• 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

Section 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.

I would say that legally endorsed racial profiling definitely violates that.

I would assert that checking citizenship is not a search. Racial profiling for the purposes of checking citizenship does not violate equal protection. It would make for an interesting Supreme Court decision.

We are idiots for not racial profiling. We are concerned about illegal aliens. The VAST majority of whom come from latin america and Mexico. We should be checking the citizenship of hispanics (all the races that that entails).
 
The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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…"

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "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. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona | Washington Examiner


As you or anyone can see, CriticalThought is just blowing smoke. The law's provision he dislikes is only enacted when there is a prior cause. If an illegal immigrant is found to be an illegal immigrant, just because an officer wanted to discriminate, the immigrant would be protected.
 
Thanks for the opinion but let's have a court decide how carefully crafted the law is.
 
Where do any of those cases give local cops the authority to demand papers from Hispanic citizens based solely on their skin color or manner of speaking? That is what I am primarily arguing.

Where does this law say that local cops have authority to demand papers from Hispanic citizens based solely on their skin color or manner of speaking.

It doesn't, you are imagining scenarios in your head.
 
Thanks for the opinion but let's have a court decide how carefully crafted the law is.

Well, there's still a big difference between "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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…" or "You will be stopped and arrested for looking Hispanic."

Regardless of what the court decides, we can safely say it will not be because of the reasons CriticalThought brought up. Unless asking if your an illegal immigrant after running a red light somehow violates the 14th Amendment. :doh
 
I would assert that checking citizenship is not a search. Racial profiling for the purposes of checking citizenship does not violate equal protection. It would make for an interesting Supreme Court decision.

We are idiots for not racial profiling. We are concerned about illegal aliens. The VAST majority of whom come from latin america and Mexico. We should be checking the citizenship of hispanics (all the races that that entails).

But you really don't have to profile. This is a tool once reasonable suspicion is established.

And for those crying about what responsible suspicion is, look at cops who search cars. They do it after they establish reasonable suspicion, the manners of a person, the way they act, how they answer questions, their mood, all of those things establish reasonable suspicion and it has zero to do with racial profiling.

If you are German and only speak German have no id and get very nervous when being questioned and I'm a police officer, I'm going to suspect you aren't here legally too. I'm not judging you on your race but your actions and demeanor, both taught at the police academy. It really is insulting for those pro illegal anti immigration law folks to assume police don't know how to establish reasonable suspicion when they do it every day on the job.

People against this are either claiming their race trumps this countries' right to establish law which is no different than the KKK or they rely on a "what if" argument where they come up with a theory of how it could break the law but can't prove it is written to break the law.
 
Last edited:
Section 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 not illegals 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.

no one is going to be denied equal protection because of this law.

I would say that legally endorsed racial profiling definitely violates that.

IF that is what the law said you would be right, problem with your argument is that the law does NOT say it is legalising racial profiling. Your interpretation is telling you that, not the actual words in tha law.
 
Last edited:
IF that is what the law said you would be right, problem with your argument is that the law does NOT say it is legalising racial profiling. Your interpretation is telling you that, not the actual words in tha law.

Exactly right.
 
But you really don't have to profile. This is a tool once reasonable suspicion is established.

And for those crying about what responsible suspicion is, look at cops who search cars. They do it after they establish reasonable suspicion, the manners of a person, the way they act, how they answer questions, their mood, all of those things establish reasonable suspicion and it has zero to do with racial profiling.

If you are German and only speak German have no id and get very nervous when being questioned and I'm a police officer, I'm going to suspect you aren't here legally too. I'm not judging you on your race but your actions and demeanor, both taught at the police academy. It really is insulting for those pro illegal anti immigration law folks to assume police don't know how to establish reasonable suspicion when they do it every day on the job.

People against this are either claiming their race trumps this countries' right to establish law which is no different than the KKK or they rely on a "what if" argument where they come up with a theory of how it could break the law but can't prove it is written to break the law.

If you only want to deport illegals found breaking the law or under suspicion, then you don't have to racially profile with this law.

But if we wanted to get serious about it, we ought to be racially profiling.

Personally, I think

  1. our border remains to porous to stop illegals
  2. counterfeit operations for documents would be a great black market job opportunity
  3. there are 10 million illegals (more?) we don't have the manpower to deport
  4. in 20 years we are going to be looking for immigrants to come into America to pay for the retirees
  5. we should just legalize all of them
 
The article I quoted said they, Arizona's now Governor, conducted a 2 year investigation but, found no illegals falsely registering to vote or voting. Another Right wing lie bites the dust. :mrgreen:

Of course us reasonable people do not want illegals here much less voting in our elections but I had a feeling that old "illegals voted and affected or infected our elections" song was one big crock. Maybe I expecetd too much out of people in that I assumed that the debate over immigration and especially illegal alens would be handled honestly.
 
Did you read the article, I could find nothing but one mans opinion there, no facts, gross misrepresentation of what the law states.

I thought that it was very clear that the article was an opinion piece as per "Just another view ". EOS ! case closed ..
 
Why bring gender in to this? 0_o : Is it because that I myself am a female that is going against this bill, because I think it is Fascism at it finest. My dad who is a Conservative also think it is Fascism.


You don't get the point to being with Scarecrow most people are not rough with the police, if they haven't had trouble with them in the first place... That is what my father has noticed as he is in the field a lot doing his job as the fire marshal/cop.

The law is not necessarily just Fascist but it does appear that it was written with draconian intent and it is authoritarian. Draconian intent and authoritarian policies are not solely characteristics of Fascism but let us remember that those two characteristics were revered fondly by the USSR, Red China, Sadam’s Iraq, today’s Russia and other bottom dwelling countries
 
Russia did the same thing during the fascist state they had, so in way it is fascism.

Don't you mean the fascist state they have ? Russia is not exactly a democratic free country the last time I asked one of their prisoners - Uh minorities such as Chechens or Tatars...
 
The entire debate comes down to this section of the bill....

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.

What is "reasonable suspicion"? That they have brown skin? That they speak with an accent? There could be a thousand different interpretations of what is reasonable in suspecting someone is an illegal.

It's the vagueness of those words that make this a poorly written bill. It leaves it to law enforcement to decide what a reasonable suspicion is and that is why the bill could be used to target legal Hispanics.

Right - REASONABLE people can resonably diagree as to reasonable means.
 
Indeed.

I carry my passport with me everywhere even though I'm not required to, and my driver's license. I have no issue making sure authorities know who I am - whether I'm committing a crime or not.

Well then you must be the quintessential well prepared and documented criminal if you “have no issue making sure authorities know who I am - whether I'm committing a crime or not “. Congratulations - :rofl
 
Thanks for the opinion but let's have a court decide how carefully crafted the law is.

The bottom line is that the Obama administration ignored the illegal invasion for 15 months. But wait, oh my God, the Bush II administration ignored it for 96 months as did the ClintoniIan regime. This law will most likely be found unconstitutional because it very likely is flawed. The reason that it is flawed is because it was conceived in fear and propped up by ignorance and maybe prejudice along with a good sprinkling of xenophobia. Now that does not mean that illegals have any right to be here because they do not.
What it means is that it is way past time for the Federal’s to man up and do something about the open border that we obviously have. But Federal’s’ you need to do this the right way before 25 more idiot state legislatures create the Frankenstein’s monster that the buffoons of Arizona created.
 
Last edited:
Well then you must be the quintessential well prepared and documented criminal if you “have no issue making sure authorities know who I am - whether I'm committing a crime or not “. Congratulations - :rofl

Refusing to identify myself would only make things more difficult for ME. ;)
 


*clicky*

“… [N]o law can really be enforced without the help of the community, that's why I was so happy to see this picture posted on the internet showing one helpful Arizonans answer: I am Mexican, pull me over. That saves a lot of guesswork. (And fun prank on neighbor)” — Stephen Colbert
 

Attachments

  • zr3bL.jpg
    zr3bL.jpg
    88.3 KB · Views: 0


*clicky*

“… [N]o law can really be enforced without the help of the community, that's why I was so happy to see this picture posted on the internet showing one helpful Arizonans answer: I am Mexican, pull me over. That saves a lot of guesswork. (And fun prank on neighbor)” — Stephen Colbert

OMG and he is driving CHEBBY !!! Sorry couldn't help it I make funof almost every group.
 
From a political standpoint, I think the Republican party has just committed suicide in Arizona.

Look what happened in California 20 years ago. It was Democratic, but Republicans were making inroads, mostly due to Hispanic support. Then Republicans attempted to pass a similar law to Arizona's, one that would ban undocumented immigrants to services, which included even treatment at hospitals. Since then, Hispanics have been solidly in the Democrats' pockets.

In Arizona, John Kyl won his Senate seat with 41% of the Latino vote. You can expect this vote to evaporate overnight. Not only that, but Arizona is a state where white people will be a minority by 2015. Put it all together, and you will realize that the Republican party is now in it's death throes in Arizona.

You all know how I feel about illegal immigration. I am for sending them back, ALL OF THEM. However, I am not for violating the Constitution in doing so. People are screaming "Then how can address the problem of illegal immigration?". Easy as hell. You charge employers who hire them with felonies, and throw them in jail. That will kill illegal immigration quickly. If they don't have a way to make a living here, they will return to where they came from. Duh!! So why isn't Arizona doing this? I will tell you the reason - Most employers are white, that's why.
 
From a political standpoint, I think the Republican party has just committed suicide in Arizona.

Look what happened in California 20 years ago. It was Democratic, but Republicans were making inroads, mostly due to Hispanic support. Then Republicans attempted to pass a similar law to Arizona's, one that would ban undocumented immigrants to services, which included even treatment at hospitals. Since then, Hispanics have been solidly in the Democrats' pockets.

In Arizona, John Kyl won his Senate seat with 41% of the Latino vote. You can expect this vote to evaporate overnight. Not only that, but Arizona is a state where white people will be a minority by 2015. Put it all together, and you will realize that the Republican party is now in it's death throes in Arizona.

You all know how I feel about illegal immigration. I am for sending them back, ALL OF THEM. However, I am not for violating the Constitution in doing so. People are screaming "Then how can address the problem of illegal immigration?". Easy as hell. You charge employers who hire them with felonies, and throw them in jail. That will kill illegal immigration quickly. If they don't have a way to make a living here, they will return to where they came from. Duh!! So why isn't Arizona doing this? I will tell you the reason - Most employers are white, that's why.

After reading the bill and the Arizona governor's Executive Order, "Establishing Law Enforcement Training for Immigration Laws", I do not see how this is violating the Constitution. It is clearly backing up current federal laws. There definitely is a need for something like this. Additionally, the borders need to be secured to slow down illegal immigration [but, of course, still continue legal immigration].

Her Executive Order:
http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/EO_201009.pdf
 
DID ANYONE see this ?
Mexico turns table on travel advisory, issues warning on trips to Arizona

Mexico turns table on travel advisory, issues warning on trips to Arizona | La Plaza | Los Angeles Times

Is there enough legal travel from Mexico to Arizona to make a diference ?

So now the legal visitors will bg Zona but the illegal aliens will sneak in under ther RADAR.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon slammed the law as racist and hateful.

"As was clear during the [Arizona] legislative process, there is a negative political environment for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors," the Mexican Foreign Relations Ministry said in its alert, posted in Spanish and English on the ministry's website.
 
Last edited:
After reading the bill and the Arizona governor's Executive Order, "Establishing Law Enforcement Training for Immigration Laws", I do not see how this is violating the Constitution. It is clearly backing up current federal laws. There definitely is a need for something like this. Additionally, the borders need to be secured to slow down illegal immigration [but, of course, still continue legal immigration].

Her Executive Order:
http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/EO_201009.pdf

Thank you Justice Alito !! ( ooops that's not an illegal name is it? )
 
After reading the bill and the Arizona governor's Executive Order, "Establishing Law Enforcement Training for Immigration Laws", I do not see how this is violating the Constitution. It is clearly backing up current federal laws. There definitely is a need for something like this. Additionally, the borders need to be secured to slow down illegal immigration [but, of course, still continue legal immigration].

Her Executive Order:
http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/EO_201009.pdf

This is also contained in the law, that I'm posting especially for those of you who are comparing Arizona to Nazi Germany:

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.​

So if a person has any of the preceding, they are assumed to be in the country legally. Guess what folks, everyone in Arizona has to produce one of those forms of ID when questioned by the police, no matter what color your skin is.

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing the Nazi thing here?

.
 
This is also contained in the law, that I'm posting especially for those of you who are comparing Arizona to Nazi Germany:

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.​
So if a person has any of the preceding, they are assumed to be in the country legally. Guess what folks, everyone in Arizona has to produce one of those forms of ID when questioned by the police, no matter what color your skin is.

Sorry, but I'm just not seeing the Nazi thing here?

.

Looks good on the surface, but it is rotten underneath. As evidence, I present the case of a guy who, just a few days ago, was jailed because he did not provide police a birth certificate. BTW, he was born in the US. Also, notice his color.
 
Back
Top Bottom