• 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!

The AZ Immigration Law Has Been Decided

So essentially the SCOTUS upheld the only part of the law that anyone was talking about?
 
Gina said:
Of course it's not profiling. You're fishing, you need to have a license.

My Hispanic looking relatives could be doing anything, walking or driving down a street for instance, and be stopped and harassed for merely being suspected of being illegal. As a white person, I don't have to worry about that. That's profiling.

A real world example: My blue-eyed, blonde haired relative is married to an American born woman of Mexican heritage. They have two children. One is blue-eyed and white, the other is brown eyed and brunette. He could be out with his daughter and have no worries. She could be out with their son and potentially be stopped. They live in Arizona, so my concerns are very real, this could effect her and their child.
Click to expand...

So you suspect this will be happening on a daily basis, maybe even several times per day.
 
American said:
So you suspect this will be happening on a daily basis, maybe even several times per day.
Click to expand...

I have no idea, but the police are free to do it as often as they want, for merely being suspect, not actually doing some suspicious. The stop is based on how they look.
 
VanceMack said:
So essentially the SCOTUS upheld the only part of the law that anyone was talking about?
Click to expand...

Basically what they did is gut the law and affirm that federal law preempts state law on immigration. A big win for Obama.
 
Gina said:
I have no idea, but the police are free to do it as often as they want, for merely being suspect, not actually doing some suspicious. The stop is based on how they look.
Click to expand...

And they can set up alcohol check points and stop everyone to check sobriety.
 
VanceMack said:
Could be that they are simply following the information and training given BY Federal Immigration agencies TO State and Local law enforcement agencies.

ICE and Federal Law Enforcement Training Center hold kick-off ceremony welcoming class of 287 (g) officers
Click to expand...

Very text dense. Please cite the passage to which you are referring.

The fact is, there are millions of legal citizens who are of Hispanic heritage, or look to be. They should not be subject to a stop and check owing to the color of their skin.
 
American said:
And they can set up alcohol check points and stop everyone to check sobriety.
Click to expand...

And everyone going through them is subject to stop. Not only someone fitting a physical description or characteristics.
 
Gina said:
And everyone going through them is subject to stop. Not only someone fitting a physical description or characteristics.
Click to expand...

So the Arizona law say that cops can only stop people if they look like Mexicans? Also, when cops do sobriety tests, who's to know if they only stopped Mexicans or not?
 
Last edited:
American said:
So the Arizona law say that cops can only stop people if they look like Mexicans?
Click to expand...

They are going to stop my blonde-haired, blue-eyed relative under the suspicion of being illegal?
 
Gina said:
They are going to stop my blonde-haired, blue-eyed relative under the suspicion of being illegal?
Click to expand...

Does the law stop them from doing so?
 
Gina said:
I have no idea, but the police are free to do it as often as they want, for merely being suspect, not actually doing some suspicious. The stop is based on how they look.
Click to expand...
"Can you give us a description of the rapaist, Ma'am?"

"Yes, officer .. he was a little shorter than average, I'd say, brown eyes, black hair, spoke short, curt, definite accent, and he had a devious look to his smile, and this attitude that I couldn't stop him, oh, and he had this mole on his face to the left of his nose ... "

"Okay, thanks, Ma'am .. we'll keep a look out for anyone matching that description -- we'll get him, you can rest assured."

In this particular case of 20 million law-breakers, the group-description profile is an ethically appropriate target.

How a suspect looks is always germane to hunting him down.

Whenever a suspect(s) is pursued, a number of innocents with similar profiles get detained for questioning and released, no harm done, and it even becomes their interesting story of the day.

Real Americans so detained will thank law enforcement for being on the job.
 
AdamT said:
Basically what they did is gut the law and affirm that federal law preempts state law on immigration. A big win for Obama.
Click to expand...
Did they? Cuz...the ONLY things being discussed prior to this going to trial was Law Enforcement asking for proof of immigrant status and that seems to be the part upheld. I'm thinking what has happened is that people are scurrying to claim a 'victory'. Meanwhile, the states (not just Arizona) are left to deal with the problems.

And...tell us all again how the fed refuses to enforce immigration laws and blocks states from enforcing immigration laws equates to a victory for Obama...or anyone for that matter.
 
Ontologuy said:
"Can you give us a description of the rapaist, Ma'am?"

"Yes, officer .. he was a little shorter than average, I'd say, brown eyes, black hair, spoke short, curt, definite accent, and he had a devious look to his smile, and this attitude that I couldn't stop him, oh, and he had this mole on his face to the left of his nose ... "

"Okay, thanks, Ma'am .. we'll keep a look out for anyone matching that description -- we'll get him, you can rest assured."

In this particular case of 20 million law-breakers, the group-description profile is an ethically appropriate target.

How a suspect looks is always germane to hunting him down.

Whenever a suspect(s) is pursued, a number of innocents with similar profiles get detained for questioning and released, no harm done, and it even becomes their interesting story of the day.

Real Americans so detained will thank law enforcement for being on the job.
Click to expand...
"White" American citizens only have themseves to blame now for condoning the illegal immigration injustice against their fellow American citizens.
Click to expand...

Yes and 20 million American citizens should not be suspect due to a broad resemblance to those here illegally.

You are arguing with me, but yet you seem to agree with me. I don't condone it. So please pursue someone else with that point.
 
