than the federal immigration law or the laws in 40 some other states. :shrug:

We have laws which properly enforce our boarders, yes, should we choose to efficiently enforce those. However, there are none quite so aggressive as requiring the necessity of people to carry upon their person their papers nor which give such leniency to the government in obtaining these papers. A man has the right to secure his person, papers, property, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure.
 
There is some reason for concern. Source: Arizona’s ‘Papers Please’ Law | FactCheck.org

So what we have is profiling allowed to an extent, as allowed under federal law but mostly unenforced at the current time. How police will be trained on the subject has not yet been worked out.

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:

* The amended law allows police to consider "race, color or national origin" when deciding whether to ask somebody for proof of citizenship, but only to the extent already deemed constitutional by the courts.

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!

* It remains to be seen how police will interpret the law’s anti-profiling language in practice. State officials tell us they have yet to work out what factors police should be trained to use to establish "reasonable suspicion" of illegal status.

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.

* Federal officials are open to criticisms similar to some of those being made about Arizona’s law. A federal manual for training state and local officials says they may consider whether a person has a "thick foreign accent" or looks "out of place" when deciding whether to ask them about their immigration status.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom