The New Arizona Immigration Law (SB1070) in Arizona

[chocolatemilk]

. My friend is from Guatemala. The reason he came to this country was because if you were not associated with gangs or assisting in drugs in his area (which he never associated with) your life was constantly in jeopardy. At a young age he remembers losing friends to violence, for which they did nothing to ask for, and young people who turned to carrying guns to make sure they could protect thier families. He knew this wasn't the life for him and he decided to do something about it. He came to America for the opportunity.

This is a very hard issue to debate against. Whether or not someone coming to America illegally is justified somehow because they lived in a bad community or country.

The country "America" is represented by our "American governments." For example, "the president," to the rest of the worlds countries. The American government has laid down the laws about dealing with other countries. We have a system of rules and laws in place to prevent mass amounts of people from pouring into other countries. There is 1 billion people in India, and 2 billion in China--that alone makes up half of the worlds population. Are we gonna allow everyone who lives in a "bad" place to come here in America? No. We have borders like every other country on Earth that are there for a reason. Could you imagine a world where people are allowed to move wherever they wanted to move and settle there because they didn't like the old place?

I would probably leave a crappy country too. But I would understand my role as a citizen within a country within a globe of other countries. I would know there is a system to moving between countries and if I got deported or jailed by the other countries police... That's the least I expect lol.

My humanity says let them come. If I am not suffering from them being here, I don give a sh**. But I would not stop anyone from kicking them out and I would not hesitate to do it if it was my job. And if I experienced a "problem" such as lack of jobs, or whatnot because people are coming to the country of my citizenship because they do not like theirs.. My individual humanity would take a backseat to protect American humanity as a whole. Because we all know a "global humanity" does not exist in the real world.

 

[B5150]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[raulob72]

:shocked:Is there any white people still living in TEXAS??LOL

 

[MrKleen73]

Wow miss this for two days and alot has happened. Before I even read through it all I will address Mr. Kleen, since he adressed me directly, and I have alot of love for team AI.

I agree with points, disagree with points as well. Similar to me and timmmah, we are close on our feelings but the difference lies in execution.

As for the always being able to ask for ID, the problem is, when doesnt this become enough? A perfect example is the case I liked to before. The man provided a CDL license and was able to give his social security to an officer. Still ended up in a jail cell until a birth certificate could be presented.

On the story of education and your daughter. Its situations like this that disturb me as well. I never advocate special treatment of immigrants. I even become upset at the whole press 2 for spanish deal. I understand businesses don't want to cut themselves off from a potential sale because they didnt cater to non english speaking people. But the fact that the government will be called out if they don't do it I dont agree with. I don't agree with anything affirmative action-ish either. This pissed me off when looking at colleges, and knowing that I can lose my position for ann acceptance to someone who is underqualified but fits thier quota. My belief is if you are making the effort to live here (legal or illegal, learn the language).

The American Flag thing is ****ing retarded. I personally would beat the **** out of the vice principal that targeted the children. I know as someone who is a moderate liberal (self-defined) many conservatives as anti American, this simply is not true. This is America. This is the country we should be proud of, and I dont give a **** if it is the third coming of budha, I can show pride for being an American whenever I want.

I could say I disagree with you on the your not, for example, african american but an American, but I think it is just I disagree with how it presented itself in text and think we actually agree on the subject. I don't tell people I am an Italian American. I am american. However, I do believe in preservation of culture and believe someone should embrace thier culture, while at the same time embracing themselves as an American. I am quite certain we are actually in agreement, I just think it sounded weird to me in text which is why I at first saw the disagreement.

I do understand the swing is needed to get something done. I however still can't agree with the potential abuse that could come out of this situation. It is something I just simply cant bring myself to support.

P.S. I knew the no hard feelings, we are all here for the same purpose, and as you mentioned an intellectual discussion can be very stimulating and even lead to some discoveries for ones self. And like I said, I can't hate on Team AI at all. Quite the crew you guys got going.

I know you do not think I was speaking on AI's behalf but I do have to stress for all others reading this that I am speaking here on behalf of myself and perhaps should have checked the box regarding my signature not showing to avoid anyone thinking this was AI's stance. I am sure each person in the team may have a different opinion.

That being said yes I think the political correct thing IE... Spanish American to use myself as the example we do agree on. It is definitely hard to determine in text if I was being a bigot or not; which is why I made sure to put myself in the equation. I wanted to show that I was not being a bigot but speaking more to the point of equality. I do think that people should embrace their heritage, or learn from it. IE, I don't think a German should become a hate monger bent on killing anyone other than their race.... My point is that in an effort to become PC people only further separate each other. Not one of my black friends or family calls themselves African American they call themselves black. They tend to think it cowardice to do so. Using another prettier word to discriminate is no better considering you still choose to point out the difference.

Race in this argument really has no place. It is only a very small factor. Will it be used as motivation for some, yes. Does it change the need for something to be done no. Is something being done about something bad that IS happening on a VERY LARGE SCALE, more important than avoiding the possibility on a much smaller scale that being the minority of racists in position to act out on a very small scale. No.

This is from WIKI answers which the original info came from a government website listed below.

"There are as of 2006, 683,396 full time state, city, university and college, metropolitan and non-metropolitan county, and other law enforcement officers in the United States. There are approx. 120,000 full time law enforcement personnel working for the federal government adding up to a total number of 800,000 law enforcement personnel in the U.S.


Projections data from the National Employment Matrix
Invalid Link Removed

First-line supervisors/managers of police and detectives
2006 93,000
2016 102,000

Detectives and criminal investigators
2006 106,000
2016 125,000

Fish and game wardens
2006 8,000
2016 8,000

Police officers
2006 654,000
2016 724,000

Police and sheriff's patrol officers
2006 648,000
2016 719,000

Transit and railroad police
2006 5,600
2016 5,900 "

So we can say since this is 2006 data, and the projection is for 2016 is 719,000, and 724,000 coming in at just over 1.4 million law enforcement agents. Only a VERY SMALL percentage would take a chance of losing their job by doing something stupid like that. Especially in this economy. There are an estimated 20 MILLION illegal immigrants that ARE here in the country illegally. Enforcing the immigration law is definitely justifiable and should have been done all along by the Federal Government.

Now it has been said many Americans break the law, however there is one MAJOR difference. We are Americans, we are citizens of this country and can not be forcefully removed from the country, only imprisoned inside of it. Which costs government money, why should our government support any illegal alien with our governments money, Citizens tax dollars? There is no reason. Humanity is not a reason for our government to pay for them so they have better lives. We have humanitarion programs in most of the countries these people are coming from. Our government is here to serve the people of America not the people who came across the border illegally.

Once again I ask why should an entire country choose allow the HUGE negative impact of illegals on the government programs and prison systems as well as public and private health care systems. Why should enforcing a law that has been on the Federal Books for a very long time not be done because there will be a few rights infringed on by those who abuse. Those who abuse will abuse no matter what. It is the given unfortunately. However I am not saying I am okay with any abuse of the system or people. Yet all of the 20 million illegal immigrants have both abused the system and violated every one of the United States citizens by taking money out of our programs that would be there for us if they were not so steadily consuming it. There is no portion of that that belongs to them.

The gentlemen HereToStudy mentioned is one out of millions, am I okay with it? No not on a singular basis. However, Americans are detained all of the time, for all kinds of reasons that are unjust. It is an unavoidable part of the justice process. You are innocent until proven guilty but if you can't pay bail you are in jail until you prove your innocence. It is this way with all crimes. Justifiable Cause is not infalliable but it is the best we have got. In the lack of something better we have to go with the best we got not just choose not to act. The system is not and never will be perfect so the idealism that one in millions on occasion is the reason to stop a process that is guaranteed to make a positive impact on availability of government funds is not justifiable to me. However our law system has been using Justifiable Cause for as long as I can remember and that is honestly as good as it is going to get. Now the gentlemen has the opportunity to sue if he feels his civil rights were infringed upon. I don't pretend to know the extenuating circumstance and can not take my information directly from the media either. Most media has a very Democratic slant, the exception of course Fox which has a Republican slant. They ALL get ratings off of sensationalism so I have no idea if there were circumstances beyond those you mentioned, and you can't truly know either. We only know that we choose to believe or not believe what the media gives us as information. To say that we can't move forward to further benefit America's poor and unemployed CITIZENS for that small of a reason; is the equivalent of saying the government is going to take food to the homeless but then deciding not to because someone may be allergic to an ingredient so nobody gets to eat. Yes I am aware that is a severe comparison but so is this one man's short plight in the face of 20 million illegal immigrants taking hundreds of millions of tax dollars. I don't even want to get into how much they are costing ANY person paying Health Insurance Premiums directly. Now before you say there are Americans doing the same once again we can take care of our own let the other governments and citizens of the other

One thing I have not seen mentioned while pointing out this one man as an example for why not to enforce this law is the 100s of thousands of examples of illegal immigrants that have been found guilty of violent, and or drug related crimes. There are many more examples on that side than the one of person here or there who will be inconvenienced by a situation as you pointed out. How about we leave the law in place and put a zero tolerance on bigotry in the law enforcement ranks? If you are found to exercise your bigotry on duty you lose your job and your pension. Now this does not mean that a cop can't go home and put on his pointy hat and jack off to Mississippi Burning or American X. He just can't let it effect his job or he loses it.

:shocked:Is there any white people still living in TEXAS??LOL

Excuse me.... that is Pigment Deficient Americans... I find white offensive as my skin color is more of a cream sometimes tan or pink depending on my current level of pigment deficiency... HAHAHAHA Just fugging with ya...

 

[HereToStudy]

I know you do not think I was speaking on AI's behalf but I do have to stress for all others reading this that I am speaking here on behalf of myself and perhaps should have checked the box regarding my signature not showing to avoid anyone thinking this was AI's stance. I am sure each person in the team may have a different opinion.

I am sorry for leading to the confusion, it never crossed my mind I might imply that, was just giving shouts. :22:

You present a good argument, and as this thread has displayed there is no perfect answer, and as you pointed out, the real issue came from a lack of enforcement earlier. Unfortuantely the problem has grown dramatically, but can't simply be turned around with the snap of a finger. The issue is very complex.

Again, as much as we don't 100% agree, we do see eye to eye on many points, and I particularly want to thank you for approaching the discussion in a mature and well thought out manner. You know you wrote that well when you get me slightly reshapping my thoughts.

 

[MrKleen73]

I am sorry for leading to the confusion, it never crossed my mind I might imply that, was just giving shouts. :22:

You present a good argument, and as this thread has displayed there is no perfect answer, and as you pointed out, the real issue came from a lack of enforcement earlier. Unfortuantely the problem has grown dramatically, but can't simply be turned around with the snap of a finger. The issue is very complex.

Again, as much as we don't 100% agree, we do see eye to eye on many points, and I particularly want to thank you for approaching the discussion in a mature and well thought out manner. You know you wrote that well when you get me slightly reshapping my thoughts.

Thanks Man I take that as a high compliment. Have a good evening. I think I have said all I can here. Many great points have been made on both sides. Democracy Rules!

 

[B5150]

An Arizona State Senator has written a thoughtful and disturbing letter to the San Francisco Chronicle to explain the reasons behind the state’s new immigration law. I don’t see how anyone can argue with Arizona’s right to defend itself after reading this.


I’m an Arizona state senator. I want to explain SB1070, Arizona’s immigration bill, which I voted for and which was just signed by Gov. Jan Brewer.

Rancher Rob Krentz was shot to death on his ranch over a month ago and the shooter fled into Mexico. His family suspects a drug smuggler is responsible. I participated in a state Senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence that is, and has been, sweeping our border communities for years. From those hearings, we learned that:

– The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border have been terrorized by the Mexican drug cartels and human smugglers. One rancher testified that 300 to 1,200 people cross his ranch every day, vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles, cutting down his fences and leaving trash. He testified that in the last two years, he has found 17 bodies and, alarmingly, several copies of the Quran.

– Another rancher testified that drugs are brought across his ranch in a military-style operation, with guards armed to the teeth. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, a half-mile behind are the fully armed guards, a half-mile behind them are the drugs, and behind the drugs are more guards. This was not the only rancher we heard who talked about the drug trains.

– One man told of two border crossers who came on his property, one of them shot in the back and the other in the arm by drug runners who forced them to carry drugs and then shot them. They frequently hear gunfire at night and are afraid to leave their ranch for fear of what the smugglers will do to it.

The Border Patrol is not on the border. It has set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. The officers are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering.

The national media do not report on these stories because it conflicts with their perception of the illegal immigration issue, which is based on an assumption that all illegal immigrants are law-abiding landscapers, maids and day laborers. While this is true in many cases, it is also true that our federal and state prisons and county jails are full of a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants who are committing a disproportionate number of crimes.

The federal government has failed to do anything substantive to help border states like Arizona. We have been overrun by immigrants and, once they are here, the state has the burden of funding services that they use. With a $3.5 billion state budget deficit, we have many difficult decisions to make, and one of those decisions is that we don’t have the money to care for people who are not here legally.

This has to stop. The border can be secured. We have the technology, we have the ability to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming into the country, and they must come in an organized manner – legally, so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country.

The national media has distorted, disfigured, and dismembered Senate Bill 1070 to the point that its reputation no longer bears any resemblance to what the bill actually does. Those who claim it is racist, or will foster a Nazi-state are themselves fostering unwarranted and irrational hysteria.

The fact is that Senate Bill 1070 merely makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally. It also explicitly prohibits law enforcement officials from solely considering race, color, or national origin in determining immigration status.

Many lawmakers who supported SB1070, including me, also support amnesty, but not until we secure the border. Failing to secure the border only moves us closer to some form of a North American Union with no borders and no national sovereignty. Many of those protesting SB1070 have called for just that.

Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But as an elected official, I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic.

Living in America is not a right simply because you walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility. Freedom is not free.

Sylvia Allen, a Republican from Snowflake, serves in the Arizona Senate.

 

[HereToStudy]

The Border Patrol is not on the border. It has set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. The officers are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering.

No offense, I again read this as we know where the problem exists, but we can't correct that, so we will do something else. This senator clearly claims he is for amnesty. Put your money and enforcement at the border. Make it damn near impossible to get through. The residents that reside here should not be confused with drug cartels and thier trains of transportation.

America's fundamental problem in this is the Drug War. America's drug appetite causes this big business from Mexico and puts the money into the pockets of those who will shoot on site to get thier drugs transported. The drug war is flawed, much in the way prohibition of alcohol was. Making a highly desired product illegal causes people to seek aquiring it in other fashions, such as turning to crime. (This works similarly for steroids, as a seller of steroids is a criminal drug distributor, fortunately, it does not have the demand of marijuana/etc. so violence is usually not associated with its transport.

I do feel for the residents near the border. I can not imagine what life in that situation must be like. But rather then rallying up the immigrants working in the american version of a slave shop, tighten your borders, and stop people from coming in.

Border enforcement should look like this:

------ = border xx = border enforcement .......... = blank space because the forums autoformat.



xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
---------------------------

Not this (as this article implies):


xx.........................xx.........................xx








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

I am not a liberal in the sense of "let them all walk in," this is part of me defining myself as a moderate liberal. Enforce the border and make it hell to even attempt getting through. But the drug cartels residing in the states are the minorities of illegals, and every example of violence caused by illegals presented in this thread is drug cartels working on transportation, not freedom seekers seeking to work. (Which as much as we may hope - this will do NOTHING to stop)

 

[B5150]

No offense, I again read this as we know where the problem exists, but we can't correct that, so we will do something else. This senator clearly claims he is for amnesty. Put your money and enforcement at the border. Make it damn near impossible to get through. The residents that reside here should not be confused with drug cartels and thier trains of transportation.

America's fundamental problem in this is the Drug War. America's drug appetite causes this big business from Mexico and puts the money into the pockets of those who will shoot on site to get thier drugs transported. The drug war is flawed, much in the way prohibition of alcohol was. Making a highly desired product illegal causes people to seek aquiring it in other fashions, such as turning to crime. (This works similarly for steroids, as a seller of steroids is a criminal drug distributor, fortunately, it does not have the demand of marijuana/etc. so violence is usually not associated with its transport.

I do feel for the residents near the border. I can not imagine what life in that situation must be like. But rather then rallying up the immigrants working in the american version of a slave shop, tighten your borders, and stop people from coming in.

There is more than a drug issue on our border. There are coyotes smuggling people into the country. There are weapons being smuggled into the country. There are illegals from around the globe, including terrorist groups who enter our contry illegally through theis state. It goes beyond just the war on drugs.

It is a National border and a State border. The National Government has done nothing at all to secure our National border. We stand by and watch our National Government do nothing and then get criticized by the same for doing something to attemp to keep our city and state safe from the same.

If the Federal government would get off their asses we would not have a state that is so infiltrated with this mess that we have to resort to local state legislation. Don't blame us for taking matters into our own hands. Blame the National government for ignoring the problem.

"All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to stand by and do nothing."

"Don't just do something, stand there."

 

[HereToStudy]

If the Federal government would get off their asses we would not have a state that is so infiltrated with this mess that we have to resort to local state legislation.

...and I completely agree.

 

[timmmah]

It is a National border and a State border. The National Government has done nothing at all to secure our National border. We stand by and watch our National Government do nothing and then get criticized by the same for doing something to attempt to keep our city and state safe from the same.

Wow dude,
This is it!


STFU bleeding-heart-liberal-douches and realize AZ is the first state to stand up for America!
If you think that the inflow of illegal Mexican citizens into AZ is not a danger to our society, let's go for a drive down to within 200 miles of the border and I will personally show you how southern AZ is turning into a third-world sh!thole of a country

 

[B5150]

Mexico's Immigration Law:

Let's Try It Here at Home By J. Michael Waller, Citizens for a Constitutional Republic

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven't been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it's noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

• in the country legally;
• have the means to sustain themselves economically;
• not destined to be burdens on society;
• of economic and social benefit to society;
• of good character and have no criminal records; and
• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Poblacion, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

• Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
• Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
• Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
• The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

• Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
• A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
• A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

• Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
• Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

• Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
• Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
• Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

• "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
• Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
• Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

• A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
• Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[airram479]

K,i read it.WTF is the big deal....seriously. If i were to go to Mexico do you think they are going to just let me walk into there country without some sort of documentation to state i am who i say i am...It would be no different anywhere else either. If you are here illegally,that was your choice..no hard feeling's about now,we should have closed shop a long f-cking time ago. And don't even get me started on how we need the Mexi's to do this or that,BS..The people without work will have to swallow some pride and finally admit that they are not beyond doing anything even if they have to take a pay cut,and shovel sh!t for awhile..got to put food in your tummy right?? How about all of these lazy-ass teenager's that don't want to do nothing,expecting mommy and daddy to give them the world??And yet we still ponder"Where are all the jobs??"..geez it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

 

[50cal]

Wow, ok I have just finished reading the replies and I will try to discuss all of the problems and concerns associated with immigration including myths and facts. So here we go....the argument that illegal aliens do the jobs that americans wont do is absurd. Americans build bridges, collect garbage, clean sewers and much worse. Have you ever seen the show Dirty Jobs? A more accurate argument would be that illegal aliens take the jobs that Americans can't do because employers wont pay minimum wage or provide reasonable benefits or safe working conditions. But it makes sense that if you flood the market with lots of cheap labor, wages go down. It has been shown that minorities and the poor are hit the hardest by illegal labor entering the markets. Relying on cheap labor also makes the businesses lazy. those who have illegal labor dont have to upgrade equipment, streamline processes, or deal with human resource issues because they are guaranteed high profits due to the unfairly low labor cost. If every illegal left the country tomorrow, we would still be building new homes and grow fruit and vegetables. The idea that if employers crack down on illegal workers then our economy will collapse because illegals keep things cheap....dont be fooled by those who say illegals contribute billions of dollars to our economy and take little from it. There wrong because many work off the books, earn low wages, and pay little or no taxes, send millions back to their home country, and use social services at a higher rate than american citizens. Illegals are 50% more likely to use welfare than citizens. They get free education, Medicaid, WIc, and food stamps. While illegals make up only 6% of the population, they account for almost 12% of our nation's poor. Yes illegals pay some taxes because they buy things. You cant live in this country without buying things and paying sales tax or even social security tax if they were lucky enough to steal someone''s social security number. Out nation spends more that 4.7 billion dollars a year on health care for illegals and California has been forced to close over 70 hospitals over the last 10 years alone. About 17% of all of those in federal prisons are illegal aliens. We are spending about 30 billion each year to educate illegal aliens in our schools. That money could be put to better use to figure out our miserable job at educating our own children. The problem is that those who come here to work and those who come here to kill are all using the same door. Law enforcement has admitted that they have no idea how many people are slipping into our border undetected. Almost 70% of illegals are mexican and our law enforcenemt simply cannot keep up. And by the way Ariznoa has the second highest kidnapping rate in the world...just behind Columbia. And I will just stop there. I got a lot of more!

 

[chocolatemilk]

Didn't bother to look up the facts 50 but if they're right you make a good case. Great point in the beginning about Americans not wanting to do some jobs tho. That's very true.

 

[julius kelp]

did you see eric holder's response to the question of if he had read the bill yet? impressive.

 

[50cal]

Yea.. Eric Holder who is the attorney general goes on abc, cbs, nbc, to do a interview and expresses his thoughts about the bill saying how it profiles based on racism. Later when asked by the senate about the bill, they asked him if he has read it, and he stumbles with a "i have not been presented with all the facts" BS. It is really scary when the US attorney general is expressing his feelings about a bill without even reading it first. That is not his job, thats what we have bloggers for. That behavior is irresponsible, the bill is only 10 pages long.

 

[B5150]

 

[suresha]

Yea.. Eric Holder who is the attorney general goes on abc, cbs, nbc, to do a interview and expresses his thoughts about the bill saying how it profiles based on racism. Later when asked by the senate about the bill, they asked him if he has read it, and he stumbles with a "i have not been presented with all the facts" BS. It is really scary when the US attorney general is expressing his feelings about a bill without even reading it first. That is not his job, thats what we have bloggers for. That behavior is irresponsible, the bill is only 10 pages long.

even if it were 20 pages, the bill is still based off racism to a large extent, period, accept it for what it is.

 

[chocolatemilk]

even if it were 20 pages, the bill is still based off racism to a large extent, period, accept it for what it is.

Don't tell us it's based on racism. Tell us why it is based on racism...

 

[smutty]

I didn't read all the posts so I don't know if somebody made this point already. If these people were not able to get the great people of Arizona to hire them they wouldn't be here. It does not work to go after the people with nothing to lose. Charge the people that hire the illegals, and yes I am an Arizona resident who hates to see illegals using our resources. Also the people blaming Obama for this have a very short and limited memory. Bush was a few votes away from getting immigration reform passed but was blocked by his own party. Bush was a really poor president but on this effort he tried to be fair and was screwed by the party of no.

 

[timmmah]

even if it were 20 pages, the bill is still based off racism to a large extent, period, accept it for what it is.

If it's racist to search someone because they give reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, then sure, it's racist.

Have you even read it? It in no way allows for racial profiling,so....

:liar: Find a different cause, how about Americans against big oil?

 

[HereToStudy]

If these people were not able to get the great people of Arizona to hire them they wouldn't be here. It does not work to go after the people with nothing to lose. Charge the people that hire the illegals

I have previously decided to avoid continuing in this thread because it will go on forever, however, I have been reading all of your comments.

I do think that smutty has made a very excellent comment. In one of the many documentaries I watch (documentaries are a vice of mine), they spoke of a company that repeatedly employed illegals, and whenever the employees would attempt to work for another company, ask for a raise, etc.., the company would notify immigration services of the illegals and they would be deported. The company did this like clockwork, and were never once targeted. Its again one of the problems I have with the republican view of being completely against regulation.

I recently had a very good debate with my father, who is a republican for the most part, and self described "fiscal conservative." He, being in the transportation (train) industry, is very anti regulation. He often quotes me of national meetings he has had to attend where the first 20 minutes were spent introducing the numerous government officials that had to sit in on the meeting, and how that was completely ridiculous. I agree that excessive regulation can be daunting, but a lack of proper regulation will always lead to abuse, period, which is exactly what companies like the one previously mentioned get away with. Stop the employers, and the illegals will have no desire to come here.

 

[timmmah]

I have previously decided to avoid continuing in this thread because it will go on forever, however, I have been reading all of your comments.

I do think that smutty has made a very excellent comment. In one of the many documentaries I watch (documentaries are a vice of mine), they spoke of a company that repeatedly employed illegals, and whenever the employees would attempt to work for another company, ask for a raise, etc.., the company would notify immigration services of the illegals and they would be deported. The company did this like clockwork, and were never once targeted. Its again one of the problems I have with the republican view of being completely against regulation.

I recently had a very good debate with my father, who is a republican for the most part, and self described "fiscal conservative." He, being in the transportation (train) industry, is very anti regulation. He often quotes me of national meetings he has had to attend where the first 20 minutes were spent introducing the numerous government officials that had to sit in on the meeting, and how that was completely ridiculous. I agree that excessive regulation can be daunting, but a lack of proper regulation will always lead to abuse, period, which is exactly what companies like the one previously mentioned get away with. Stop the employers, and the illegals will have no desire to come here.

Another good point by Heretostudy, don't drop out of this thread man, you're a good mediator.

 

[chocolatemilk]

For the people who think this law is based on racism..

What is one of the most important things detectives and investigators look for when trying to catch a criminal? Patterns. Patterns are HUGE clues. If police bust 1000 low class drug dealers, they look for patterns that these drug dealers have in common. Lets say they find that 700 of these drug dealers wear bandannas. Wouldn't it be a damn good idea to use that pattern as a clue when looking for future drug dealers? Wouldn't it be a good idea to use that nice statistic--not as a complete indicator--but keep that fact that 700 out of 1000 drug dealers wear bandannas in the back of the officers minds when looking for drug dealers?

If 700 out of 1000 illegal immigrants are of a particular race, and in the case of Arizona I'm being very generous with these numbers.. Why wouldn't we use that pattern to the advantage of catching illegals?

Let's face it.. when it comes to criminals, or illegals, they can be broken up into demographics by race. If one race is boasting a HIGH demographic, do we completely disregard a huge clue like this when trying to catch criminals or illegals? Do we throw it out the window and act like its not true when it's right there staring us in the face? How would you throw away a pattern like this indicating that illegals are more likely to be of a certain race? It would be absurd to throw away a huge pattern like this because of our sensitivity to race issues.

Human beings are the champions of making patterns. The ability to recognize patterns lead to innovations in mathematics and into physics--so where would we be right now without this ability to recognize patterns? We'd still be in the dark ages. We use patterns in everyday life more than you realize--yet as soon as we find race patterns within a group such as criminals or illegals, we are expected to throw these clues away for fear of being "racist." It is simply logic and reason to comprehend that withing the group of illegal immigrants, many of them are of ONE race! Should we not act on this? I think we should. Because it follows nothing more than logic and reason. There is no hate, or racism behind it, but only logic and reason.

 

[ryanp81]

Then you are qualified to be a protester.

Give that man a metal.

:usa:

 

[HereToStudy]

For the people who think this law is based on racism..

What is one of the most important things detectives and investigators look for when trying to catch a criminal? Patterns. Patterns are HUGE clues. If police bust 1000 low class drug dealers, they look for patterns that these drug dealers have in common. Lets say they find that 700 of these drug dealers wear bandannas. Wouldn't it be a damn good idea to use that pattern as a clue when looking for future drug dealers? Wouldn't it be a good idea to use that nice statistic--not as a complete indicator--but keep that fact that 700 out of 1000 drug dealers wear bandannas in the back of the officers minds when looking for drug dealers?

If 700 out of 1000 illegal immigrants are of a particular race, and in the case of Arizona I'm being very generous with these numbers.. Why wouldn't we use that pattern to the advantage of catching illegals?

Let's face it.. when it comes to criminals, or illegals, they can be broken up into demographics by race. If one race is boasting a HIGH demographic, do we completely disregard a huge clue like this when trying to catch criminals or illegals? Do we throw it out the window and act like its not true when it's right there staring us in the face? How would you throw away a pattern like this indicating that illegals are more likely to be of a certain race? It would be absurd to throw away a huge pattern like this because of our sensitivity to race issues.

Human beings are the champions of making patterns. The ability to recognize patterns lead to innovations in mathematics and into physics--so where would we be right now without this ability to recognize patterns? We'd still be in the dark ages. We use patterns in everyday life more than you realize--yet as soon as we find race patterns within a group such as criminals or illegals, we are expected to throw these clues away for fear of being "racist." It is simply logic and reason to comprehend that withing the group of illegal immigrants, many of them are of ONE race! Should we not act on this? I think we should. Because it follows nothing more than logic and reason. There is no hate, or racism behind it, but only logic and reason.

Pushing aside the actual racism argument, your viewpoint is very flawed.

As a white I statistically have a higher chance of doing high end drugs, such as cocaine powder. Should a cop harass me based on this statistic?

I am wearing a red shirt today, as are all the "bloods". Should I be stopped on the way to the train?

A buddy of mine shaves his head. Does this make him a neo-nazi? I mean he is blue eyed, shaved head and white. Fits the profile.

Id safely say 90+% of white collar crime is commited by whites. If I am starting a business, are the police allowed to investigate me for no reason other then I fit this statistic?

There are 46.9 million hispanics in the United States. Estimates are of 11million illegals in the United States, 57% percent of which are from Mexico, 24% from other latin countries, for a total of 81% of hispanic origin. 81% of 11 million is 8.91 million. That means there are 37.99 MILLION legal hispanic residents in this country. A clear majority at over 80% of the race's population. Therefore your argument is invalid.

Also....

many of them are of ONE race! Should we not act on this? I think we should. Because it follows nothing more than logic and reason. There is no hate, or racism behind it, but only logic and reason.

You simply can not say that in itself is not racist. Refer to definition two:

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Source = Merriam Webster


Stating that statistically Mexicans are likely to be illegal is not better then saying blacks are mostly gangbangers.

 

[chocolatemilk]

Very good counter-argument heretostudy.

Answer my questions then.. You think the fact that when looking at the demographics of illegal immigrants, this technically means nothing? There is no validity to these statistics?

Answer honestly to this also.. Hypothetical situation--If cops went around in Arizona and asked every single citizen for their papers, where do you think the most illegals would turn up in terms of races? Answer honestly.

 

[HereToStudy]

Very good counter-argument heretostudy.

Answer my questions then.. You think the fact that when looking at the demographics of illegal immigrants, this technically means nothing? There is no validity to these statistics?

Answer honestly to this also.. Hypothetical situation--If cops went around in Arizona and asked every single citizen for their papers, where do you think the most illegals would turn up in terms of races? Answer honestly.

1. I don't deny the correlation presented by the statistics. The statistics are very valid. But statistics can be drawn either way, as presented in my counter argument, and the fact is that an overwhelming majority of the race are legal. Targeting the race then would effect those who are of legal status as well. This country is not supposed to be discriminant based on nationality, religion or sex.

2. An overwhelming majority would be Mexican, closely followed by other Latin countries. I don't try to deny this. Walking around asking every single citizen for thier papers would be no different then pulling over every single car on a road and searching it for marijuana. In this country we are innocent until proven guilty.

 

[chocolatemilk]

1. I don't deny the correlation presented by the statistics. The statistics are very valid. But statistics can be drawn either way, as presented in my counter argument, and the fact is that an overwhelming majority of the race are legal. Targeting the race then would effect those who are of legal status as well. This country is not supposed to be discriminant based on nationality, religion or sex.

2. An overwhelming majority would be Mexican, closely followed by other Latin countries. I don't try to deny this. Walking around asking every single citizen for thier papers would be no different then pulling over every single car on a road and searching it for marijuana. In this country we are innocent until proven guilty.

1. When you say the overwhelming majority of Mexicans are legal.. I agree. I'm not saying all Mexicans are illegal immigrants. What I am saying is different: most illegals are Mexican.. not most Mexicans are illegal. There is a big difference.

If you agree that stats are valid, how do you suppose we use the "most illegals are Mexican" statistic. You were assuming I was giving you the statistic that "most Mexicans are illegal".. No. I was giving you the stat that "most illegals are Mexican." How do we utilize that? You think we should throw that out the window?

2. Ok, to me, if cops went around asking every Arizona citizen for papers, and the majority of illegal immigrants turned out to be Mexican.... Why then is it wrong to search more Mexicans than other races? I don't get it. It's like we're playing stupid here if we search whites equally as Mexicans when we KNOW most illegal immigrants are Mexican.. If we don't search Mexicans more than whites, this process of finding illegal immigrants is gonna be very VERY slow and dragged out. It's a waste of time and money to be race sensitive right now.

 

[chocolatemilk]

We are not searching Mexicans the most because most Mexicans are illegal immigrants.

We are searching Mexicans the most because most illegal immigrants are Mexican.

 

[chocolatemilk]

When a victim gives a description of a criminal, and the victim says the criminal was black... What idiot cop is gonna waste his time questioning white people?

This is kind of the same thing.

We have a general description of Illegal Immigrants being Mexican, so what kind of idiot cop is gonna waste his time questioning white people?

 

[HereToStudy]

Your missing my point. You can't go "target" anyone. It is not right to demand paperwork from someone out of reasonable suspicion, which is what you are arguing is ok.

 

[chocolatemilk]

Your missing my point. You can't go "target" anyone. It is not right to demand paperwork from someone out of reasonable suspicion, which is what you are arguing is ok.

"When a victim gives a description of a criminal, and the victim says the criminal was black... What idiot cop is gonna waste his time questioning white people?

This is kind of the same thing.

We have a general description of Illegal Immigrants being Mexican, so what kind of idiot cop is gonna waste his time questioning white people?"

You're telling me it's not ok to "target" with these two situations and that in the 1st situation going after whites is ok?

 

[B5150]

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

 

[youngandfree]

When a victim gives a description of a criminal, and the victim says the criminal was black... What idiot cop is gonna waste his time questioning white people?

This is kind of the same thing.

We have a general description of Illegal Immigrants being Mexican, so what kind of idiot cop is gonna waste his time questioning white people?

I have a real world example of how flawed this is. Years ago I worked in Corporate Security for First Union Bank, now Wachovia. We monitored all the alarms for the branches. When a branch got held up, we made sure local PD and the FBI were dispatched and had to write up a detailed report of the incident. Well one day a branch got held up. A long time employee was handling the situation with me. He asked the branch employee for a description of the suspect. Well part of that was the guy was black. No racist overtones or anything of the sort involved. Well my coworker didn't feel the need to out that little tidbit of info in the report in order to be PC. I asked why he did t think it was important in the report and he said he didn't want to sound racist. Its not racist when a person of a certain race commits a crime and you have to find a person of the same race. If you were to try to pin this on a white guy because of circumstantial evidence that would allow a prosecutor to charge him, heads are going to roll for wrongfully charging an innocent person.

 

[HereToStudy]

"When a victim gives a description of a criminal, and the victim says the criminal was black... What idiot cop is gonna waste his time questioning white people?

This is kind of the same thing.

We have a general description of Illegal Immigrants being Mexican, so what kind of idiot cop is gonna waste his time questioning white people?"

You're telling me it's not ok to "target" with these two situations and that in the 1st situation going after whites is ok?

The same kind of thing, and the same thing shows a level of looseness in conversation that overstates the statement. In your examples we are targeting an individual, where every description of him we have would be necessary to track that individual. If he has a pierced eyebrow, that description is needed as well. Now in the same sense, we couldn't say people with pierced eyebrows are likely to do crystal meth, so we must ask every person with a pierced eyebrow "Do you do crystal meth?" In your examples we are targeting the crime of an individual. What I am arguing against is the use of a stereotype in finding an individual. It's the same reason why my father should not be pulled over for speeding in his Escalade, and the cop shouldn't note "Well, the man is white, wearing a designer suit, wearing a rolex, and driving a nice vehicle, I bet you we have the next Bernie Madoff on our hands" and proceed to harass him as to the nature of his business.


Note: I am sure this disclaimer is unnecessary, but I will state it anyway because I am overly cautious of how my tone comes off on these boards. I am not arguing with you in any emotional sense, just having a debate. :fing02:

 

[HereToStudy]

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

I am at work, but will make note to check these out when I get home.

I have a real world example of how flawed this is. Years ago I worked in Corporate Security for First Union Bank, now Wachovia. We monitored all the alarms for the branches. When a branch got held up, we made sure local PD and the FBI were dispatched and had to write up a detailed report of the incident. Well one day a branch got held up. A long time employee was handling the situation with me. He asked the branch employee for a description of the suspect. Well part of that was the guy was black. No racist overtones or anything of the sort involved. Well my coworker didn't feel the need to out that little tidbit of info in the report in order to be PC. I asked why he did t think it was important in the report and he said he didn't want to sound racist. Its not racist when a person of a certain race commits a crime and you have to find a person of the same race. If you were to try to pin this on a white guy because of circumstantial evidence that would allow a prosecutor to charge him, heads are going to roll for wrongfully charging an innocent person.

I am sorry if this comes off as harsh, but your friend needs to be fired. Being PC is one thing, potentially making it harder to find a suspect and allowing for the chance that an innocent man can be put behind bars is terrible. He has a job to do and he failed to do it.

 

[chocolatemilk]

I understand what all you guys are saying. I'm just debating too

On a side note, kind of what you guys are talking about.. Some jackass called a news station, and started ranting saying "I would rather have an innocent man go to jail, then a guilty murderer go free." Well... tell me what's wrong with what this idiot said heretostudy or anyone else? It's kind of funny. If you give up I'll tell you.

On the issue at hand..

Heretostudy and others.. this is my main main point on this racism issue that we're debating about. In our hypothetical situation with cops asking every AZ resident for their papers and the big majority of illegals turned out to be Mexican (which we know for a fact is true). Just because of the truthful nature of this hypothetical situation... do you really see no justification in asking more Mexicans for papers over whites? Or do you really believe we should ask the same amount of Mexicans and whites for their papers. Answer honestly please.

PS--if you give me the idea that this hypothetical situation would not yield these kinds of results. You know that is complete BS. We're talking about AZ here.

 

[chocolatemilk]

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Very good watch. This is creepy stuff. There is no doubt our borders needs to be secured and I'm shocked the Federal level gov is not doing so. Thank God for state level gov for taking this matter into their own hands and may AZ set a precedent for the other border states. As far as border security goes.

 

[HereToStudy]

On a side note, kind of what you guys are talking about.. Some jackass called a news station, and started ranting saying "I would rather have an innocent man go to jail, then a guilty murderer go free." Well... tell me what's wrong with what this idiot said heretostudy or anyone else? It's kind of funny. If you give up I'll tell you.

Feel free to tell me, but this man is clearly a moron. I am not even sure whos side of the argument he is on or how it relates, but clearly this man's mind would change if he was an innocent man in jail.

Heretostudy and others.. this is my main main point on this racism issue that we're debating about. In our hypothetical situation with cops asking every AZ resident for their papers and the big majority of illegals turned out to be Mexican (which we know for a fact is true). Just because of the truthful nature of this hypothetical situation... do you really see no justification in asking more Mexicans for papers over whites? Or do you really believe we should ask the same amount of Mexicans and whites for their papers. Answer honestly please.

I have answered honestly in every one of my posts. My point is being a bit overlooked. In this hypothetical situation we are discussing, you are calling for no difference then if Illinois (my state) were to call a law that all residents had to go in and take a drug test. Asking EVERY citizen to produce papers is no different... We are innocent until proven guilty. A government can not tap my phone calls because I use my phone alot, which is what drug dealers do. Your hypothetical situation, which is not how the bill is looking to handle this, would basically play into "if you are mexican, come prove you can be here." This is not American. Its as if we called all muslims in to prove they are not terrorists. Its simply not how we handle the law.
[/QUOTE]

 

[B5150]

In this hypothetical situation we are discussing, you are calling for no difference then if Illinois (my state) were to call a law that all residents had to go in and take a drug test. Asking EVERY citizen to produce papers is no different... We are innocent until proven guilty. A government can not tap my phone calls because I use my phone alot, which is what drug dealers do. Your hypothetical situation, which is not how the bill is looking to handle this, would basically play into "if you are mexican, come prove you can be here." This is not American. Its as if we called all muslims in to prove they are not terrorists. Its simply not how we handle the law.

You are missing the point, and falling victim of the projections of the anti-racial sensationalists.

The bill clearly states under which conditions they are able to ask for papers - lawful stops with probable cause.

If I lawfully pull you over for suspicion of DUI in the state of Illinois you WILL submit to a sobriety test and a drug and alcohol screening. I cannot enter your home and require you do so.

If I lawfully pull over a vehicle for excessive speed, respond to a disturbance or any other lawful prerequisite for engagement I can ask you for ID and if I suspect you, through probable cause, to be an illegal, of any ethnic origin, am within the law to ask you to provide documentation proving such.

I cannot call in all Muslims to prove they are not terrorists but I can require Muslims who are lawfully detained to provide documentation of their legal residency if there is probable cause to suspect that they are in this country illegally.

 

[chocolatemilk]

I am sorry if this comes off as harsh, but your friend needs to be fired. Being PC is one thing, potentially making it harder to find a suspect and allowing for the chance that an innocent man can be put behind bars is terrible. He has a job to do and he failed to do it.

This is why I was relating it. Well heres the funny thing bout what this guy said: if an innocent man goes to jail, the guilty man DOES GO FREE HAHA.

I have answered honestly in every one of my posts. My point is being a bit overlooked. In this hypothetical situation we are discussing, you are calling for no difference then if Illinois (my state) were to call a law that all residents had to go in and take a drug test. Asking EVERY citizen to produce papers is no different... We are innocent until proven guilty. A government can not tap my phone calls because I use my phone alot, which is what drug dealers do. Your hypothetical situation, which is not how the bill is looking to handle this, would basically play into "if you are mexican, come prove you can be here." This is not American. Its as if we called all muslims in to prove they are not terrorists. Its simply not how we handle the law.

[/QUOTE]

I understand what you're saying. OK, heretstudy you seem to be diverting answering my question by giving me similar scenarios as analogies. For one second please, let us set aside the American way, innocent until proven guilty, and racism. PURELY in terms of logic and reason ALONE.. Knowing our hypothetical situation would be true IF it happened, for the sole purpose of logic and reason, do you not see that asking more Mexicans than whites for papers would yield more illegal immigrants? And that's what this bill wants--illegal immigrants. In terms of logic and reason ALONE AND NOTHING ELSE, don't you see it as supporting logic and reason to search more Mexicans knowing our hypothetical situation is very truthful nature. Heretostudy, No analogies, no scenarios, no American way, no racism, no innocent until proven guilty, BUT answer in terms of logic and reason alone.

 

[TexasTitan]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[chocolatemilk]

The bill clearly states under which conditions they are able to ask for papers - lawful stops with probable cause..

Very good response overall. This is how I'm going about it.. which I know is WRONG in terms of humane treatment, racism, and other sensitive issues BUT I know is RIGHT in terms of logic and reason.

To me.. being Mexican serves as a probable cause because most, if not all illegal immigrants in AZ are Mexican. I'm not saying it is 100% probable cause, but more like 30%.

I don't believe race is something to be overlooked in this debate for all you race sensitive people, but I don't think it's the sole indicator. I would say it has a good 30% of legitimate space in all of this.

 

[youngandfree]

You are missing the point, and falling victim of the projections of the anti-racial sensationalists.

The bill clearly states under which conditions they are able to ask for papers - lawful stops with probable cause.

If I lawfully pull you over for suspicion of DUI in the state of Illinois you WILL submit to a sobriety test and a drug and alcohol screening. I cannot enter your home and require you do so.

If I lawfully pull over a vehicle for excessive speed, respond to a disturbance or any other lawful prerequisite for engagement I can ask you for ID and if I suspect you, through probable cause, to be an illegal, of any ethnic origin, am within the law to ask you to provide documentation proving such.

I cannot call in all Muslims to prove they are not terrorists but I can require Muslims who are lawfully detained to provide documentation of their legal residency if there is probable cause to suspect that they are in this country illegally.

Word. This seems to be the most overlooked point in this entire thread. If you are stopped for speeding, broken tail light, expired tags, etc or are suspected of committing any other crime, an officer has the duty to ask for ID. If you don't have any or are suspected to be here illegally, then the officer or police department is authorized to check your status in the Federal Government's E-verify system. If you are in fact here legally, then you deal with the consequences of the crime you committed. If you are illegal, you deal with your crime and punishment then you will be turned over to ICE.

