• 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 Are Surging in Arizona

We have Federal laws in the United States that say it is illegal for someone from another country to live in our country without going through proper channels. Either we enforce the law or it is unenforceable. Which is it? How would you enforce the law?

If the law leads to racial profiling, which it does, it's unconstitutional and thus shouldn't even be an option.
 
If the law leads to racial profiling, which it does, it's unconstitutional and thus shouldn't even be an option.

Then the law is unenforceable and should be stricken. We need to remove immigration quotas, stop border checks, the whole nine yards.

Edit: Where in the Constitution does it say racial profiling is unconstitutional? Honest question here. I'd like to know.
 
Last edited:
You're assertion that you have to racially profile is bogus, but I guess you don't want to hear that.

Tell us what other measures are included in the bill as determinants for asking somebody immigration status? Not being able to speak English? That's most of Koreatown's and Spanish Harlem's legal residents. What is it that will allow a cop to ask for proof of a person's legal immigration status if they have a broken tail light? To act like this law won't lead to racial profiling is naive.
 
Stay with me, X Factor. So, ICE raids a business. How do they know who's there illegally? How do they know who to ask about being in the country illegally?
They should be asking about everybody who's working there, looking through employment records for the things all employees should have, picture ID and a social security card (and yes, those things can be forged, but that would go to prove the employer didn't knowing hire somebody illegal).
 
If the law leads to racial profiling, which it does, it's unconstitutional and thus shouldn't even be an option.
No it doesn't. To believe that you have to assume all law enforcement are racist pigs.
 
Then the law is unenforceable and should be stricken. We need to remove immigration quotas, stop border checks, the whole nine yards.

Yay for stupid hyperbolic statements.

Where in the Constitution does it say racial profiling is unconstitutional? Honest question here. I'd like to know.

4th Amendment, 14th amendment. That you have to ask about the constitutionality of racial profiling is simply one more sign.
 
They should be asking about everybody who's working there, looking through employment records for the things all employees should have, picture ID and a social security card (and yes, those things can be forged, but that would go to prove the employer didn't knowing hire somebody illegal).

Now that I like. Thank you. All employees should have a picture I.D. and a Social Security card. Makes perfect sense to me. So then, should Arizona be able to enforce it that way?
 
Tell us what other measures are included in the bill as determinants for asking somebody immigration status? Not being able to speak English? That's most of Koreatown's and Spanish Harlem's legal residents. What is it that will allow a cop to ask for proof of a person's legal immigration status if they have a broken tail light? To act like this law won't lead to racial profiling is naive.
Once an officer makes contact, they need to have reasonable suspicion to inquire further, such as lack of a driver's license, or how about a DL from another country? Resonable suspicion is not new btw, that's the beginning standard for all detentions now.
 
No it doesn't. To believe that you have to assume all law enforcement are racist pigs.

When the law is purposely created in ambiguous wording? Then it's the politicians who created it that are racist pigs. The cops who enforce such laws? They're just as guilty.
 
Once an officer makes contact, they need to have reasonable suspicion to inquire further,

Gotcha. This is what everybody has been discussing. The fact that the law doesn't define what reasonable suspicion is.
 
Yay for stupid hyperbolic statements.



4th Amendment, 14th amendment. That you have to ask about the constitutionality of racial profiling is simply one more sign.
She just disagrees with you. No reason to be a jerk.
 
We have Federal laws in the United States that say it is illegal for someone from another country to live in our country without going through proper channels. Either we enforce the law or it is unenforceable. Which is it? How would you enforce the law?



What?? Employers?? How do employers know that someone is here illegally? I don't have an I-9 form. Does that mean I can't get a job? Who do employers demand I-9's from? How do they make that decision?

No, the employers fill them out. The government can easily, though audit processes that are already in place, do additional checks on the documentation given in I-9 forms to determine whether or not they are fraudulent. If they are, because the illegal gave false ID, then the company didn't know, and the illegal goes to prison for fraud, and is then deported when his sentence is finished. However, if the company management does not turn in I-9 forms, and illegals are working there, then the company management goes to jail. It's as simple as that.
 
Last edited:
When the law is purposely created in ambiguous wording? Then it's the politicians who created it that are racist pigs. The cops who enforce such laws? They're just as guilty.
They haven't even done anything yet. Have you read the law? It's not ambiguous.
 
Yay for stupid hyperbolic statements.

Don't be ridiculous, Hatuey. You attempted to back me into a corner, and I'd have none of it. You are the one who said the law shouldn't be enforced.

4th Amendment, 14th amendment. That you have to ask about the constitutionality of racial profiling is simply one more sign.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If a police officer has reason to believe that a driver has broken a traffc law, he can stop him and ask for his driver's license. This, apparently, does not violate the 4th Amendment. Why is it different to ask that same person for proof of citizenship if the police officer has reason to believe the driver has broken a traffic law and, further, that the driver may not be a legal resident of the U.S.?

