• 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!

Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I don't think so. Personally I'm pushing up my trip to phoenix to this year instead of next. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Yeah, and I convinced my Dad to come here instead of me visiting him in Arizona.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
Yeah, and I convinced my Dad to come here instead of me visiting him in Arizona.
Click to expand...



I spend more money on frivoulous things than your dad. :shrug:



Sorry enforcing federal law offends you so much. :ssst:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Sorry enforcing federal law offends you so much. :ssst:
Click to expand...

As I've already pointed out, this is a false choice fallacy (and now you're using it as a straw man).

There are more than one way to enforce laws. There are certainly bad ways of enforcing them. People have justified all kinds of abuses by saying this, including violations of the 4th and 5th amendment.

I'm not saying the Arizona law is bad, just that this is not a good argument for it. Let's actually discuss the law for once.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I spend more money on frivoulous things than your dad. :shrug: …
Click to expand...

Oh, you would be right about my dad. On the other hand, my step-mom, the ultimate power shopper is coming, too. I rather think her absence from Arizona for any period of time will be felt.
 
texmaster said:
T
Still waiting for you to prove lawful contact means the police can make up a reason to be talking to you or for no reason at all.

#1 He didn't go to jail. that is false.

#2 He didn't get held because he didn't have his birth certificate. He was held because of the answers he gave the police which prompted them to ask for more evidence of residency. It is not a standard requirement. You have no idea what was said that set off the officers.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to show that "lawful contact" means I have to be pulled over already.

Ok, he was just taken down to the station and his wife had to leave work to run home and get his birth certificate. That's much better.

edit: On a serious note, can anybody find a hard definition of "lawful contact" anywhere? I don't see it in the bill, there might be something in other Arizona laws that defines it. If the term isn't defined, the law is clearly written too vaguely.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Still waiting for you to show that "lawful contact" means I have to be pulled over already.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was just for being pulled over. Read more carefully.

Still waiting for you to prove that lawful contact means they can confront you based on immigration status alone.

Ok, he was just taken down to the station and his wife had to leave work to run home and get his birth certificate. That's much better.
Click to expand...

Is that your way of conceding you have no idea what was said in the conversation that led to the birth certificate?
 
Deuce said:
Still waiting for you to show that "lawful contact" means I have to be pulled over already.
Click to expand...

Police have always had to have a legal justification for pulling someone over. Those justifications are not expanded by this new law. In fact, the law specifically states that suspicion of being an illegal alien is not legal justification. That's all you really need to know.
 
texmaster said:
I didn't say it was just for being pulled over. Read more carefully.

Still waiting for you to prove that lawful contact means they can confront you based on immigration status alone.



Is that your way of conceding you have no idea what was said in the conversation that led to the birth certificate?
Click to expand...

Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.
Click to expand...

An officer saying "Nice day, isn't it?" could be considered "lawful contact" if that term is not defined anywhere. You're basing your entire argument on the assumption that this guy did something to somehow make the officer doubt the validity of the man's driver's license/SSN. The bottom line is he was handcuffed and taken in because he wasn't carrying a birth certificate. Papiere, bitte.
 
Chappy said:
I wonder where this will lead. Will business be hurt? Will tourism be hurt? Will Arizona's overall economic recovery be hurt? I rather think so on all counts.
Click to expand...

Why the **** would anyone avoid going there? Makes no sense. Only those truly ignorant of the law would refrain from going there.

Or those with something to hide.

Either way, I'm sure AZ and its citizens will be more than happy those folks (the ignorant or the illegal) stayed away.
 
Grim17 said:
Police have always had to have a legal justification for pulling someone over. Those justifications are not expanded by this new law. In fact, the law specifically states that suspicion of being an illegal alien is not legal justification. That's all you really need to know.
Click to expand...

No, it's not all we need to know, because you haven't established that the justifications aren't expanded by this law, because nobody knows the legal definition of "lawful contact" yet. I think you're probably right, but it's not proven yet.
 
Deuce said:
An officer saying "Nice day, isn't it?" could be considered "lawful contact" if that term is not defined anywhere.
Click to expand...

Bull****. That is not lawful contact because it is no where within th law.

You're basing your entire argument on the assumption that this guy did something to somehow make the officer doubt the validity of the man's driver's license/SSN. The bottom line is he was handcuffed and taken in because he wasn't carrying a birth certificate. Papiere, bitte.
Click to expand...

I'm basing it on the fact that we don't have all the information. You don't care about that but I do.
 
rivrrat said:
Why the **** would anyone avoid going there? Makes no sense. Only those truly ignorant of the law would refrain from going there.
Click to expand...

What's the law say exactly?

Or those with something to hide.
Click to expand...

Another classic rationalization.
 
texmaster said:
Bull****. That is not lawful contact because it is no where within th law.
Click to expand...

There IS NO DEFINITION of "lawful contact" in the law. So you can't say what it means based on what's in the law.

I'm basing it on the fact that we don't have all the information.
Click to expand...

Right. We don't know what "lawful contact" means yet.
 
I may be coming into some money soon, and I think I will spend at least half of it in AZ....

Utah is afraid that the AZ law will make more illegals come there and at least one state official is thinking of enacting a similar law to minimize that.

and I like what Leno said about it, AZ should ship all the illegals back where they came from, Los Angeles....:2razz:
 
texmaster said:
Bull****. That is not lawful contact because it is no where within th law.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said. There's no legal definition so it means pretty much whatever the officer thinks it means.


I'm basing it on the fact that we don't have all the information. You don't care about that but I do.
Click to expand...

If you think he was handcuffed and detained for a reason other than questioning his immigration status, you're going to have to demonstrate that somehow. There's evidence to support my side, but none for yours.
 
misterman said:
There IS NO DEFINITION of "lawful contact" in the law. So you can't say what it means based on what's in the law.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the word LAWFUL means it would have to do with the LAW?

Are you so far gone you can't even admit that?
 
Given the huge negative blowback and public outcry, I'm beginning to question my own acceptance of the bill.

Maybe I'm not understanding how it's going to be utilized by local law enforcement.

Or maybe people are not understand the severity of the problem in terms of a drain on public services/funds.

I still think a more effective and less controversial approach would be harsher legislation focused on employers using undocumented workers. Make the fines steep and enforce the law. This would also bring more money into the state in the form of payroll taxes.
 
hazlnut said:
Given the huge negative blowback and public outcry, I'm beginning to question my own acceptance of the bill.

Maybe I'm not understanding how it's going to be utilized by local law enforcement.

Or maybe people are not understand the severity of the problem in terms of a drain on public services/funds.

I still think a more effective and less controversial approach would be harsher legislation focused on employers using undocumented workers. Make the fines steep and enforce the law. This would also bring more money into the state in the form of payroll taxes.
Click to expand...
I hadn't realized that you accepted the bill. Are you saying you support this law?
 
Holy ****. Reading some of the bull**** in this thread, it should probably be moved to the conspiracy theory forum.
 
Chappy said:
I wonder where this will lead. Will business be hurt? Will tourism be hurt? Will Arizona's overall economic recovery be hurt? I rather think so on all counts.
Click to expand...

Lets say that you were a small business man in Sonora, Mexico making, lets say widgits. Your customer base is in AZ. AZ then passes this law. You now might have to show ID when delivering your widgits to Phoenix.

You have already been asked for your passport when crossing the border into the USA, then again at the Border Patrol checkpoint between Ajo and Gila Bend. Now IF you are stopped by the police for an unrelated reason, you will have to show your papers again.

As the small business man, do you care? Probably not. What is showing your papers 3 times instead of the already required 2?
Is it enough to tell a widgit customer that you are no longer going to do business with him? Are you going to turn down work in this poor economy?

I think the negative economic impact of this bill is being exaggerated by the naysayers.

You can pick your own reason why.
 
Deuce said:
Still waiting for you to show that "lawful contact" means I have to be pulled over already.

Ok, he was just taken down to the station and his wife had to leave work to run home and get his birth certificate. That's much better.

edit: On a serious note, can anybody find a hard definition of "lawful contact" anywhere? I don't see it in the bill, there might be something in other Arizona laws that defines it. If the term isn't defined, the law is clearly written too vaguely.
Click to expand...

"That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "
 
70% of people in Arizona support this law, and according to what I just heard on the radio, it has resulted in a 15 point surge in the governors approval rating.

So let me fix your post for you.

hazlnut said:
Given the huge negative blowback and liberal outcry, I'm beginning to question my own acceptance of the bill.

Maybe I'm not understanding how it's going to be utilized by local law enforcement.

Or maybe liberals are not understand the severity of the problem in terms of a drain on public services/funds.

I still think a more effective and less controversial approach would be harsher legislation focused on employers using undocumented workers. Make the fines steep and enforce the law. This would also bring more money into the state in the form of payroll taxes.
Click to expand...

There... That's better. :mrgreen:
 
Grim17 said:
70% of people in Arizona support this law, and according to what I just heard on the radio, it has resulted in a 15 point surge in the governors approval rating.

So let me fix your post for you.



There... That's better. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

FAR more accurate :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom