New Arizona Immigration Enforcement Laws

lol thats a dangerous way of thinking and you made my point incapacitate him with a non-lethal force first, then find out why his silly azz was on the field.

 

Or the dumb ass coulda stopped running. So you think only violent criminals should be tased? What a warped sense of mind. You want to pick and chose how you want the laws to be enforced. Here's an idea..... Treat everyone alike. That's what happened there, and that's what'll happen with the AZ law.

 

And you know this how? Cause every cop in the world treats all people the same?:nope:
Also the law will probably be reversed, its unconstitutional, why havent people realized this.

 

not anyone, not felons and such, but almost anyone.

not sure i understand.

i dont want anyone eating from my fridge, immigrant or otherwise, i dont understand the point.

this cant be a serious question can it? there are plenty of laws i violate myself. that doesnt mean i will also come to your house and steal your stuff. i just dont understand why you are making such a poor point.

 

Like healthcare?

I'm not saying every cop in the world treats everyone the same. But, then again, no two people are the same. I get your arguement, but trying to say all cops are racist and profile ALL the time is a boring old statement.

 

Point out where i said that? where all cops are racist and profile all the time.. Id like to see that. I said the law allows for racial profiling against a particular group of people.

also, what does healthcare have to do with this and tell me how it is unconstitutional?
Was Medicare Part B unconstitutional, was the social security act unconstitutional?

Dont bring a knife to a gun fight!

 

I really haven't read the law, I guess. Does it say only mexican and/or brown people that no habla?

 

Sorry I took so long to respond. While I may be a pompous azz to those who deserve it, I respect any reader of my postings enough to try to provide a modicum of coherent and reasoned thought based in reality even if it is spiced with snarkiness. Since so much of your posts on this topic are so inane, it takes quite a bit to respond. Just haven't had the sustained time to do it. I'm a bit slow in that regard.

Just trying to be efficient. If you had numbered my possible responses you could just have said 2 and 3 with some 4 mixed in instead of wasting everyone's time. You wouldn't have had to wait for this, but you didn't, so let's get on with it.

Previously you wrote:

Now you tell us that they clarified the language because...you know..."any lawful contact" didn't mean what you said it did. Any lawful contact would have meant that the police would have been forced to target victims and witnesses of crimes (and this isn't a good thing when you're trying to solve a heinous crime) or people seeking help or information, even kids. So they changed “lawful contact” to “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” However, police can stop people for things like a cracked windshield, 26 in a 25 zone, jaywalking and whole other ****load of trival offenses that could be used for the purpose of harassing brown people who are citizens.

But after tightening up the language they added this little bon mot: a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state. What this does is add all the various building and zoning ordinances. Don't believe me? Let's take a look at an email from a lawyer that works for a group that takes credit for writing the bill:

It's a shame LA doesn't have this foresight because I can just see little citizen deputy Red cruising around hispanic neighborhoods with his code book calling in violations in the hope that some of these terrorists will be caught, while he keeps an eye open to make sure Asesino isn't coming to kick his gringo ass again. Of course you say this can't happen because they changed the law so race cannot be used as grounds for suspecting someone is in the country illegally. It's just a coincidence that all your call-ins would be from hispanic neighborhoods.

This "there can't be racial profiling because the law forbids it," is equivalent to saying that because there are speed limits there can't be speeding. There are no police watching the police. There are the courts, but the remedy here for innocent citizens caught up in this mess is quite onerous, especially for poor citizens who are most likely to get entrapped.

So your response is Red #2: trust the benevolent omniscient godly perfection of governmental authorities. You suggest there is no way a police officer will ask a citizen for proof of citizenship because he knows an illegal when he sees one and he won't use race in his determination because the law says so. Dude...I got a couple of questions.

It seems to me that a lot rides on the ability of the police to know an illegal when he sees one. George Will seems to think it's a lot like identifying a drunk driver, however, I'm not so sure, but I'm willing to be convinced. This gets back to my question that you ignored (The Red #3 response) previously. How can you tell if someone is an illegal and not a US citizen in the United States by looking at him? What is the foolproof defining characteristic? Don't respond with fuzzy abstract phrases. List specific examples. While you're at it, explain why the law didn't explicitly define the ways that it could use instead of only listing fuzzy abstract terms.

Let's consider a modified version of your example where a policeman pulls over a van because of an expired plate. Let's say that the driver and half of the other occupants are legal and the rest illegals. The driver has a valid license and registration. I don't think this would be an unusual situation. I don't see any basis for checking the illegals. Yes, the passengers may be required to identify themselves, but all this means is that they have to tell them their name and maybe address. What would make the police suspect that they are illegal? Do you agree? If not, then specifically why? Responding with something like the police saw something isn't sufficient. What did he see to cause the reasonable suspicion? This shouldn't be a problem because you can make up **** to fit.

Now let's take the case where the driver's licence is bogus (fake, expired, etc.). Is this sufficient? Why? Does expired vs fake matter? Is this sufficient to check the legality of all the passengers? If the driver were a hot Scandinavian (expired student visa maybe?) in a van full of hot coed chicks going skiing, would that matter how you would react to fake vs expired?

In the context of the espoused intent, I would say this is sufficient cause. If you're hanging around with illegals, I can see this as a reasonable cause. I think illegals would just get smarter and avoid situations like this, but I can see the logic and there are some dumb illegals. But why didn't the writers of the law give explicit examples of what's included and what's not included to give clarity? Why do you think that someone who wrote, "This will allow police to use violations of property codes (i.e. cars on blocks in the yard) or rental codes (too many occupants of a rental accommodation) to initiate queries as well," wouldn't want to add clarity to this bill? Think he's hoping he has a bunch of Red55's on the force?

The reason I am asking is that I'm trying to figure out the efficacy and true intent of this law. It seems to me that the police have always had the ability to arrest, detain, and determine the legality of anyone they think committed a crime. Why add building codes? You make a big deal of people having to ID themselves to authorities, but to repeat myself, in a situation like this all a citizen has to do is give their name and address; they don't have to provide a physical ID. Are you telling me that a citizen exercising his rights as a citizen is grounds for reasonable suspicion that he is illegal? What kind of kafkaesque bull**** is this?

Why do we have to write a law that doesn't really add much substance if it's honestly enforced, but plays to the human biases of police, and encourages the harassment of certain groups? Unless you can convince me that an illegal can be identified from a citizen by just looking at him, then you are going to round up a lot of innocent citizens and harass the hell out of them. While your patriotic courage and self-sacrifice in being willing to watch other citizens pay this price humbles me, can you explain why they should pay the price?

Let me be clear. I support efficacious policies to deal with illegal immigration (i.e. go after the employers). I think conflating illegal immigration with true border security is foolish and dangerous (as you've done a couple of times). I have no problem with police verifying the legality of people that they have probable cause of commiting a crime. Immigrants have an obligation to prove their legality when asked, so while I think it's unnecessary and just being unfriendly, I don't object to legal immigrants (not citizens) being required to carry their papers at all times. My problem is requiring citizens who are likely to be ensnared in this to carry theirs at all times. And herein lies the problem. It seems to me that you have no capacity to wrap your mind around the idea that citizens could be ensnared in this.

As an analogy consider BP. In their environmental impact statement for Deepwater Horizon site, they stated that this sort of thing was extremely unlikely, probably virtually impossible to happen. Okay, **** happens, but they went on. They also said BP had the capability to handle a "worst-case scenario" at the site, which the document described as a leak of 162,000 barrels per day from an uncontrolled blowout — 6.8 million gallons each day. Given what's going on right now with the "small" leak, it's clear that they had no idea what they were talking about because they couldn't even conceive of the possiblity of failure. Dude, you are the BP of illegal immigration. You can't even conceive that an innocent citizen could be harrassed. Instead of an environmental disaster, you're going to give us a constitutional civil rights disaster.

This is just another example of something you don't know shyte about. And because I admit to being a pompous azzhole (but I don't think it's a party of 1), I can't say you're making up some crazy ****, but you are trying to deflect attention, so I'll say this is some Red #4 response.

See how easy and efficient this is, but all you had to say was #3. Good boy Red. You're a quick learner. I guess you can add patronizing in addition to being a pompous azzhole. If you want it to stop, seriously answer my questions about the fundamental assumptions you are making and stop with the half truths, platitudes, bromides and fairtales.

 

yep you are right, you havent read it, poor attempt at sarcasm as well

tell me how would they enforce it, tell me what reasonable suspicion is?

how do you determine by reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally?