AZ SB1070 and HB2281

[coastal-boy]

It is a bad law. Two legal American citizens, Juan and I are crossing the street. We really shouldn't have crossed, but we did. Oops...we were jaywalking. Probable cause. The officer didn't get laid last night from his wife and his mistriss blew him off this morning and he didn't have time yet for his doughnut fix, so he has a burr up his ass and he immediately stops us both. Juan and I were coming back from a workout at the gym and we didn't have our IDs with us other than our gym cards. Who goes to jail and who doesn't? The issue I have has nothing to do with immigration, it has to do with 2 legal American citizens being treated differently solely based on our heritage. I expect more from my country.

 

[subwannabe]

I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Could that possibly happen? Yes, but it is really very unlikely. I beg to ask, how is life any different after this law passed than before? Before the law Juan could have been been singled out due to jaywalking, maybe the officer suspected he was drunk and arrested him, finding out at the police station if he was an illegal alien or not.

 

[coastal-boy]

I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Could that possibly happen? Yes, but it is really very unlikely. I beg to ask, how is life any different after this law passed than before? Before the law Juan could have been been singled out due to jaywalking, maybe the officer suspected he was drunk and arrested him, finding out at the police station if he was an illegal alien or not.

you missed the point as do most supporters. We crossed the street together. One of us is treated differently for the same crime. Some people think this is acceptable. I don't. This isn't about immigration...this is about Americans being treated differently based on their heritage. The law has already been changed from "suspected" to "in the normal course of contact" to "minimize" this exact issue. Why make this change if this is solely about immigration? Because it isn't.

If you are one of those that thinks that is acceptable for two American citizens to be treated differently solely based on their heritage...that's is your right. I don't, and that is my right.

 

[subwannabe]

I beg to ask again, how is life any different after this law passed than before? Juan can still be singled out and treated differently before this law. I could also argue that if "Juan" were black and you were white that he may have also been singled out before this law was passed and treated differently. Should life be like that? Of course not but somehow you make it sound like it was a perfect world before the law and that that has changed. This law really doesn't do anything like those who bash it make it out to be. You can twist and turn anything you want. You really don't sound any different than those idiots who continue to question Barack Obama's birth certificate. I still say people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. We are not going to have big brother stop every hispanic on the street to the likes of Nazi Germany. It just ain't gonna happen and those who try claiming it is are just as dillusional as those who think Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Are there going to be a small handful of rogue cops using the law for their own agenda? Of course there will but there was before the law was passed.

 

[midwestyankee]

I beg to ask again, how is life any different after this law passed than before? Juan can still be singled out and treated differently before this law. I could also argue that if "Juan" were black and you were white that he may have also been singled out before this law was passed and treated differently. Should life be like that? Of course not but somehow you make it sound like it was a perfect world before the law and that that has changed. This law really doesn't do anything like those who bash it make it out to be. You can twist and turn anything you want. You really don't sound any different than those idiots who continue to question Barack Obama's birth certificate. I still say people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. We are not going to have big brother stop every hispanic on the street to the likes of Nazi Germany. It just ain't gonna happen and those who try claiming it is are just as dillusional as those who think Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. Are there going to be a small handful of rogue cops using the law for their own agenda? Of course there will but there was before the law was passed.

You may well be partly right but do consider the impact on the police of one particular segment of the bill: anyone can accuse a police officer of not having vigorously enforced this law. The citizens can sue the police officers and their departments if they believe the law is not being fully enforced. The end result of this will be a very high motivation for the police to stop lots and lots of people out of fear for their jobs and their pocketbooks.

My question, again is quite simple: if the legislature thought that illegal immigration was such a big problem for the citizens of the state, why did they enact a law that affects only some vague portion of the residents based on the individual judgments of thousands of different police officers? Why did they not write the law so that proof of citizenship was required every time a police officer interacted with anyone inside the state? I'll tell you why: because the legislature knew damn well that the white residents of Arizona would not stand for it. So the question remains: if it's too harsh an approach for the white residents, what makes it an acceptable approach for others?

 

[subwannabe]

I think this is the big difference between diehard far left liberals and others and why there can't ever be a meeting of the minds. Liberals want unlimited rights for everyone. Women, gays, blacks, hispanics, muslims, criminals, terrorists, unlimited free speech, etc. They want the right to say anything they want, do anything they want, liberal judges let child molestors go with slaps on the wrist, etc., etc., etc.

I agree that there should be rights for all of those but those rights should be tempered with a dose of reality. Illegal aliens are illegal and we need laws to deal with them. Illegals not only hurt the states and country as a whole but they also hurt white individuals and hispanic individuals who are here legally. I'm sorry but we need to do something to stop the problem and we need to profile more muslims at terror check points than whites. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is. Does it suck for the innocent? Yes it does. If white terrorists were after muslims and I was in a muslim country where the police took an extra look at me, yes, it would indeed suck and be a huge pain in the ass but I would realize that they had a legitimate concern and wouldn't blame them for taking precautions. If I really didn't like it then I wouldn't go and subject myself to all that. Unfortunately, we don't live in a peaceful world as much as we would like and there are prices we have to pay for safety. We can have rights for everyone without going overboard. Some who criticize the Arizona law actually have a secret agenda of their own: to let illegals stay in the country. Similarly, people wanting to legalize hemp plants for practical uses really have an agenda of legalizing Marijuana or making it harder for the police to bust those into it. I think it's hypocritical to try claiming something when your real agenda is really something different than you state.

 

[midwestyankee]

I think this is the big difference between diehard far left liberals and others and why there can't ever be a meeting of the minds. Liberals want unlimited rights for everyone. Women, gays, blacks, hispanics, muslims, criminals, terrorists, unlimited free speech, etc. They want the right to say anything they want, do anything they want, liberal judges let child molestors go with slaps on the wrist, etc., etc., etc.

I agree that there should be rights for all of those but those rights should be tempered with a dose of reality. Illegal aliens are illegal and we need laws to deal with them. Illegals not only hurt the states and country as a whole but they also hurt white individuals and hispanic individuals who are here legally. I'm sorry but we need to do something to stop the problem and we need to profile more muslims at terror check points than whites. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is. Does it suck for the innocent? Yes it does. If white terrorists were after muslims and I was in a muslim country where the police took an extra look at me, yes, it would indeed suck and be a huge pain in the ass but I would realize that they had a legitimate concern and wouldn't blame them for taking precautions. If I really didn't like it then I wouldn't go and subject myself to all that. Unfortunately, we don't live in a peaceful world as much as we would like and there are prices we have to pay for safety. We can have rights for everyone without going overboard. Some who criticize the Arizona law actually have a secret agenda of their own: to let illegals stay in the country. Similarly, people wanting to legalize hemp plants for practical uses really have an agenda of legalizing Marijuana or making it harder for the police to bust those into it. I think it's hypocritical to try claiming something when your real agenda is really something different than you state.

Thank you, Dick Cheney. The ends do not justify the means. If that were so, it would be acceptable to kill all the children in school who had higher grades than you so that you could be the valedictorian.

Undocumented Mexican workers have lower foreclosure rates than whites of the same income class. They have lower absenteeism and tardiness rates on the job than whites in the same jobs. They pay taxes more reliably than whites in the same income class. How, exactly are they hurting whites?

That position of wanting unlimited rights for everyone actually sounds a lot more like a libertarian position than a liberal one. Liberals want equality before the law for all, which is not what you seem to fear. If you can show me a legitimate example of a child molester sent away from court with a "slap on the wrist" as the only punishment when convicted, I'd be amazed. No doubt some have been found innocent due to police fuck-ups or other procedural errors in the courts, but that's not the same. I'll be glad to wait for your example.

We have laws that stifle immigration. Was your family here before Jamestown was founded in 1607? I didn't think so. You're just a few generations removed from being an immigrant then. Why did your family come here? Was it only to bitch about others or was it, like today's immigrants, to get a chance at a better life? Ronald Reagan, bowing to political pressure, threw the existing guest worker into the toilet, virtually guaranteeing the rise in illegal immigration that has occurred since then. Before his election, migrant workers could easily travel into the U.S. to work for a season and then return home. If they wanted to become citizens, they could walk into an immigration office and begin the process of naturalization. Instead, Reagan turned millions of people who just wanted a chance to work into criminals.

If we returned our national immigration policy to where it was before Reagan, or better yet, improved it further, there would be no need for people to sneak across the border.

But I'm willing to bet that all your righteousness about they're being illegal is a smokescreen for something else. Because I'm willing to bet that if they were all magically turned legal by some act of Congress that you'd still have a problem with there being so many Mexican immigrants.

 

[coastal-boy]

My question, again is quite simple: if the legislature thought that illegal immigration was such a big problem for the citizens of the state, why did they enact a law that affects only some vague portion of the residents based on the individual judgments of thousands of different police officers? Why did they not write the law so that proof of citizenship was required every time a police officer interacted with anyone inside the state? I'll tell you why: because the legislature knew damn well that the white residents of Arizona would not stand for it. So the question remains: if it's too harsh an approach for the white residents, what makes it an acceptable approach for others?

Bingo...we have a winner. If the law was written such that everyone was treated the same, then this is a non issue except for the State inappropriately enacting law that is under Federal jurisdiction...and that will be fought out in a different court.

 

[midwestyankee]

Here's a study from FactCheck on the effect of immigration on our economy. It blows many of the second-hand beliefs of a lot of people out of the water.

Note this concluding point in particular: "There is even broad agreement among economists that while immigrants may push down wages for some, the overall effect is to increase average wages for American-born workers."

 

[SweetErika]

Liberals want unlimited rights for everyone. Women, gays, blacks, hispanics, muslims, criminals, terrorists, unlimited free speech, etc. They want the right to say anything they want, do anything they want, liberal judges let child molestors go with slaps on the wrist, etc., etc., etc.

Please tell me you're kidding.

I don't think this has much to do with liberal vs. conservative. It does have to do with people who want equal rights and fair treatment for everyone vs. those who don't. In my mind, "fair treatment" includes punishing those who break laws, whether they're in this country illegally, or citizens who are involved in illegal activities.

I agree that there should be rights for all of those but those rights should be tempered with a dose of reality. Illegal aliens are illegal and we need laws to deal with them. Illegals not only hurt the states and country as a whole but they also hurt white individuals and hispanic individuals who are here legally.

Agreed, for the most part. I'd say they hurt Americans and legal aliens, rather than certain races.

As for the reality, well, the reality is that we'd be in a world of hurt if we rounded up and deported everyone who was currently here illegally. The prices of a lot of the things we need (like produce) would skyrocket with the labor shortage. That's not to say we should sanction the current situation, but we definitely need to find a happy medium.

I'm sorry but we need to do something to stop the problem and we need to profile more muslims at terror check points than whites. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is. Does it suck for the innocent? Yes it does. If white terrorists were after muslims and I was in a muslim country where the police took an extra look at me, yes, it would indeed suck and be a huge pain in the ass but I would realize that they had a legitimate concern and wouldn't blame them for taking precautions. If I really didn't like it then I wouldn't go and subject myself to all that. Unfortunately, we don't live in a peaceful world as much as we would like and there are prices we have to pay for safety. We can have rights for everyone without going overboard.

You know that Muslims can be white (or any other color), and terrorists can be any race or religion, right?

If I were you, I'd stop worrying about Muslims and start worrying about extremists of all stripes. A white, Christian American can more easily take an automatic weapon or bomb to a crowded place or national monument without arousing suspicion.

Similarly, people wanting to legalize hemp plants for practical uses really have an agenda of legalizing Marijuana or making it harder for the police to bust those into it.

AFAIK, hemp is legal in most places.

And you're making a stupid generalization. Hemp is good for a lot of things (including rope for bondage ), and people who support its use don't necessarily support legalizing marijuana.

 

[bailadora]

I'm sorry but we need to do something to stop the problem and we need to profile more muslims at terror check points than whites.

Puh-leeeze!

Do the names Tim McVeigh, Richard Reid, or Colleen La Rose (aka Jihad Jane), mean anything to you?

Again, if security has become the higher priority than freedom, then everyone in the US should be subject to the same scrutiny because anyone could be a potential "terrorist."

 

[subwannabe]

Just for everyone's info, I actually support amnesty for all those currently in the country who have not committed real crimes and rigid defenses for any newcombers who try entering the country illegally be it Arizona type laws or something different. I am not a racist against anyone whether they are Hispanic, Muslim, or anything else. I have nothing against them at all, including moderate "regular" Muslims. I certainly realize there are white terrorists and I certainly realize that Muslim extremeists, such as Al Quada, are at war agaisn't us and will try getting us at all costs. Sorry, but due to this I think Mohammad needs a little extra screening at airports, etc, especially if they fit the profile of a terrorist. I would expect the same of myself if whites were out to terrorize the Muslim world and I were flying in their countries.

And, there are so many documented cases of child molesters being slapped on the wrist, especially in the liberal northeast, I'm not going to waste my time searching for some kind of link to prove it. I don't have the time to look through hundreds of thousands of links. I am so sick and tired of criminals having more rights than their victims. Every time you hear something really awful happen the person responsible is found to have a rap sheet ten miles long. Somebody somewhere needs to get tough on these people so there is a lot less crime. If we'd permanently lock up the repeat offenders instead of repeatedly letting them go the crime rate would be hugely impacted. The same criminals keep on getting out and doing it over and over and over again. There was a case in Detroit recently where someone was in prison for murder, a really bad dude. Every time he was up for parole they denied him because they knew he was going to do it again when he got out. Guess what? His sentence was finally over and they let him go without even putting him under surveillance. Guess what again? He murdered several more people before he was caught again. We wouldn't want to trample on his rights though. He served his sentence and it would be unfair to treat him any differently than someone else (he happened to be black) by following him without any evidence he was actually planning something.

What about the recent attempt to bomb times square? The investigation triggered three arrests of muslims who have yet to be charged as accomplices in the crime. During the investigation they were found to not be authorized to be in the country anymore and are actually being detained due to immigration violations. What if this had happened in Arizona? Would you be crying foul and saying they are being treated unfairly? This may later be found to have stopped future attacks. In any event I'm glad they have been detained until the truth is found out. And, if it is found they really didn't have anything to do with the attempted bombing they should be deported as illegal aliens. They aren't supposed to be here.

 

[SweetErika]

I am not a racist against anyone whether they are Hispanic, Muslim, or anything else. I have nothing against them at all, including moderate "regular" Muslims. I certainly realize there are white terrorists and I certainly realize that Muslim extremeists, such as Al Quada, are at war agaisn't us and will try getting us at all costs. Sorry, but due to this I think Mohammad needs a little extra screening at airports, etc, especially if they fit the profile of a terrorist.

What's the 'profile of a terrorist' in your mind?

If we'd permanently lock up the repeat offenders instead of repeatedly letting them go the crime rate would be hugely impacted. The same criminals keep on getting out and doing it over and over and over again. There was a case in Detroit recently where someone was in prison for murder, a really bad dude. Every time he was up for parole they denied him because they knew he was going to do it again when he got out. Guess what? His sentence was finally over and they let him go without even putting him under surveillance. Guess what again? He murdered several more people before he was caught again. We wouldn't want to trample on his rights though. He served his sentence and it would be unfair to treat him any differently than someone else (he happened to be black) by following him without any evidence he was actually planning something.

That should prove that our prison system doesn't work. In most cases, it's neither terribly punishing nor rehabilitating. If it was, our recidivism rate wouldn't be so abysmal.

If you want the criminal justice system to lock people up and throw away the keys when it thinks someone might reoffend, you should move to a country where that happens. There are certainly plenty to choose from, though I suspect you wouldn't care to live in any of those places. The freedoms we enjoy and hold in such high esteem come at a price.

 

[subwannabe]

I think you're trying to read too much into my mind regarding the profile of a terrorist. To be simplistic I was mainly thinking about airline security and I was only thinking about red flag items such as paying for a ticket in cash, the person being extra nervous, buying one way tickets only, flying with no luggage, flying with suspicious luggage, etc. I think that average Joe white guy should be checked out as well but I don't see anything wrong with being even more investigative if this person is Muslim. We KNOW that Muslim extremeists are out to get us.

I am surprised with your thoughts on criminals. At one time California passed a three strikes and you're out law. I'm not sure what ever happened to that but that is something we need. Your absolutely right that the prison system doesn't work. It does not punish enough and it also doesn't rehabilitate much. Since it doesn't rehabilitate much it seems ludicrous to me to just let people go after serving time for the tenth straight time, knowing that they will continue doing more. It's absolutely crazy to find out someone has just murdered 20 people and then find out they they have been arrested over 20 times in the past and been let go. I guess liberals are ok with losing loved family members in the name of rights for criminals but I say crimes should be punished more severly and repeat offenders (especially in violent crimes) should be locked up forever. I'm going to be really pissed if I lose a loved one due to some guy who should have never been out in the first place. In the above mentioned Detroit case they should have at least followed up on this guy instead of just waiting for him to commit more murders. There was just an article in the last couple of days of a sting operation in California catching a bunch of criminals who had been let out on parole and vanished, only to commit more crimes. Why were this many people out on parole in the first place, many of them dangerous murderers?

 

[shhhshhh]

dirty secret

The dirty little secret here is that most states, AND the federal government already have similar laws on the books. They are just not enforced.

 

[coastal-boy]

The dirty little secret here is that most states, AND the federal government already have similar laws on the books. They are just not enforced.

those state laws have been on the books for decades and are a legacy of a time in history when this type of behavior was more "accepted". These laws are not enforced for a reason. Arizona's law is a step backwards 40 yrs to where it is now again acceptable to treat american citizens differently based solely on their heritage and certain law enforcement groups have already stated they will actively enforce it to their fullest capacity (Maricopa county Sheriff Joe Arpaio whose parents were Italian immigrants for example).

By definition, the federal laws and the state laws are not the same and cannot be compared to one another.

 

[shhhshhh]

It is a bad law. Two legal American citizens, Juan and I are crossing the street. We really shouldn't have crossed, but we did. Oops...we were jaywalking. Probable cause. The officer didn't get laid last night from his wife and his mistriss blew him off this morning and he didn't have time yet for his doughnut fix, so he has a burr up his ass and he immediately stops us both. Juan and I were coming back from a workout at the gym and we didn't have our IDs with us other than our gym cards. Who goes to jail and who doesn't? The issue I have has nothing to do with immigration, it has to do with 2 legal American citizens being treated differently solely based on our heritage. I expect more from my country.

That same cop could have the same bad day, pull over a random black guy and beat the shit out of him ala Rodney King.

Get the point? You're complaining about this law being subject to abuse when in fact EVERY law is subject to abuse by law enforcement.

------------------------

FWIW, this law isn't intended to be enacted and enforced anyways. It's merely a tool to force the Federal Government's hand on the issue.

The hiring of Illegals is modern day bondage by companies in the US. There should be meaningful reform and locking down of the border so that everyone has to play by the rules.

 

[subwannabe]

That's been my arguement all along. Rogue cops could basically try doing anything they wanted before the Arizona law ever came about. There's always going to be some idiot people and there's always going to be some idiot cops. There's no way around that. It seems like most of the people against the Arizona law aren't actually against it at all, their arguement always seems to be "what if?". The others against the law just plain don't want any crack down or enforcement in regard to the illegals at all.

 

[coastal-boy]

That same cop could have the same bad day, pull over a random black guy and beat the shit out of him ala Rodney King.

Get the point? You're complaining about this law being subject to abuse when in fact EVERY law is subject to abuse by law enforcement.

------------------------

FWIW, this law isn't intended to be enacted and enforced anyways. It's merely a tool to force the Federal Government's hand on the issue.

The hiring of Illegals is modern day bondage by companies in the US. There should be meaningful reform and locking down of the border so that everyone has to play by the rules.

nope I don't get your point...just as you don't get mine. Leave it at that. Some of us simply want something different from our country than from what the past has yielded. Others simply want the past again.

If the law was "intended" for as you say, that could have been achieved by a majority in Congress and doing it. Since that wasn't important enough when you did have that control just a few short years ago, I wonder why your feelings have changed in the last year?

Why capitalize Illegals?

We do need to penalize individuals whom hire illegals. We do need to tighten our borders. This law does neither.

 

[shhhshhh]

nope I don't get your point...just as you don't get mine. Leave it at that. Some of us simply want something different from our country than from what the past has yielded. Others simply want the past again.

If the law was "intended" for as you say, that could have been achieved by a majority in Congress and doing it. Since that wasn't important enough when you did have that control just a few short years ago, I wonder why your feelings have changed in the last year?

Why capitalize Illegals?

We do need to penalize individuals whom hire illegals. We do need to tighten our borders. This law does neither.

Thank you for assuming that I am a republican. I am not. I have voted in two national elections for a total of five different offices. I voted for two republicans, two libertarians, and one democrat.

In any event I wasn't even on this forum a year ago. You have no idea how I felt one year ago.

I don't know why I capitalized illegals, lol, it was late, I was tired, it's George Bush's fault

As least we agree that employers need to be punished. Apparently the new AZ law establishes fines for businesses that employ illegal workers, but as a guy on another forum said, "Unless the employers face JAIL time for hiring illegals, the fines will just be built into the cost of business"

 

[emap]

I had a fun little tidbit pointed out to me, the law says that cops are able to check for legal status when they pull someone over. See this is the really funny part, they already do in every single state, they ask for a drivers license or ID. For most people that is their proof of legal residence in the country.

If you do not have any they ask for your name and search it, their computers check with DMV, any legal resident will have their name in DMV. The law actually does absolutely nothing it is just a smokescreen as I and a certain yank have said.

 

[coastal-boy]

I had a fun little tidbit pointed out to me, the law says that cops are able to check for legal status when they pull someone over. See this is the really funny part, they already do in every single state, they ask for a drivers license or ID. For most people that is their proof of legal residence in the country.

If you do not have any they ask for your name and search it, their computers check with DMV, any legal resident will have their name in DMV. The law actually does absolutely nothing it is just a smokescreen as I and a certain yank have said.

WRONG!!!!

From the Governor's own mouth...specifically...sixth paragraph...driver's licenses ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE CITIZENSHIP

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/01/obama.arizona.governor/index.html?hpt=T3