No where in the bill does it say anything remotely close to allowing an officer to randomly walk up to or pull over any person and ask for papers to prove citizenship.

We can sit here for weeks on end creating hypothetical situations and what outcomes could be. When Eric Holder admits he hasn't read the 15 page bill, that takes 20 minutes to read btw, yet is going to file suit against AZ. Janet Naolitano admitted that she hadn't read the bill. Gibbs has not said the President has read the bill which equals n admission of not reading it. When they actually READ the text, then they will see that it is the same as federal statute.

When Phil Jackson was asked his opinion on Los Suns, he said teams shouldn't be involved in politics. The reporter asked won't it lead to racial profiling? Jackson replied, am I the only one that heard the legislators who wrote the bill say that it duplicates federal statute. Reporter said, but it usurps federal power. Jackson said No it duplicates federal statute and gives the state some teeth to enforce it. (paraphrased).

All of the sensationalists making such a big deal haven't read the bill.

Oh and why is Obama getting the Mexican President's opinion about Arizona when they have stricter immigration laws? Any body remember when Dog the Bounty Hunter caught a murderer that fled to Mexico and was jailed because he wasn't authorized to be there. The dude tracked down a multi billionaire who killed a woman and brought him to justice, and he is the one that was put in Mexican jail. And F china, Hugo Chavez, et al that don't like the AZ law. They have ZERO place to have ANY input on the situation.

 

[416]

HTS you write,"I have answered honestly in every one of my posts. My point is being a bit overlooked. In this hypothetical situation we are discussing, you are calling for no difference then if Illinois (my state) were to call a law that all residents had to go in and take a drug test. Asking EVERY citizen to produce papers is no different... We are innocent until proven guilty. A government can not tap my phone calls because I use my phone alot, which is what drug dealers do. Your hypothetical situation, which is not how the bill is looking to handle this, would basically play into "if you are mexican, come prove you can be here." This is not American. Its as if we called all muslims in to prove they are not terrorists. Its simply not how we handle the law."
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

HTS what you have written so far seems to indicate you are talking about using race alone.The Arizona law prohibits this.To compare to the arizona law in the scenario you give it would not be only that you use the phone alot,but that you used a lot of throw away phones , hung out with known drug dealers and kept making payments on a big house even though you lost your job 2 yrs ago.
If you are saying the law may be abused then deal with the person who does that.If you do not like that then we need to get rid of all laws because they can all be abused.

 

[HereToStudy]

You are missing the point, and falling victim of the projections of the anti-racial sensationalists.

Everything you said was correct, except for me missing the point, I clearly dictated that the hypothetical we were discussing was not the way this bill works. I was refuting an ideology presented with chocolatemilk.

I understand what you're saying. OK, heretstudy you seem to be diverting answering my question by giving me similar scenarios as analogies. For one second please, let us set aside the American way, innocent until proven guilty, and racism. PURELY in terms of logic and reason ALONE.. Knowing our hypothetical situation would be true IF it happened, for the sole purpose of logic and reason, do you not see that asking more Mexicans than whites for papers would yield more illegal immigrants? And that's what this bill wants--illegal immigrants. In terms of logic and reason ALONE AND NOTHING ELSE, don't you see it as supporting logic and reason to search more Mexicans knowing our hypothetical situation is very truthful nature. Heretostudy, No analogies, no scenarios, no American way, no racism, no innocent until proven guilty, BUT answer in terms of logic and reason alone.

No in the complete idealogy of would it work, yes. If you did carried out that situation it would completely work and most if not all illegals would be deported. That is answering the question completely frankly.

But the reason we support this country is through liberties. So ignoring the "american way" is not exactly the best way to create a scenario. Hypothetically, if we had a totallitarian state, with a dictator, and every single thing we did we had to report and ask for approval, this country would be completely crime free and perfect. We could randomly search everyone at all times, monitor thier phone calls, and have an agent follow them everywhere in or out of the country. Just because this hypothetical situation works, does not indicate it would be the best strategy. So yes, your proposition would work 100%, but it is not the way to do it, and I could never support it.

Invalid Link Removed

I am glad I clicked the link, because in 90% of situations I will fully choose to ignore any URL that includes FOXNEWS. The channel is a network of propaganda for the right and hardly able to be considered news, which O'Reilly has admitted it is only a news source during certain hours of the day, which is still questionable.

However, I do not support or choose not to support a protest of Arizona. That is between those two governments and frankly out of my midwest concerns. I would find it intresting if LA would resource its power to California plants, but don't see it happening. I am happy to see strong willed opposition, however.

To me.. being Mexican serves as a probable cause because most, if not all illegal immigrants in AZ are Mexican. I'm not saying it is 100% probable cause, but more like 30%.

See and this is showing what I am opposed to. A race should be 0% probable cause for anything. This is my opinion and not a fact. It uses a racial stereotype to carry out enforcement of law, which is not acceptable.

 

[HereToStudy]

HTS what you have written so far seems to indicate you are talking about using race alone.The Arizona law prohibits this.

If you are refering my post talking to chocolate milk, then refer to my response above to David Dunn, it was merely a response to the hypothetical.

If you are responding to my overall discussion in the thread, My main focus isn't entirely on this being racial, although I feel that it will cause racial tension and will be largely abused through this reasoning. Previously I linked to a story of a man who was harassed without reason, and was a legal citizen. Earlier we had name calling such as "Border Monkeys," and chocolate milk, whom I am not labeling a racist and have respect for as presentiing a debate in a mature manner, also stated this as a Mexican problem with a proposition of questioning mexicans directly. All of this is built on race, which is counter active to the advancements we have made as a country.

 

[416]

If you are refering my post talking to chocolate milk, then refer to my response above to David Dunn, it was merely a response to the hypothetical.

If you are responding to my overall discussion in the thread, My main focus isn't entirely on this being racial, although I feel that it will cause racial tension and will be largely abused through this reasoning. Previously I linked to a story of a man who was harassed without reason, and was a legal citizen. Earlier we had name calling such as "Border Monkeys," and chocolate milk, whom I am not labeling a racist and have respect for as presentiing a debate in a mature manner, also stated this as a Mexican problem with a proposition of questioning mexicans directly. All of this is built on race, which is counter active to the advancements we have made as a country.

People can say what ever they want about the law,but the way it is written it is not about race.As indicated in my previous statement if someone abuses the law then they themselves have broken the law and can be dealt with.Any law can be abused.