I don't understand why this is even a debate? If you are for this law please stop, and send me your birth certificate and drivers license and I'll decide if YOU are legal!
Raising Arizona
(33 posts) (15 voices)-
democrat
Key MasterPosted 1 year ago # -
democrat
Key MasterExactly. How much racial profiling is acceptable? (i.e. none).
Posted 1 year ago # -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/arizona-ethnic-studies-cl_n_558731.html
It is getting even better?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Amazingly, the same people who label Obama as Hitler support this fascist attempt to profile human beings based upon their "probable" nation of birth. I am not an Arizonan and I find Palin's implication disgusting. Please, Sarah, queen of partisans, sow your seeds of hatred and loathing somewhere else.
Posted 1 year ago # -
democrat
Key MasterSide note about Jan Brewer... She apparently told the Arizona Republic that her Father died fighting the Nazi's. She apparently was hoping for sympathy by being misleading about this very fact (her father died 10 years after the war).
"Knowing that my father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany, that I lost him when I was 11 because of that... and then to have them call me Hitler's daughter. It hurts. It's ugliness beyond anything I've ever experienced." - BrewerPosted 1 year ago # -
ksu_aviator
MemberRacism: a negative opinion of, or attribute assigned to a person or race of people based on their skin color.
Example: "Yes we have so many racist rednecks around the country.. I was surprised everyone wasn't completely irritated by this law but apparently everyone wants to carry around their papers."
The assumption that this law has anything to do with race is racist in and of itself. The law can only be executed if:
1) An individual is arrested for an infraction other than immigration
2) That individual cannot provide information that they are a citizen or legally visiting the United StatesOddly enough, it says nothing about race. Anyone from any country can get caught under this bill. They could be Canadian, German, Russian, British, French, Chinese, Japanese and yes Mexican.
The real question in this thread is why would anyone not support this bill? It is just a mechanism for enforcing laws that are on the book.
Posted 1 year ago # -
zerrick5
MemberWell the ambiguity in the law is really what seems to be in question. The fact is that they can use even city ordinance as means to interrogate suspects about citizenship. It still forces officers to subjectively decide on this matter.
The law actual states you cannot use racial profiling in implementing this law EXCEPT as permitted by the US or Arizona. While there has been cases in the past that actually have upheld decisions based on race in Arizona.Check factcheck.org:Posted 1 year ago # -
ksu_aviator
Memberhttp://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
There is the full text of the law. Show me where it says that racial profiling is allowed.
There is no ambiguity in the law:
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,Racial profiling isn't lawful, therefore it is strictly prohibited by this bill. In case you were wondering, here is the official training outline for law enforcement officers in AZ:http://www.azpost.gov/bulletins/1070_Outline.pdf
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Posted 1 year ago # -
That's the point. It doesn't say racial profiling is allowed but the verbiage does give it the flexibility to become just that.
Senate Bill 1070: A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.The latter portion of that section is what is most ambiguous “except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution” as Arizona has upheld court decisions based on race and ethnicity in the past.Posted 1 year ago # -
Cookie Parker
Member"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION OF THIS22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN
ALIEN WHO IS23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT
SHALL BE MADE,"This is racial profiling...."suspicion exists"...we have many Russian, Chinese and others who are illegals in this nation...guess who AZ will profile?
Posted 1 year ago # -
rightandleft
MemberFrom factcheck:
"According to the Supreme Court case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,
"Mexican appearance" can be a factor justifying an immigration stop.
But 24 years later the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in United States v. Montero-Camargo,
ruled that “Hispanic appearance is not, in general, an appropriate
factor” for determining suspicion, especially in areas with large
Hispanic populations. “This makes it more complex whether race can be a
factor in an immigration stop in the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction,
which includes Arizona,” Johnson told us."Posted 1 year ago # -
It is a complicated thing.
___________________________
Want to be happy everyday? Go and find funny jokesPosted 1 year ago # -
think_it_through
MemberAn issue with emotional undertones is always difficult to solve, because either solution would result in one party feeling very wronged.The question remains, what is to be done with the issue of illegal immigrates’. Normal logic would dictate if they are here illegally they should be deported to their place of origin, if as a country we choose to be emphatic, a program should be put in place to allow their transition, if not we should do the logical thing. If we do nothing, we simply reinforce the argument that coming in illegally is a rewarding venture.Of course there are other issues that arise like separation of families and unfair wages, but those are besides’ the point. An effective analogy would be to be pulled over for a traffic violation and your license exposes a warrant for your arrest, should the person be arrested, even though you have a family? Likewise if one is discovered to be illegal whatever the agreed consequence is should be enacted.It is clear that the Arizona law is an action against the frustration of inaction, but it is misplaced, because one state should not shape the relationship the United States of America has with another country. It is an issue the nation needs to make a decision on.Either we treat illegal immigrates as most countries do and not permit them to work nor posses driving licenses or we change our definition of illegal immigrates and have an open boarder policy. If neither is acceptable, we should agree on some middle ground, but simply insulting the opposition neither solves the problem nor proves intelligence.As we all know when emotions are involved it is hard to think things through, but this is when we must take time to think it through.Posted 1 year ago # -
think_it_through
MemberGood point, but then the companies would have to hire more expensive labor, which would either led to the company being less competitive or the product being more expensive.
Meaning the company may have to move its production to a different country affecting industries that supply the companies raw materials or use its finished products. Or we may all have to pay more for goods and services.Are we prepared to deal with those consequences, I will try to think it through.Posted 1 year ago # -
@think_it_through - If that is the issue, then legalize them. We cannot cherry pick who we allow to stay as a illegal alien based on unfair labor practices by these companies.
Regarding the overseas employment issue, our government could incentivize local employment for small - big companies.I'm all for just allowing them to become legal as every study I've read suggested that our economy and overall employment levels and production levels are up with immigrant workers.Posted 1 year ago # -
think_it_through
Member@duff - True, but that would mean we would have an open boarder policy. Everyone from anywhere would come into the US and be automatically legalized. It would probably cause a spike in the low income population; not saying that all who come won't be able to afford a decent standard, but most probably won't. This in turn could exacerbate the unemployment situation causing an increase in unemployment and/or overwhelm our public services (i.e. Schools , Police and Welfare) that would have to be expanded due to the increase in population but unequal increase in the funding for these programs.
Unfortunately, the government already gives incentives to a lot of companies, to the point that some companies don't pay any taxes, for example Exxon-Mobil last year paid no corporate tax. So it raises the question what sort of incentive does the government still have at its disposal.Absolutely, something must be done and there are a lot of studies that give plusable option with tolerable outcomes, but we have to think it through.Posted 1 year ago # -
I don't think that there would be any more of a problem than exists now (in terms of unemployment) as I believe people who want to be here, come anyway (despite citizenship or otherwise). This is not statistically backed but simply what my perception is of the situation. With that in mind, I don't see how having open citizenship could reflect any worse than our present day situation. We would simply cut costs on border patrol, ridiculous fences, and law enforcement at the bare minimum.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.