• 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!

Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law

jallman said:
That doesn't mean it's not a legal principle. :shrug:

And I am gonna go with an informed writer for a prestigious newspaper over your admitted ignorance on the matter. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

So you didn't pull the law as posted on the az gov site and read it and are going by what papers report:doh Would it not be better to read the law and come to your own opinion rather than rely on someone else?

I resent you relate this law to the Nazi tactics with no basis other than your opinion.
 
mike2810 said:
So you didn't pull the law as posted on the az gov site and read it and are going by what papers report:doh
Click to expand...

If you would take just a moment and go back and actually read the exchange between Deuce and myself, you might notice that whether the term "lawful contact" was in the law or not was not a question. The question was what "lawful contact" actually means. Now it's my turn to express utter disgust at your lack of comprehension with the face palm smiley. Enjoy.

:doh:doh:doh

Would it not be better to read the law and come to your own opinion rather than rely on someone else?
Click to expand...

Again, the law in its entirety was not the issue here. Go back and read again.

I resent you relate this law to the Nazi tactics with no basis other than your opinion.
Click to expand...

Oh dear god. Do you ever tire of putting your foot in your mouth.

Go back and read who actually related this law to Nazi tactics and then get back to me. If it's necessary, have someone else read and explain to you what just happened here.
 
JM
So you have not read the law?
It does matter what is in the law as written. Spin away.
 
jallman said:
If you would take just a moment and go back and actually read the exchange between Deuce and myself, you might notice that whether the term "lawful contact" was in the law or not was not a question. The question was what "lawful contact" actually means. Now it's my turn to express utter disgust at your lack of comprehension with the face palm smiley. Enjoy.

:doh:doh:doh



Again, the law in its entirety was not the issue here. Go back and read again.



Oh dear god. Do you ever tire of putting your foot in your mouth.

Go back and read who actually related this law to Nazi tactics and then get back to me. If it's necessary, have someone else read and explain to you what just happened here.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that this law is measured because of one opinion piece in a decidedly conservative-leaning newspaper?

And you don't have an agenda here.

And I'll note that in the opinion piece you quote, he never actually defines what "lawful contact" means.

Indeed, it says this directly:

"The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent "reasonable suspicion."

So, this means that an officer can harass a citizen through incidental contact if, after that legal incidental contact, he suspects them of being illegal.

How's that different from what I'm proposing?

Legal contact. Guy walking down the street nods at an officer. Officer thinks he might be illegal. He stops him and asks him for proof of citizenship.

What you're posting to prove that this law is "measured" actually states that an officer can ask anyone he "reasonably suspects" of being illegal to prove that they're a citizen.

How can you not see how wrong that is?
 
Chappy said:
My emphasis.

Seems like an improvement; but, is it enough?
Click to expand...

I always thought the inability to speak English would have been the first clue that someone was illegal. I have no idea why the left jumps to race.
 
mike2810 said:
JM
So you have not read the law?
It does matter what is in the law as written. Spin away.
Click to expand...

mike...

I have read the law. The issue was not what the law stated in total. The issue was, again, what a certain term in the law meant.

Try reading.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
So you're saying that this law is measured because of one opinion piece in a decidedly conservative-leaning newspaper?
Click to expand...

No, I said one term in the law was defined by one author (an immigration law writer) in a paper.

And you don't have an agenda here.
Click to expand...

No, I don't have an agenda here except to discuss the topic. It would be nice if you did the same.

And I'll note that in the opinion piece you quote, he never actually defines what "lawful contact" means.
Click to expand...

And I'll note you can't read either. Which opinion piece did I quote, directly? Please share this with me.


Indeed, it says this directly:

"The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent "reasonable suspicion."
Click to expand...

By all means, YOUR article may say that. Now try reading what I quoted and get back to me.

So, this means that an officer can harass a citizen through incidental contact if, after that legal incidental contact, he suspects them of being illegal.
Click to expand...

OK, so now who hasn't actually read the law?

How's that different from what I'm proposing?
Click to expand...

I didn't make a call on what you were proposing in that regard. I made a comment about the idiotic association ebtween that and Nazis.

Legal contact. Guy walking down the street nods at an officer. Officer thinks he might be illegal. He stops him and asks him for proof of citizenship.
Click to expand...

That's not lawful contact which is what the law actually stated.

What you're posting to prove that this law is "measured" actually states that an officer can ask anyone he "reasonably suspects" of being illegal to prove that they're a citizen.
Click to expand...

I am ok with that, being an American citizen and all.

How can you not see how wrong that is?
Click to expand...

How can you see it as wrong? I have no problem with all reasonable lattitude being given to an officer of the law to enforce the law. The Arizona law does just that.
 
jallman said:
That's not lawful contact which is what the law actually stated.
Click to expand...

Straight, simple question: Where is the term "lawful contact" defined?
 
Jerry said:
I always thought the inability to speak English would have been the first clue that someone was illegal. I have no idea why the left jumps to race.
Click to expand...

How is not being able to speak English a first to clue to being here illegal? Have you taken a stroll down Harlem lately? Tons of hispanics who are here legally and yet can't speak English.
 
Hatuey said:
How is not being able to speak English a first to clue to being here illegal? Have you taken a stroll down Harlem lately? Tons of hispanics who are here legally and yet can't speak English.
Click to expand...




You mean washington heights, spanish harlem (el barrio) right? :ssst:
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You mean washington heights, spanish harlem right? :ssst:
Click to expand...

Mostly Spanish Harlem

Elbarrio116thLex.jpg


The signs are in Spanish for a reason. ;)
 
Deuce said:
Straight, simple question: Where is the term "lawful contact" defined?
Click to expand...

Straight, simple answer: It's not defined within the law. That does not mean it isn't legal terminology.

Where is "illegal immigrant" defined in the law? What is the definition of "is"?:roll:

I'm still gonna take the immigration attorney's stance over your admitted ignorance on the subject.
 
Deuce said:
Straight, simple question: Where is the term "lawful contact" defined?
Click to expand...

You don't know what "lawful contact" means? I'll give you some examples...

Lawful contact: A police officer pulls over a person for speeding.

Unlawful contact: A police officer stops a person of Hispanic appearance because they look Hispanic, demands identification, and arrests them when they are unable to produce it.

It's that whole "Fourth Amendment" thing.
 
I'll more specifically define "lawful contact" for those of you who are still confused.

Lawful - allowed or permitted by law; not contrary to law.

Contact - the act or state of touching; a touching or meeting, as of two things or people; immediate proximity or association.

Does that help?
 
disneydude said:
The problem with that Cap'n is that so do a lot of US citizens. Its not ok to trample on the rights of citizens in a fishing expedition to try to find the undocumented.
Click to expand...

What rights are being trampled on? You have a right to refuse to show your identification to a law enforcement officer if you are pulled over for an observed offense?
 
jallman said:
Straight, simple answer: It's not defined within the law. That does not mean it isn't legal terminology.

Where is "illegal immigrant" defined in the law? What is the definition of "is"?:roll:

I'm still gonna take the immigration attorney's stance over your admitted ignorance on the subject.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware that the term is not defined in the law which is the reason I asked the question. WHERE IS THIS TERM DEFINED?

Nobody seems to know.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
"The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English."
Click to expand...

Shouldn't ALL of our public school teachers be able to speak grammatical, reasonably unaccented American English (or local dialect thereof)?
 
ludahai said:
Shouldn't ALL of our public school teachers be able to speak grammatical, reasonably unaccented American English (or local dialect thereof)?
Click to expand...

There is no specific standard for this. It literally doesn't exist.
 
Deuce said:
There is no specific standard for this. It literally doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I said "reasonably unaccented" English -- making exceptions for local dialects. I beleive someone whose native language is Chinese can can't be understood by the majority of students would obviously NOT belong in a classroom...
 
Deuce said:
I'm well aware that the term is not defined in the law which is the reason I asked the question. WHERE IS THIS TERM DEFINED?

Nobody seems to know.
Click to expand...

The term "lawful" is defined and the term "contact" is defined. Put them together and there you go. It's called eeengrish.
 
jallman said:
The term "lawful" is defined and the term "contact" is defined. Put them together and there you go. It's called eeengrish.
Click to expand...

AHaha!!!

Eeengrish is berry goo!
 
Hatuey said:
How is not being able to speak English a first to clue to being here illegal? Have you taken a stroll down Harlem lately? Tons of hispanics who are here legally and yet can't speak English.
Click to expand...

I lived and worked in CA for over 15 years. Yes, I do know personally that not being able to speak English is a clue that the person is a recent immigrant, and a cop would then have "reasonable suspicion" to ask for their ID.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
And the Nazis saw no problem with stopping citizens to ask them for their citizenship papers.
Click to expand...

Neither did the FBI during WW2. If an American citizen during WW2 was thought to be acting funny and they couldn't prove who they were, well, guess what happened? Hell, the US government didn't even bother with papers when it came to Germand, Italians and Japanese, they just locked their asses up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom