• 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!

New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?

New Arizona Immigration Law: Why the negative response?


  • Total voters
    49

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
34,825
Reaction score
12,192
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I haven't been paying that much attention to the hype over this new law, but it seems to me that much of it is uninformed or intentionally misleading.

I read the document: Link to .pdf of the law, will need a reader for .pdf files.

After reading part of it, so far I can't really see any issue with it, or why it is a bad thing.

Perhaps I simply cannot parse the legalese to understand the points of contention, but....

Anyway, on to the poll.

Why do you think there is a negative response to the new Arizona Immigration law?
 
Last edited:
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT[...]

Probably this part. Whatever defines 'reasonable suspicion'. :shrug:
 
Reading further, this seemed that it might be one area of disagreement:

E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION.

However, I don't see much issue, so if there is one, please point it out.
 
Probably this part. Whatever defines 'reasonable suspicion'. :shrug:
It is a bit vague, and probably too discretionary.

But that is something that is necessary in law enforcement, sometimes...I think...meh, I dunno.
 
Note: In the link I posted, I believe the changes added with this recent bill are in BLUE CAPS.

To aid in reading relevant portions.
 
Additionally, there's the matter of what constitutes "lawful contact." Illegal immigrants will be dissuaded from reporting crimes against them or against others, for fear that they will be deported.
 
It's all too vague. How do you systematize what constitutes reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal alien? Just round up the scraggly ones? And whats this about the police being sued for not asking for peoples documents I heard that one on the interweb too.
 
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT[...]
Probably this part. Whatever defines 'reasonable suspicion'. :shrug:
A thought/question: How to better define the 'reasonable suspicion'?
 
Incorrect understanding of the law and its consequences.

I believe that this is only a small fraction of the opposition. mostly being deceived by the majority of those who support illegal immigration,=.


Intentional effort to mislead, with a goal of increasing opposition.

I believe this is the vast majority of the opposition. Pro-illegals do not like any enforcement and often times have to resort lies about the opposition and anti-illegal immigration laws. States enforcing anti-illegal immigration laws means Amnesty will have a snowball's chance in hell and eventually with all the illegals fleeing to sanctuary states and cities they will eventually have to crack down on illegal immigration too.
 
I wouldn't know the police have to work with their suspicions and be free to act at times to do the right thing, but distinguishing someones legal status is crystal ball crap.
 
It's all too vague. How do you systematize what constitutes reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal alien? Just round up the scraggly ones? And whats this about the police being sued for not asking for peoples documents I heard that one on the interweb too.
Probably this?:
F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.
2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.​
Note: On page 1, line 40.

Edit: Or perhaps this:
G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.
2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't know the police have to work with their suspicions and be free to act at times to do the right thing, but distinguishing someones legal status is crystal ball crap.
Which is why, as I understand it, they must check with federal authorities as to the suspected illegal's immigration status.
 
I personally believe AZ is much clearer than the one California passed a few years back. Calif. Penal Code Sec. 834b "834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws"

I'll use the same tactic of people opposing Az law. No where does it give guidance or define how the LE is to determine "suspected". Its racist, its racial profiling, LE will run amock.:mrgreen:

Why not boycott California?
 
While you wait in an ICE holding cell or something?
I suppose so.

That is an area that could be disputed.

If anything, lawsuits because of officers arresting those who are not illegal immigrants will potentially reduce arrests based on faulty logic/racism/whatever.
 
I would say all three of the following:

Incorrect understanding of the law and its consequences.
Intentional effort to mislead, with a goal of increasing opposition.
Sincere disagreement with both the law and its consequences.

Some seem to be negative towards it based on assumptions presented as fact, or just flat out inaccuracies presented as fact. This happens in large part due to an intentional effort ot mislead. While at the same time I do think there are still others that DO understand that law and simply disagree with it on principle, even after understanding.

I do think there's also a few others. I think there are some who disagree with it based on their assumptions of what COULD happen, but are not acting as if their assumptions are garaunteed facts. I put them in a different category than the first listed. Also there are some that likely are negative towards it for no other reason than politics.
 