VanceMack said:
Did they? Cuz...the ONLY things being discussed prior to this going to trial was Law Enforcement asking for proof of immigrant status and that seems to be the part upheld. I'm thinking what has happened is that people are scurrying to claim a 'victory'. Meanwhile, the states (not just Arizona) are left to deal with the problems.

And...tell us all again how the fed refuses to enforce immigration laws and blocks states from enforcing immigration laws equates to a victory for Obama...or anyone for that matter.
Click to expand...

Yes, they pretty much kicked AZ in the balls. The only reason they upheld the one section is that they didn't see a conflict with federal law. And of course there's still a good chance the one remaining section could fall on other grounds.
 
They were right to do this. Federal law should overrule a state law so long as the Federal law doesn't trample on state's rights according to the Constitution.

They need to do the same thing to the states that are trying to legalize marijuana.
 
digsbe said:
They were right to do this. Federal law should overrule a state law so long as the Federal law doesn't trample on state's rights according to the Constitution.

They need to do the same thing to the states that are trying to legalize marijuana.
Click to expand...

So what is the recourse when the Fed refuses to enforce a law? Has it not then violated the Constitution? The state of Arizona has asked for help, and the federal govt refuses to provide it. If the fed govt wants to sit in the driver's seat, then it needs to drive.
 
Tucker Case said:
Wait, are you saying white people can't be illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...
No.

I put "White" in quotes in specific reference to Gina's earlier attempt to create a false dichotomy in the discussion.
 
American said:
I think you are placing an outcome on the law, not me.
Click to expand...

You asked does the law stop them from stopping white people? I asked you, are you pretending they would be stopping white people merely for suspicion of being here illegally?
 
Last edited:
American said:
So what is the recourse when the Fed refuses to enforce a law? Has it not then violated the Constitution? The state of Arizona has asked for help, and the federal govt refuses to provide it. If the fed govt wants to sit in the driver's seat, then it needs to drive.
Click to expand...

The Feds are not refusing to enforce the law. They are enforcing it now more than they were under the previous administration. The number of illegals is falling and border state crime has been falling for some time.
 
American said:
So what is the recourse when the Fed refuses to enforce a law? Has it not then violated the Constitution? The state of Arizona has asked for help, and the federal govt refuses to provide it. If the fed govt wants to sit in the driver's seat, then it needs to drive.
Click to expand...

THIS is a nonsensical statement of belief unsupported by reality.

ON the section of the AZ law that was upheld by the Supreme Court, the "papers please" bit - there is one major aspect that I don't see mentioned here. The AZ police are no longer allowed to detain someone without prior federal approval of such detention.

Also, nobody has mentioned the fact that Native Americans have also been stopped and questioned under this AZ law - are they also "illegals" or do they just look like they are?
 
Somerville said:
THIS is a nonsensical statement of belief unsupported by reality.

ON the section of the AZ law that was upheld by the Supreme Court, the "papers please" bit - there is one major aspect that I don't see mentioned here. The AZ police are no longer allowed to detain someone without prior federal approval of such detention.

Also, nobody has mentioned the fact that Native Americans have also been stopped and questioned under this AZ law - are they also "illegals" or do they just look like they are?
Click to expand...

I hadn't mentioned the aspect of Native Americans, but I have Native Americans who are very close relatives as well. They are mistaken for Hispanic all the time and could easily be stopped under this law. Another reason this law is so upsetting to me.
 
Gina said:
Yes and 20 million American citizens should not be suspect due to a broad resemblance to those here illegally.
Click to expand...
There are roughly 20 million illegals in America. Are you saying that for each one of them there will be one similarly-looking American citizen detained in the search for the 20 million illegals?

I believe that's a gross exaggeration, because we all know, as I previously posted, looks are just one of the descriptives, a beginning point to continue observing for one or two other narrowing-it-down criteria prior to momentarily detaining the individual(s) (over-use of non-English, lack of English comprehension, loitering near Home Depot, loitering near warehouse districts, driving junkers, cramming cars, not wearing seatbelts ...) the list goes on and on and on, that will hone in on likely perpetrators, eliminating American citizens from the list.

So the number of real Americans momentarily detained will be teeny tiny compared to your gross exaggeration.

But you state " ... should not be suspect ... ". What do you mean by "should not"? "Should not" under what "discipline", suspect profiling? Not even! "Should not" under some political/party ideology? Meaningless. What's this "should not" and what is your foundational argument for it?

20 million illegals have violated the laws of American citizens, trespassing, identity-forging, and job-stealing -- we should do all we can to apprehend them, I mean, if justice for all Americans is of value.

I doubt the few true Americans who get momentarily detained will be anything but thankful that law enforcement is on the job.


Gina said:
You are arguing with me, but yet you seem to agree with me. I don't condone it. So please pursue someone else with that point.
Click to expand...
Your implied obfuscation is rejected.

I don't at all "seem to agree with you" -- where do you get that?

You then contradict my obvious position saying you "don't condon it [detaining American citizens while searching for illegals]", while I'm quite fine with the teeny, tiny percentage of time that will truly happen.

As for "pursuing" someone else with that point, I'm not "pursuing" anyone, though I find your term revealing, considering the discussion content. I'm merely debating the matter with someone of an obviously differing opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom