• 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

misterman said:
No, I am trying to find a legally binding definition of "lawful contact," which is NOT in the law.
Click to expand...

I posted a link to a legally binding definition.
If it is not in the bill, I can't help you there, you will have to put the two together yourself.
 
cholla said:
I was talking to two illegals yesterday and the one who has applied for his papers and is in line in the system, who speaks english pretty well, said that the other one, who does not speak english well, and others he had talked to, said the were going to go back to Mexico before the law goes into effect.
I gathered from them, that there is a network of illegals keeping track of this law and he wanted to find out from me, what "the american people" thought was going to happen.
Click to expand...

They're not going to go back to Mexico.

They're going to go to one of 47 other states. They paid a lot of money to get here.
 
UtahBill said:
I suppose those who are climbing the fence at this very moment can't be assumed to be illegal either...
Click to expand...

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
They're not going to go back to Mexico.

They're going to go to one of 47 other states. They paid a lot of money to get here.
Click to expand...


Then maybe those voters in the other states will get fed up with illegals just as the AZ voters did and push for a similar bill in their state. A Texas legislator has already made the suggestion that Texas do just that.
 
CriticalThought said:
This is exactly the reason not to have this law. It would not be hard to amend the law so that it specifically states by what criteria that local law enforcement could reasonably suspect someone is an illegal. In fact, it could even be the same criteria as listed in the federal law. The only reason that people like you don't want to see that happen is because you are racists who want to see law abiding Hispanic citizens being harassed and having their 14th amendment rights trampled upon. That is the only way I can understand why you guys would want to have such an obviously vague law on the books.

But I don't care. As it stands now, it will only take one bored, racist cop to lead to this law being overturned by the courts.
Click to expand...


So, when all you people were babbling about these "undocumented" immigrants, as you call them, you never thought your bluff would be called and the cops would actually start demanding they show the documentation the law says they're supposed to be carrying if they're here legally?

Hmmm?

Since they're breaking the law by being here illegally, what's your problem with asking them for their documentation?

Don't give us the "you're a racist" crap, that emotional nonsense doesn't fit the facts. The facts are that the Invading Horde is a criminal horde. Every single one of them has violated the law.

Every.

One.

They don't belong here, and the existing federal law says they have to be sent back when they're caught.

What's your emotional problem with the police arresting criminals?
 
cholla said:
I have lived and worked with mexicans for 45 years and you can certainly tell the difference between someone who is just up from Mexico or Guadamala and someone who has lived in th USA for a while.
If I, as a layman can do that, most police that actually see the papers of people, will have a much easier time of identifing the illegals.
Click to expand...

See, this is exactly why we need to make sure laws adequately protect against people like you who say you can just "tell the difference."
 
bhkad said:
Then maybe those voters in the other states will get fed up with illegals just as the AZ voters did and push for a similar bill in their state. A Texas legislator has already made the suggestion that Texas do just that.
Click to expand...

Gee, what a shame that would be if California kicked it's Invader habit and started creating job openings for the American underclass instead.

What is really going down is that the Democrats hate blacks and don't want blacks to have the employment opportunities currently enjoyed by illegal mexican labor in the nation's hotels and restaurants.

If blacks could find jobs, they'd be less likely to vote for the people most dedicated to stealing the wages of working Americans. The Democrats have to fight that notion tooth and nail.
 
cholla said:
I posted a link to a legally binding definition.
Click to expand...

You did? You mean that Google search? That wasn't a definition at all, let alone a legal one.

If it is not in the bill, I can't help you there,
Click to expand...

That's true, you can't.

you will have to put the two together yourself.
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks for proving my point.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What is really going down is that the Democrats hate blacks and don't want blacks to have the employment opportunities currently enjoyed by illegal mexican labor in the nation's hotels and restaurants.

If blacks could find jobs, they'd be less likely to vote for the people most dedicated to stealing the wages of working Americans. The Democrats have to fight that notion tooth and nail.
Click to expand...

...and the race card gets played again!
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So, when all you people were babbling about these "undocumented" immigrants, as you call them, you never thought your bluff would be called and the cops would actually start demanding they show the documentation the law says they're supposed to be carrying if they're here legally?

Hmmm?

Since they're breaking the law by being here illegally, what's your problem with asking them for their documentation?

Don't give us the "you're a racist" crap, that emotional nonsense doesn't fit the facts. The facts are that the Invading Horde is a criminal horde. Every single one of them has violated the law.

Every.

One.

They don't belong here, and the existing federal law says they have to be sent back when they're caught.

What's your emotional problem with the police arresting criminals?
Click to expand...

You are a weird kid. My only problem with the law was that I felt it could violate the 14th amendment rights of Hispanic citizens. Given the definition of "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" that have been presented in this thread, I have less fear that that will be the case. I still think it is unfair to the average Hispanic citizen who gets pulled over for speeding, but at least I know that Hispanic citizens won't be stopped on the street just to show papers. None of my arguments in this thread were in relation to illegal immigrants, so I think you probably have some sort of reading disorder.
 
Last edited:
This issue directly shows how screwed up this country is.

We are actually on page 56 of a thread about enforcing an existing federal law that requires people to follow the proper channels to get into the country.

We are actually debating this!!

Unbelievable.
 
misterman said:
See, this is exactly why we need to make sure laws adequately protect against people like you who say you can just "tell the difference."
Click to expand...


"People like me" are not the ones enforcing laws, we are subject to them like anyone else.

Not sure what you are trying "protect against."
 
Deuce said:
Did you even bother to read anything from those google search results?

Yes, thats why I posted them up here, for others to read.