I personally believe AZ is much clearer than the one California passed a few years back. Calif. Penal Code Sec. 834b "834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws"

I'll use the same tactic of people opposing Az law. No where does it give guidance or define how the LE is to determine "suspected". Its racist, its racial profiling, LE will run amock.:mrgreen:

Why not boycott California?

It would be hilarious if Los Angeles boycotts California....
 
I feel those who are protesting the law right now are jumping to conclusions about how it will be implemented. I don't know if they misread the law or were mislead by the media, but they should wait to see how it is implemented before boycotting Arizona. If Hispanics are commonly harassed, repeal the law or boycott Arizona. If it turns out to work and be non-discriminatory, keep it.
 
They are trying to intentionally mislead the public regarding the law and trying to paint Republicans as racists. They irrationally hate this law and treat it as some grave civil rights violation. They are ill informed and motivated by pure hatred and partisanship.
 
The only people who are against this law are people who aren't from Arizona and illegal alliens or people who know illegal aliens. Arizonians don't mind being stopped by the police if it means being able to punish more illegal immigrants. If you don't live in Arizona you don't what it's like to have illegal immigrants cross the border every day in numbers that amount to over 100 sometimes. You don't know what it's like for them to be coming onto your property begging for food and water. You don't know what it's like to see cars that have bodies literally stacked on top of each other in cars. You don't know what it's like to have over 70% of your crime due to illegal immigrants. You don't know what it's like when you suffer because of the national government's screw up. I'm happy Arizona state officials are trying to help Arizonians because the federal government sure as hell isn't doing anything to try to help us. Don't talk if you don't know what it's like.
 

The following laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO !!!
These sound fine to me
.

There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
* * * * * * * *
All ballots will be in this nation's language.
* * * * * * * *
All government business will be conducted in our language.
* * * * * * * *
Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
* * * * * * * *
Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
* * * * * * * *
Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any burden will be deported...
* * * * * * * *
Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
* * * * * * * *
If foreigners come here and buy land... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
* * * * * * * *
Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
* * * * * * * *
If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted &, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NOW, how can we get these laws to be America 's immigration laws??

Perhaps of greater importance is how can we get the current clutch of US Politicians to recognise that LAWS have to be obeyed.
 
It's better than having gullible cops or cops whose hands are tied and cannot enforce laws.

It'd be the equivalent of you finding a roach in my pocket, me stinking of grass, you asking me if I smoke pot, and me saying "no, and you can't prove it because you didn't see me smoking any".

How dare those policemen pull over someone on a random, routine violation and question their immigrant status. Police state! Police state!

The next time I get caught doing 75 in a 55, I'll cry profiling when they ask me for my license and I don't have it.
 
Let's see...... Eric thinks the law is unconstitutional, but he hasn't read it.

Janet says it invites racial profiling, but she hasn't read it.

Michael compared the law with human rights violations in China, but he hasn't read the it.

Barry has bashed this law no end, any bets on whether he has read it?

It's so obvious that the MSM is right in line with this administration as they use the same talking points as the people that haven't read it.

Is it all political? Bet your ass. When the Illegal Aliens start leaving Arizona and start to over burdening other States, those States will be forced to enact the same type of legislation as Arizona did...... and it will snowball right across America. Then Barry's dream of 20 million new liberal voters will be dead.

It's blatant misrepresentation of a good law, for political purposes.... and **** the people in Arizona..... they are in the way.
 
Why does it matter whether they read it if they know what's in it?
 
Why does it matter whether they read it if they know what's in it?

How could they know what's in it if they haven't read it?

1. They haven't read it and it wouldn't matter if they had..... same talking points.

2. They've read it, but if they admit that, then it's obvious to any that have read it that they are lying through their teeth..... much easier to blow smoke then cover with "I haven't read it yet".

Same ****….. Same assholes.
 
Back
Top Bottom