California vs. Arizona (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2010-05-20 10:31 PM in reply to: #2872307 |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona AcesFull - 2010-05-20 5:11 PM I do not like the AZ law, but I also don't think LA has any business boycotting AZ. If Arizonans want to pass a law such as this, it is their business, assuming the law meets constitutional challenges. My opinion is that the law is, at its heart, essentially driven by the sort of insidious racism that many people experience, but deny overtly, and truly don't believe they are experiencing. Still, it is not up to LA to dictate to AZ what they should or should not do. Yes, I am saying that I know you better than you know yourself. Sorry. Wow pure arrogance you know us better than we know ourselves I am starting to expect this from people on the left. |
|
2010-05-21 7:18 AM in reply to: #2872307 |
Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona AcesFull - 2010-05-20 5:11 PM I do not like the AZ law, but I also don't think LA has any business boycotting AZ. If Arizonans want to pass a law such as this, it is their business, assuming the law meets constitutional challenges. My opinion is that the law is, at its heart, essentially driven by the sort of insidious racism that many people experience, but deny overtly, and truly don't believe they are experiencing. Still, it is not up to LA to dictate to AZ what they should or should not do. Yes, I am saying that I know you better than you know yourself. Sorry. Do you also disagree with the federal statute that is more restrictive that the state one? You do know that under federal law there is no need to prove reasonable suspicion before a federal agent needs to ask for papers? It is racism when an hispanic cop, which many AZ cops are, asks an hispanic suspect where they are from? Edited by Jackemy 2010-05-21 7:20 AM |
2010-05-21 7:33 AM in reply to: #2869608 |
Champion 6503 NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona pga_mike - 2010-05-19 6:55 PM Is Arizona a part of Cuba? My point is that we continue to do business with countries that have committed genocide and other atrocities, but here we are encouraged to stop with one of our own states? Because we disagree with a law? It seems a little over the top to try to economically devastate one of our states. If you disagree with the law, perhaps a letter to their governor would be more appropriate? |
2010-05-21 8:17 AM in reply to: #2872939 |
Champion 5615 | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona Jackemy - 2010-05-21 8:18 AM AcesFull - 2010-05-20 5:11 PM I do not like the AZ law, but I also don't think LA has any business boycotting AZ. If Arizonans want to pass a law such as this, it is their business, assuming the law meets constitutional challenges. My opinion is that the law is, at its heart, essentially driven by the sort of insidious racism that many people experience, but deny overtly, and truly don't believe they are experiencing. Still, it is not up to LA to dictate to AZ what they should or should not do. Yes, I am saying that I know you better than you know yourself. Sorry. Do you also disagree with the federal statute that is more restrictive that the state one? You do know that under federal law there is no need to prove reasonable suspicion before a federal agent needs to ask for papers? It is racism when an hispanic cop, which many AZ cops are, asks an hispanic suspect where they are from? 8 USC 1226 (Apprehension and Detention of Aliens) states "On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States." While I do not agree the law was born out of racism, I do believe that it is discriminatory; if not in letter, then in action. The problem I have with the law is that it potentially violates the rights of citizens, natural-born and naturalized. While immigrants are required to carry documentation of lawful registration (8 USC 1304e), citizens are not. If a first-generation natural-born citizen of Mexican parents is approached and asked for documentation, what would they provide? Are we to require that natural-born citizens carry birth certificates at all times? |
2010-05-21 8:32 AM in reply to: #2873053 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona CubeFarmGopher - 2010-05-21 9:17 AM While immigrants are required to carry documentation of lawful registration (8 USC 1304e), citizens are not. If a first-generation natural-born citizen of Mexican parents is approached and asked for documentation, what would they provide? Are we to require that natural-born citizens carry birth certificates at all times? From the law: 37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE. 38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE. 39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL 40 IDENTIFICATION. 41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES 42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT 43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. Honestly how often do you NOT have ID on you. Be honest without yourself. There are probably NOT a lot of times you are out and about in public when you do not have ID on your person or easily obtainable. So you'll say "When I'm jogging in the park." OK, fine. Why would the police stop you when you are jogging in the park? They can't do it (according to the law) simply becuase you are Hispanic. So why would they stop you? People are trying to take the VERY rare exception and make it the rule. Edited by TriRSquared 2010-05-21 8:34 AM |
2010-05-21 8:51 AM in reply to: #2873053 |
Champion 8540 the colony texas | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona CubeFarmGopher - 2010-05-21 8:17 AM Jackemy - 2010-05-21 8:18 AM AcesFull - 2010-05-20 5:11 PM
Do you also disagree with the federal statute that is more restrictive that the state one? You do know that under federal law there is no need to prove reasonable suspicion before a federal agent needs to ask for papers? It is racism when an hispanic cop, which many AZ cops are, asks an hispanic suspect where they are from? 8 USC 1226 (Apprehension and Detention of Aliens) states "On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States." While I do not agree the law was born out of racism, I do believe that it is discriminatory; if not in letter, then in action. The problem I have with the law is that it potentially violates the rights of citizens, natural-born and naturalized. While immigrants are required to carry documentation of lawful registration (8 USC 1304e), citizens are not. If a first-generation natural-born citizen of Mexican parents is approached and asked for documentation, what would they provide? Are we to require that natural-born citizens carry birth certificates at all times? actually it is a law (or it was in Texas & Ohiot) that you have to carry ID on you.. while it's not often enforced if asked by a law enforcement officer you must provide it. even if you are out jogging in the park, will they site you for it, probably not, if you are being a real jerk, then maybe. I think there whole carryng the Birth Certificate myth issue has been covered already. |
|
2010-05-21 8:55 AM in reply to: #2869148 |
Master 2083 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona I'm just wondering how offensive it is to be asked for I.D.? I can't say that it would really hurt my feelings......... Now if the officer called me a short fat gringo, that might. (As a note of interest, I had a Mexican officer call me that once on vacation in ixtapa.) It did hurt a little........... |
2010-05-21 8:59 AM in reply to: #2873105 |
Champion 5522 Frisco, TX | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona TriRSquared - 2010-05-21 8:32 AM CubeFarmGopher - 2010-05-21 9:17 AM While immigrants are required to carry documentation of lawful registration (8 USC 1304e), citizens are not. If a first-generation natural-born citizen of Mexican parents is approached and asked for documentation, what would they provide? Are we to require that natural-born citizens carry birth certificates at all times? From the law: 37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE. 38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE. 39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL 40 IDENTIFICATION. 41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES 42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT 43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. Honestly how often do you NOT have ID on you. Be honest without yourself. There are probably NOT a lot of times you are out and about in public when you do not have ID on your person or easily obtainable. So you'll say "When I'm jogging in the park." OK, fine. Why would the police stop you when you are jogging in the park? They can't do it (according to the law) simply becuase you are Hispanic. So why would they stop you? People are trying to take the VERY rare exception and make it the rule. How come they didn't include my RoadID as an acceptable form of identification? |
2010-05-21 9:59 AM in reply to: #2873105 |
Champion 5615 | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona TriRSquared - 2010-05-21 9:32 AM CubeFarmGopher - 2010-05-21 9:17 AM While immigrants are required to carry documentation of lawful registration (8 USC 1304e), citizens are not. If a first-generation natural-born citizen of Mexican parents is approached and asked for documentation, what would they provide? Are we to require that natural-born citizens carry birth certificates at all times? From the law: 37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE. 38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE. 39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL 40 IDENTIFICATION. 41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES 42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT 43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. Honestly how often do you NOT have ID on you. Be honest without yourself. There are probably NOT a lot of times you are out and about in public when you do not have ID on your person or easily obtainable. So you'll say "When I'm jogging in the park." OK, fine. Why would the police stop you when you are jogging in the park? They can't do it (according to the law) simply becuase you are Hispanic. So why would they stop you? People are trying to take the VERY rare exception and make it the rule. Do you have a direct link to the list of identification? I can not find that listing in my copy of the text of SB1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf). I agree that it is common for me, as an individual, to carry a drivers license but, even if I do not carry it, I am not in danger of being arrested for not having it. As Gary stated, in certain states, not carrying ID is an offense that may garner a citation or notice to produce ID to the court within a period of time. In Arizona, not carrying ID is an offense that may garner an arrest. My problem is that "innocent until proven guilty" has been undercut, in any situation, to become "guilty, on account of reasonable suspicion by an individual, until proven innocent." The very foundation of the 14th amendment is that there are NO exceptions. |
2010-05-21 10:17 AM in reply to: #2873527 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona CubeFarmGopher - 2010-05-21 10:59 AM Do you have a direct link to the list of identification? I can not find that listing in my copy of the text of SB1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf). That's the senate bill. This is the bill that was voted into law after the house ammended the bill. http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF My problem is that "innocent until proven guilty" has been undercut, in any situation, to become "guilty, on account of reasonable suspicion by an individual, until proven innocent." The very foundation of the 14th amendment is that there are NO exceptions. That's a reasonable suspicion argument. That's a larger issue. Has nothing to do with the AZ law. Edited by TriRSquared 2010-05-21 10:17 AM |
2010-05-21 10:24 AM in reply to: #2873527 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona CubeFarmGopher - 2010-05-21 10:59 AM TriRSquared - 2010-05-21 9:32 AM CubeFarmGopher - 2010-05-21 9:17 AM While immigrants are required to carry documentation of lawful registration (8 USC 1304e), citizens are not. If a first-generation natural-born citizen of Mexican parents is approached and asked for documentation, what would they provide? Are we to require that natural-born citizens carry birth certificates at all times? From the law: 37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE. 38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE. 39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL 40 IDENTIFICATION. 41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES 42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT 43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. Honestly how often do you NOT have ID on you. Be honest without yourself. There are probably NOT a lot of times you are out and about in public when you do not have ID on your person or easily obtainable. So you'll say "When I'm jogging in the park." OK, fine. Why would the police stop you when you are jogging in the park? They can't do it (according to the law) simply becuase you are Hispanic. So why would they stop you? People are trying to take the VERY rare exception and make it the rule. Do you have a direct link to the list of identification? I can not find that listing in my copy of the text of SB1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf). I agree that it is common for me, as an individual, to carry a drivers license but, even if I do not carry it, I am not in danger of being arrested for not having it. As Gary stated, in certain states, not carrying ID is an offense that may garner a citation or notice to produce ID to the court within a period of time. In Arizona, not carrying ID is an offense that may garner an arrest. My problem is that "innocent until proven guilty" has been undercut, in any situation, to become "guilty, on account of reasonable suspicion by an individual, until proven innocent." The very foundation of the 14th amendment is that there are NO exceptions. Stop for a second. What you just pointed out has nothing to do with the Arizona bill. That exists today as per Terry vs. Ohio. My problem with this entire debate is that if people use this angle, I have to ask why these same people didn't have a problem with it before now? FWIW, I want to see the "reasonable suspicion" thing overturned. Pre-Arizona Illegal Immigration law, it gives police the ability to disreguard our 4th amendment rights IMO. |
|
2010-05-21 10:25 AM in reply to: #2873631 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona TriRSquared - 2010-05-21 11:17 AM CubeFarmGopher - 2010-05-21 10:59 AM Do you have a direct link to the list of identification? I can not find that listing in my copy of the text of SB1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf). That's the senate bill. This is the bill that was voted into law after the house ammended the bill. http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF My problem is that "innocent until proven guilty" has been undercut, in any situation, to become "guilty, on account of reasonable suspicion by an individual, until proven innocent." The very foundation of the 14th amendment is that there are NO exceptions. That's a reasonable suspicion argument. That's a larger issue. Has nothing to do with the AZ law. Doh.. I replied before you hit that one. I am in agreement. |
2010-05-21 10:27 AM in reply to: #2872939 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2010-05-21 10:48 AM in reply to: #2873692 |
Veteran 561 Arden Hills, MN | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona There seems to be this assumption that if you are for securing and protecting the borders that you must then be against immigration. But I think this is false dichotomy. |
2010-05-21 10:49 AM in reply to: #2872743 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2010-05-21 10:50 AM in reply to: #2873785 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
|
2010-05-21 10:51 AM in reply to: #2869148 |
Master 2083 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona Subconscious bias exists for a reason. It is typically learned as a result of experienced behavior. Can they be wrong? yes. Can they be right? yes. I think a person is better off identifying prejudice and reasoning out it's justification (or lack thereof) than taking a blanket approach to it. Sometimes those biases (or prejudgments) serve people VERY WELL. One question that haunts me whenever I think about this issue, that I can never seem to reconcile, is: "If your looking for a fox in a hen house, why are you I.D.-ing the chickens?" |
2010-05-21 11:18 AM in reply to: #2873797 |
Elite 2768 Raleigh | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona jgaither - 2010-05-21 10:51 AM Subconscious bias exists for a reason. It is typically learned as a result of experienced behavior. Can they be wrong? yes. Can they be right? yes. I think a person is better off identifying prejudice and reasoning out it's justification (or lack thereof) than taking a blanket approach to it. Sometimes those biases (or prejudgments) serve people VERY WELL. One question that haunts me whenever I think about this issue, that I can never seem to reconcile, is: "If your looking for a fox in a hen house, why are you I.D.-ing the chickens?"