Unless you can show me otherwise, the 14th Amendment has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.
 
They haven't even done anything yet. Have you read the law? It's not ambiguous.

Lawl.

Arizona's Immigration Law and Racial Profiling - Newsweek

The law's opponents, however, consider such examples irrelevant. "Not having a driver's license and not speaking English doesn't make you an undocumented immigrant," says Venegas. Nor does having a fake ID or acting nervously when a cop questions you (just ask a teenager who wants to buy alcohol). And there's an additional problem: none of the scenarios Spencer cited are contained in the law. In fact, the statute fails to specify any characteristics or behaviors that law enforcement should focus on to determine whether there's a reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally. "Most of the officers out there will try to do the right thing," says Venegas. "But we also know that agencies have some officers who will do dumb things."

You're kidding yourself.
 
Don't be ridiculous, Hatuey. You attempted to back me into a corner, and I'd have none of it. You are the one who said the law shouldn't be enforced.

It's you who backed themselves into a corner. You have refused to answer whether or not you support racial profiling and then when it's suggested that this law is a clear case of that you have defended its use by feigning ignorance as to why it's unconstitutional to racially profile. You're fooling nobody.

If a police officer has reason to believe that a driver has broken a traffc law, he can stop him and ask for his driver's license. This, apparently, does not violate the 4th Amendment.

IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF THE 4th BECAUSE THEY ARE DRIVING.

Why is it different to ask that same person for proof of citizenship if the police officer has reason to believe the driver has broken a traffic law and, further, that the driver may not be a legal resident of the U.S.?

Unless you can show me otherwise, the 14th Amendment has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

Lawl, The 14th amendment deals with equal treatment under the law. Racial profiling violates this.
 
I have been an employer and can tell you that going after the employer isn't always the answer. Employers, particularly small businesses do not have the resources to verify documents.

If a potential employee has authentic looking paperwork it can be very difficult to prove otherwise. We need to expand and make easily available some of the current systems that are in place to allow employers to cross reference photos and SS numbers.

My suggestions for fixing out illegal immigration problem.

1. Militarize our borders.
2. Remove all public services to illegals.
3. Deport all that are found.
4. Reform citizenship rights for the children of illegals.
5. Put a national employee database into place so that employers can verify status.
 
It's you who backed themselves into a corner. You have refused to answer whether or not you support racial profiling and then when it's suggested that this law is a clear case of that you have defended its use by feigning ignorance as to why it's unconstitutional to racially profile. You're fooling nobody.
IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF THE 4th BECAUSE THEY ARE DRIVING.

Lawl, The 14th amendment deals with equal treatment under the law. Racial profiling violates this.
How is it profiling to ask for a DL from everybody? If the driver has one, end of inquiry.
 
The irony here is pretty thick. Despite the government's harshest measures, the rate of increase of the Hispanic population is among the hugest in the United States.

For illegal immigration, Arizona authorities need to crack down, but if they take it as far as the bigotry that racial profiling is based on, then they should consider what it is like to be a minority in Arizona. After all, white people WILL be a minority in Arizona eventually. When that happens, they had better hope that the LEGAL Hispanic majority in Arizona doesn't remember what was done to them in an earlier time. If they do, then it is just possible that you might be seeing white people stopped by the police on a regular basis, and being forced to show proof that they are not members of the Ku Klux Klan.

Article is here.

Just in case no one pointed this out to you not all Hispanics are illegals nor do all Hispanics support illegal immigration. So I am pretty they are not uttering the pro-illegal lie that that the new Arizona law racially profiles.
 
I have been an employer and can tell you that going after the employer isn't always the answer. Employers, particularly small businesses do not have the resources to verify documents.

If a potential employee has authentic looking paperwork it can be very difficult to prove otherwise. We need to expand and make easily available some of the current systems that are in place to allow employers to cross reference photos and SS numbers.

My suggestions for fixing out illegal immigration problem.

1. Militarize our borders.
2. Remove all public services to illegals.
3. Deport all that are found.
4. Reform citizenship rights for the children of illegals.
5. Put a national employee database into place so that employers can verify status.

It is not on the employers to verify documents. All they have to do is obey the law, and fill out the I-9 forms. Through audit process already in place for employment taxes, and employee withholding, the government can compare documents submitted by employees when they begin work at a company to records in existing databases. If fraudulent documents are submitted by an illegal alien, then he is prosecuted for fraud, and deported after serving a prison sentence. But if employers do not submit I-9 forms, and illegals are found to be working at the company, the company owner, or whoever is responsible, goes to jail.
 
Back
Top Bottom