New Arizona Immigration Enforcement Laws

Its not a card, its the truth from how i see it. I stand by my initial post and I from my point of view, it allows for racial profiling therefore its a bad law, imo.
It has nothing to do with a knee jerk reaction, I still feel that way and my knee isnt jerking anymore.

futhermore, i dont need you telling me about a race card.

 

lol, you still havent answered the question on the merits. How does a cop reasonably suspect someone of being in the country illegally minus the criminal angle.

 

Snarky: 1 chiefly Britain : CROTCHETY : SNAPPISH

2 : marked by a sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent manner

Snarkiness is artistic flare.

Yes I was. You are trying to speak for me and to predispose my eventual remarks with your personal disparaging comments. If you can't control you temper, I'm not wasting my time discussing anything with you. Got that?[/quote]
See, I'm getting a hang on your technique.

That's where the illegals are in AZ. Thought that was obvious. A police officer may make his bones if he is particularly successful at capturing illegals. It may lead to promotions and more pay. Basic free market principles tell you that you will get what you pay for.

Maybe a police officer feels as passionate about this as you appear and he becomes overzealous in his persuit. Just because an officer is hispanic, it doesn't mean he is immune. Perhaps his family has been on this side of the border since before the Mexican war and he especially thinks it is wrong.

This is not an argument that all or even most police will engage in this. It is an argument that enough will engage. On the whole, the police reflect society's biases as much as any group.

Another obvious point here, if nothing has changed then why did they change it? As I pointed out, they changed some things for the better and some things worse.

I do have an issue with the idealistic trust the benevolent omniscient godly perfection of governmental authorities. It's not that I think the police are inherently bad; I think they are human. Police deal with the absolute scum of society and that's a lot to deal with. We shouldn't implement policies that encourage the bad impulses.

You're over reacting to the make **** up line. That was to implore you to respond specifically to a real life scenario. I want your thought on how the law would work in practice. A case study with specifc scenarios is the only way to get a feel for how any of us think it should work. If you don't like this case, make up another one, but since I'm primarily interested in how it will impact citizens, the case should be about citizens. Here is the question again:

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?

Dude, I provided you with the email. Here is the original source:

Wonk Room EXCLUSIVE: Email From Author Of Arizona Law Reveals Intent To Cast Wide Net Against Latinos

You can jump to Kobach's NYT editorial defending the meaning of the original draft right before the flip-flop. What do you think any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state means?

I understand this, and I will provide it if I don't want to be unjustly harassed, but it is not required. And it is certainly wrong for me to be detained if I'm not doing anything wrong because I don't have it on me.

Unless I've overlooked a question on the issue that you want me to answer, I've tried to give you a serious responses to all of your serious questions. I've asked a lot of serious proper questions, but you rarely give a serious reply. Most you just ignore. Telling you what I am thinking is not putting words into your mouth. If I'm mistaken about what I think your position is, tell me that I am and tell me why.

 

=profiling lol...

 

Minus the criminal angle? The law includes the criminal angle. lol How does a cop stop me for running a red light minus the criminal angle?

 

But, you make my point. The law does not allow for racial profiling. The law allows authorities to ask for proof of citizenship only if the person has been detained for cause, e.g., running a red light. Looking Hispanic is not justifiable cause for stopping someone. Viewed from a racially paranoid perspective, it might. But, in the clear light of day it's just another tool to help Arizonans deal with the influx of illegals that are ruining their state.

 

Good point and term...

Some will always see the world from this view...as evidenced from some on this site. It's amazing how racism is always one-sided.

Good thing nations who have little diversity have no problems with crime, poverty, discrimination, genocide, etc. This is probably why nations in Africa, Asia, and those south of us are so prosperous. :nope:

I'm surprised some of our "victims" don't move there since it's so much better.

 

Darryl Strawberry was on Fox and Friends this morning plugging his book. They showed a clip of Sharpton leading a protest group asking to have the 2011 All Star Game pulled out of Phoenix. Straw was asked what he thought about that and he said it was a good idea. He was asked why and it's clear he had no idea what the law was about or why he didn't like it. He said things like "they should close the borders and send illegals back". When the host pointed out that that's what the law tries to do he said "well you can't just do Arizona. That's not right". It was painful to watch.