lol wat? For someone who criticizes my 'empty rhetoric' you are full of emotive and nonsensical commentary. My problem is that cops already abuse the law. IT's naive to think they won't abuse it in this case. I don't care if the policeman is a green skinned four-eyed martian - I didn't mention race at all.ATG wrote:
So then anarchy and chaos reign in the belief that there might be a racist cop or hispanics with hurt feelings? Not wise.
And btw, seems from what I saw on my vacation in Tombstone is that at least half the cops and border patrol agents I seen I profiled to be of hispanic dna.
Pretty much. Arizona just figured this out about 20 years too late.ATG wrote:
We currently have no border.
Here is my own story (and it is true).ATG wrote:
Omg, the lies and bs on talk radio right now. This is just about what I heard verbatim. You have too imagine a hispanic accent.
" Hi. I am a former marine, and last week my mom was at Paconga ( an indian casino 1.5 hrs from the border ) to gamble. While getting out of her car ice agents asked her for her I.d. and they refused to accept her state issued card. They took her to detention, made her strip search and held her for 12 hours. "
I mean come on.
That does not happen.
I have been doing business periodically in san diego for twenty years. I have been through the check points literally hundreds of times with mexicans in the cab and have always been waved through. Never stopped. No papers checked.
The check points are a joke.
Much of what you are hearing on the radio and reading in print are lies.
We currently have no border.
I am strongly inclined to disbelieve that story but will stop short of calling you a liar.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Here is my own story (and it is true).ATG wrote:
Omg, the lies and bs on talk radio right now. This is just about what I heard verbatim. You have too imagine a hispanic accent.
" Hi. I am a former marine, and last week my mom was at Paconga ( an indian casino 1.5 hrs from the border ) to gamble. While getting out of her car ice agents asked her for her I.d. and they refused to accept her state issued card. They took her to detention, made her strip search and held her for 12 hours. "
I mean come on.
That does not happen.
I have been doing business periodically in san diego for twenty years. I have been through the check points literally hundreds of times with mexicans in the cab and have always been waved through. Never stopped. No papers checked.
The check points are a joke.
Much of what you are hearing on the radio and reading in print are lies.
We currently have no border.
My brother was a shift manager for McDonalds when he was about 16. He worked the late shift, closing the store at about 11:00pm and then walking home (we lived about a mile from the McD's). No fewer than three times he was stopped by the INS on his walk home in his work clothes and asked to show identification. We used to make fun of him for it.
Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-04-29 22:00:26)
I believe there is a third choice;Turquoise wrote:
Pretty much. Arizona just figured this out about 20 years too late.ATG wrote:
We currently have no border.
But then again.... can you really secure something that's thousands of miles long?
We are being annexed. You have 2 choices... Learn Spanish and adapt, or get the hell out while you still can.
By KRIS W. KOBACH
Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.
Published: April 28, 2010
Kansas City, Kan.
ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.
Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.
Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:
It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.
“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.
The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.
It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.
State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.
And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.
President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?
Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2010-04-30 15:55:24)
You're forgetting the demographics of the area, KJ. Can't be a whole lot different than the demographics of where I live, and the cops here are at least 50% Hispanic. Throw in Native American and African American, and you've got a pretty healthy minority population in the police force. Are you saying they'll be racially profiling, abusing the law? Seriously?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I also know that the wording of probable cause laws are crystal clear and yet the cops still abuse those all the time. I know that from personal experience. FEOS you are wise and old enough to know that police are human and often twist the intent and letter of the law for their own and others' personal and political agendas. There's been numerous studies of racial profiling by police and this is just an extension of that. Don't be naive.FEOS wrote:
KJ. That is patently UNTRUE. The wording of the law is crystal clear regarding that.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Because Mexican citizens legally traveling in AZ can be pulled over because....THEY LOOK LIKE THEY ARE MEXICAN.
I'm curious as to how an illegal looks any different than anyone else? Scarlet letter time?
Also, there are plenty of Mexican citizens who are blonde-haired, blue-eyed, euro-looking people. This law is just as applicable to them (and Canadians and Asians and...) as it is to anyone else.
Another point people seem to overlook: The Arizona electorate supports this measure more than two-to-one. That electorate includes a whole lot of people who would be negatively impacted if they thought racial profiling were to occur. And there's this other thing: Many of the Arizona cops are Hispanic, as well. I guess they'll be racially profiling their own "people", eh?
The south supported slavery for years. People supported segregation. People supported Jim Crow laws. Doesn't make it just.
ABSOLUTELY personal experience could attest to that factFEOS wrote:
Are you saying they'll be racially profiling, abusing the law? Seriously?
That's just because they hate you.eleven bravo wrote:
ABSOLUTELY personal experience could attest to that factFEOS wrote:
Are you saying they'll be racially profiling, abusing the law? Seriously?
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/30/ar … ities-say/A sheriff's deputy in central Arizona was shot Friday afternoon by a member of an alleged group of illegal immigrants, authorities said.
The Pinal County deputy, who was not immediately identified, contacted authorities after being wounded in a remote area, said Lt. Tammy Villar, a sheriff's spokeswoman. She said authorities believe he was shot with a AK-47. The deputy was being treated for the wound, but his condition was not immediately known, Villar said.
Pinal County is located between Phoenix and Tuscon and has been described as a key transit point for illegal immigrants. Sheriff Paul Babeu told CNN that an estimated 80 percent of illegal immigrants eventually pass through his county along the way to other locations.
Deputies in the department routinely patrol for illegal immigrants and smugglers, and it's not uncommon for them to be in the field alone, officials said.
It was not immediately clear what led the deputy to engage with the group on Friday.
Stuff like this is a regular occurance. It is only national news because of the new law.Poseidon wrote:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/30/ar … ities-say/A sheriff's deputy in central Arizona was shot Friday afternoon by a member of an alleged group of illegal immigrants, authorities said.
The Pinal County deputy, who was not immediately identified, contacted authorities after being wounded in a remote area, said Lt. Tammy Villar, a sheriff's spokeswoman. She said authorities believe he was shot with a AK-47. The deputy was being treated for the wound, but his condition was not immediately known, Villar said.
Pinal County is located between Phoenix and Tuscon and has been described as a key transit point for illegal immigrants. Sheriff Paul Babeu told CNN that an estimated 80 percent of illegal immigrants eventually pass through his county along the way to other locations.
Deputies in the department routinely patrol for illegal immigrants and smugglers, and it's not uncommon for them to be in the field alone, officials said.
It was not immediately clear what led the deputy to engage with the group on Friday.
We could, but the likelihood of this is pretty low. I believe we can safely say they've won. It's time to move north.ATG wrote:
I believe there is a third choice;Turquoise wrote:
Pretty much. Arizona just figured this out about 20 years too late.ATG wrote:
We currently have no border.
But then again.... can you really secure something that's thousands of miles long?
We are being annexed. You have 2 choices... Learn Spanish and adapt, or get the hell out while you still can.
We don't have to put up with it.
We can stop it.
We can talk about it.
We can vote.
We can go for a zero fica score and operate on cash only.
yes there will be some consequences for these actions. especially when it come to de-nutting the banks and unions. They are the ones mostly likely to riot when their golden goose is cooked.
I am actually seriously considering one lot on a pacific island whos name I will not mention.Turquoise wrote:
We could, but the likelihood of this is pretty low. I believe we can safely say they've won. It's time to move north.ATG wrote:
I believe there is a third choice;Turquoise wrote:
Pretty much. Arizona just figured this out about 20 years too late.
But then again.... can you really secure something that's thousands of miles long?
We are being annexed. You have 2 choices... Learn Spanish and adapt, or get the hell out while you still can.
We don't have to put up with it.
We can stop it.
We can talk about it.
We can vote.
We can go for a zero fica score and operate on cash only.
yes there will be some consequences for these actions. especially when it come to de-nutting the banks and unions. They are the ones mostly likely to riot when their golden goose is cooked.
Fiji baby... lolATG wrote:
I am actually seriously considering one lot on a pacific island whos name I will not mention.Turquoise wrote:
We could, but the likelihood of this is pretty low. I believe we can safely say they've won. It's time to move north.ATG wrote:
I believe there is a third choice;
We don't have to put up with it.
We can stop it.
We can talk about it.
We can vote.
We can go for a zero fica score and operate on cash only.
yes there will be some consequences for these actions. especially when it come to de-nutting the banks and unions. They are the ones mostly likely to riot when their golden goose is cooked.
My friends dad is rich, and convinced Hawaii isn't far enough away to be safe from this government and what is coming down.
So he bought a saw mill, a dredge and is making a resort inside a bay and making a scuba retreat.
One acre of ocean from property= $3,000.00
Fertile ground, abundant wild pigs, lots of rain to drink, sun and wind. There is high speed internet and no taxation.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
you guys think I am kidding, but I am as serious as a heart attack.
I never said they were incapable of it, but everyone's claiming racism, with the clear implication that it'll be whitey running around, looking for brown boys to pick on. There's nothing racist about this legislation, in fact, it's explicitly NOT so.eleven bravo wrote:
to say that officers belonging to a minority are incapable of profiling is like saying white racism is different than the racism of of non whites. I was arrested two weeks after I ets'ed from active duty for.....resisting arrest, no other charge followed. turns out, an arresting officer could detain you and claim you were interfering with their duties and as long is the wording is correct on the report, itll hold in court. if youre interested in what happened ill tell ya, I posted about it as I was going through the 10 month court case fighting the charge.
yeah um bad ideaTurquoise wrote:
Fiji baby... lolATG wrote:
I am actually seriously considering one lot on a pacific island whos name I will not mention.Turquoise wrote:
We could, but the likelihood of this is pretty low. I believe we can safely say they've won. It's time to move north.
My friends dad is rich, and convinced Hawaii isn't far enough away to be safe from this government and what is coming down.
So he bought a saw mill, a dredge and is making a resort inside a bay and making a scuba retreat.
One acre of ocean from property= $3,000.00
Fertile ground, abundant wild pigs, lots of rain to drink, sun and wind. There is high speed internet and no taxation.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
you guys think I am kidding, but I am as serious as a heart attack.