Because the fax has become smart and puts on a chicken costume so he wont be detected. |
2010-05-21 12:04 PM in reply to: #2873692 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona AcesFull - 2010-05-21 10:27 AM Jackemy - 2010-05-21 7:18 AM AcesFull - 2010-05-20 5:11 PM Racist? Nope, sounds like you merely secured your border......Okay, so I was being a little provocative in my statement earlier. My point is that very few people are really aware of their own subtle prejudices. Recently, while at a stoplight in Minneapolis, I reached out and locked my door for no other reason than that there were two young, black men on the corner talking. They were not threatening in any way, and it was broad daylight. I never thought, "oh, better lock my door so the black dudes don't hurt me." Without thinking, I reached over with my elbow, and popped the lock in place. Am I a racist? Probably not. Do I sometimes take actions based on race, rather than actual assessment of the situation? Obviously. This is what I think is happening, in part, in Arizona. Yes, there are real problems with immigration, but I don't think we can ignore the impact of subconscious perception and bias. |
2010-05-21 1:27 PM in reply to: #2873677 |
Champion 5615 | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona Pector55 - 2010-05-21 11:24 AM Stop for a second. What you just pointed out has nothing to do with the Arizona bill. That exists today as per Terry vs. Ohio. My problem with this entire debate is that if people use this angle, I have to ask why these same people didn't have a problem with it before now? FWIW, I want to see the "reasonable suspicion" thing overturned. Pre-Arizona Illegal Immigration law, it gives police the ability to disreguard our 4th amendment rights IMO. I disagree that the basis of reasonable suspicion is not germane to the Arizona law, as we are discussing it. Terry v Ohio discusses the 4th amendment constitutionality of initial interaction between citizens and a representative of a law enforcement agency. The law in Arizona is clearly predicated on "any lawful stop, detention, or arrest" to establish that interaction. Subsequent to that initial interaction, the Arizona law allows for the interaction to extend into the realm of immigration enforcement solely on the basis of reasonable suspicion, unilaterally applied, by the law enforcement agent. At such time, the agent shall make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the immigration status of the individual. Further, the law states "a person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following..." Analyzing that statement in its inverse, a person IS PRESUMED to be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States UNTIL the person provides the law enforcement officer or agency with any of the listed identification. That is the basis of my previous "guilty until proven innocent" statement. In addition, the law, under section 13-1509, creates the state offense of "WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLETE OR CARRY AN ALIEN REGISTRATION DOCUMENT" which it further designates as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The designation of the offense as a misdemeanor enables the investigating agent to arrest the individual, pursuant to section 13-3883(A)(2), solely on the grounds of the presumed violation of 13-1509. When viewed in aggregate, under the Arizona law, a citizen of the United States, without proper identification, may be arrested and charged solely based on the reasonable suspicion of the arresting officer, where that reasonable suspicion was not the basis for an initial interaction under Terry v Ohio. Overall, my issue is not with the state's involvement in the area of immigration enforcement. My issue is with the arbitrary, and potentially discriminatory, manner in which that enforcement will be carried out when left to the unimpeded judgement of a single law enforcement agent. Edited by CubeFarmGopher 2010-05-21 1:37 PM |
2010-05-21 2:16 PM in reply to: #2873212 |
Champion 5807 Henderson NV | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona jgaither - 2010-05-21 6:55 AM I'm just wondering how offensive it is to be asked for I.D.? I can't say that it would really hurt my feelings......... Now if the officer called me a short fat gringo, that might. (As a note of interest, I had a Mexican officer call me that once on vacation in ixtapa.) It did hurt a little........... Was it the short or fat that hurt a little....? I want to know so I can file the proper discrimination paperwork: Height or weight challenged? |
|
2010-05-21 2:21 PM in reply to: #2869148 |
Champion 5522 Frisco, TX | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona My wish: Instead of criticizing the law in front of leaders of foreign countries and encouraging the same from them, the Obama Administration should either pursue getting the law struck down on the Federal level through the courts or shut up about it. I have heard enough of their heming and hawing about how "its not good government" or "comprehensive federal framework" Quit trying to demagogue the issue. Crap or get off the pot already! That is all.... |
2010-05-21 2:41 PM in reply to: #2874517 |
Extreme Veteran 3177 | Subject: RE: California vs. Arizona ashort33 - 2010-05-21 12:21 PM My wish: Instead of criticizing the law in front of leaders of foreign countries and encouraging the same from them, the Obama Administration should either pursue getting the law struck down on the Federal level through the courts or shut up about it. I have heard enough of their heming and hawing about how "its not good government" or "comprehensive federal framework" Quit trying to demagogue the issue. Crap or get off the pot already! That is all.... President Obama asked the federal court to do a full constitutional review of the law. Either they found it was legal or are still reviewing it and have not made an announcement yet. I wonder if they would, under pressure from the president, try to declare it unconstitutional if there review finds that it is a legal law? |
|