Because it doesn't say what you think it says.
Click to expand...

Please tell me what I think then:mrgreen:
 
Erod said:
This issue directly shows how screwed up this country is.

We are actually on page 56 of a thread about enforcing an existing federal law that requires people to follow the proper channels to get into the country.

We are actually debating this!!

Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Yes, everything is simple and your opinion is obviously right.
 
CriticalThought said:
You are a weird kid. My only problem with the law was that I felt it could violate the 14th amendment rights of Hispanic citizens.
Click to expand...

Can't.

The law doesn't permit random sampling of the population based on "looks like an Invader". It requires that the police stop people for suspicion of some other offense and then requires the officer to check residency status, if he suspects this additional crime to have been committed.

Since, however, the USSC has stated that blanket random road "checkpoints" for DUI and seatbelt usage do not violate the FOURTH Amendment, then it goes to follow that random routine road checkpoints for violation of other state laws cannot be a violation of that same Amendment.

BTW, you could try reading your constitution someday. I mean, if you're going to argue some law or other violates an amendment, shouldn't you at least pick a number of an Amendment that might pertain to what it is you're wishing it violated, but doesn't?

CriticalThought said:
Given the definition of "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion" that have been presented in this thread, I have less fear that that will be the case. I still think it is unfair to the average Hispanic citizen who gets pulled over for speeding, but at least I know that Hispanic citizens won't be stopped on the street just to show papers. None of my arguments in this thread were in relation to illegal immigrants, so I think you probably have some sort of reading disorder.
Click to expand...

"Lawful contact", in essence, the suspect has to be suspected, with reasonable suspicion, of committing some other offense.

Suddenly you people have a problem with the police apprehending criminals? Its that why you keep sending the same criminals to Washington every year, and not, as I once suspected, you desired to get them out of your own neighborhoods?
 
misterman said:
...and the race card gets played again!
Click to expand...

Yes, everytime the Americans try to enforce their immigration laws and start shipping the people in this country illegally out, the Democrats play the only card they have, their little Racist Whiner Card.

For some reason, actually for no reason at all except shear hormonal imbalance, the Democrat stooge believes that if he uses his hormones and not his brain, then his use of the word "racism" automatically makes the person he's aiming it at a racist.

He never realizes his liberal use of the word does nothing but expose the vacuity of his thinking to the rest of the world.

Desiring to curb the Invasion of the United States by unlawfully entered parties is not racism.

Period.

You have to find a real argument, since your emotions aren't going to win this one.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Suddenly you people have a problem with the police apprehending criminals? Its that why you keep sending the same criminals to Washington every year, and not, as I once suspected, you desired to get them out of your own neighborhoods?
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to make a fight out of something that was decided several posts back? As I said, within the context of preserving the 14 amendment rights of Hispanic citizens, I have no problem with this law. You need to learn to do more than spot read posts.
 
misterman said:
Yes, everything is simple and your opinion is obviously right.
Click to expand...

It isn't opinion, it's fact.

Line 26 says it all:

ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.​

Can't profile and legal ID means they are presumed to be in the country legally.

That about sums it up.

.
 
Grim17 said:
It isn't opinion, it's fact.

Line 26 says it all:

ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.​

Can't profile and legal ID means they are presumed to be in the country legally.

That about sums it up.

.
Click to expand...

Common sense and facts like this are ignored like water off a ducks back... you have to throw some hyperbole in there and make some outrageous statements and inane questions... how dare you use facts in such a discussion as this! :lol:
 
I'm still certain there are bigoted cops who are going to abuse this, but what can you do? With or without the legal population, the Hispanic population will be the new majority of this country by 2030. Karma has a way of striking back.
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm still certain there are bigoted cops who are going to abuse this, but what can you do? With or without the legal population, the Hispanic population will be the new majority of this country by 2030. Karma has a way of striking back.
Click to expand...

Not sure what they would be "striking back" about? We did not treat the Hispanics all that bad. Especially when you compare how we trested the North American Indian tribes.
 
CriticalThought said:
I'm still certain there are bigoted cops who are going to abuse this, but what can you do? With or without the legal population, the Hispanic population will be the new majority of this country by 2030. Karma has a way of striking back.
Click to expand...

Yawn.

We heard the same thing back in the 90s and then it was Hispanics would be the majority in the southwest by 2010.

Please don't play race wars.
 
CriticalThought said:
Why are you trying to make a fight out of something that was decided several posts back? As I said, within the context of preserving the 14 amendment rights of Hispanic citizens, I have no problem with this law. You need to learn to do more than spot read posts.
Click to expand...

Fourth Amendment.

Not Fourteenth.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

Arizona's law applies to all, equally. No violation.

Asking a person suspected of being an illegal alien is now in perfect accordance with statute. No violation.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem to have much applicability to asking a possible Invader for his ID.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda thinking that none of the current crop of Invaders wore Confederate Grey. What's your opinion on this essential matter?

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Click to expand...

Well, if any of the Invaders wants to pay off some Confederate debt, I don't see why they should be stopped.


5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Click to expand...

Needless to say, Congress isn't enforcing squat, but the matter if the Invasion isn't covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, except for the misread part where invader spawn is improperly granted citizenship, something the authors of this Amendment had no intention of granting.



Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.
Click to expand...

It's not "unreasonable" to demand a person suspected of other crimes to produce papers demonstrating that he is not also violating federal immigration law. Nor does it violate probable cause, since he's already under suspicion, with probable cause for violating other laws.

So, there's no Constitutional issues with Arizona's law. What's your problem with it again?

Oh, yeah, it defends the United States against an Invasion by inimical foreigners.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom