Arizona Law SB 1070 and HB 2162 Examined. Cite Your Reasons For Dissent.

I object to the law because it is not going to accomplish anything. It's just more of politicians putting on their umpteen pieces of flair to catch attention and hopefully some votes next fall.

I live in Tucson AZ, this is an example of what we put the law in place for.

www.ktvb.com...

Guess where he crosses the border?
This is be no means an infrequent occurrence.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Jimerton]

I just don't see how this bill is effective while there's a "war on drugs". Arizona also has a huge meth problem that I don't see anyone here addressing, and I'd be willing to bet they're somehow connected.

There are some good points in the bill, I appreciate the harsher punishment for business that hire illegals and people who help them, but I don't think that's enough. This part of the law needs to be the toughest and with the most repercussion.

I also think deportation costs way more than it should. Using money and manpower to send someone to back to mexico, only to find they come back a new and better way? This would work if they had no reason to come back here.

I was talking to my (step)father about this. He is retired LEO and Hispanic. I see no problem with the words “reasonable suspicion”. Yes if the person behind the wheel did not speak English, that is reasonable to question them about there status. To me and him there is no difference between that and getting pulled over for something and having bloodshot eyes and dilated pupils and being questioned for a DWI. I have seen several posts from people who are LEO's and in this case I think they should have the right. Not just for illegals from Mexico but from anywhere. If the person is speaking Chinese, or some other language I believe they should have to prove they have the right to be there.

Crash

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW

This thread is for the folks that "OPPOSE the Bill". Please discuss EXACTLY which part of the Bill you find out of line, racist, illegal, unconstitutional

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Prove_It_NOW]

That's where I stopped reading.

What the HELL are you talking about? THIS BILL is as constitutional as it gets.

People should not be allowed to wander into our country, let alone transport drugs over the border. WE should have the National Guard out on those borders, shooting to KILL any trespassers.

Originally posted by Revolution-2012

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW

This thread is for the folks that "OPPOSE the Bill". Please discuss EXACTLY which part of the Bill you find out of line, racist, illegal, unconstitutional

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Prove_It_NOW]

That's where I stopped reading.

What the HELL are you talking about? THIS BILL is as constitutional as it gets.

People should not be allowed to wander into our country, let alone transport drugs over the border. WE should have the National Guard out on those borders, shooting to KILL any trespassers.

Huh???????????????????

I don't get it.

reply to post by piddles


Agreed, I don't think this Bill is the end all/be all to address the problem. But it is a start and a TOOL to be used. Just because doesn't seem like a final solution to Illegal Immigration, it is more action than anyone has done in recent history to start taking action.

I have my own thoughts on what might work, but that's for another thread.

So as I read through this thread I've come to the conclusion that nobody can really back the claim that this bill (on it's face) is "racist" or "Takes rights away".

The only dissent with the Bill I've seen in it's wording was the "reasonable cause" part, which was addressed by other members as well as I can address it.

I'll just leave it there.....

Originally posted by primus2012
I object to the law because it is not going to accomplish anything. It's just more of politicians putting on their umpteen pieces of flair to catch attention and hopefully some votes next fall.

So you're a 'sit back and do nothing' kind of guy. Gotcha.

This thread makes it very obvious that the dissenters have based their opinions on feelings rather than facts.

Originally posted by crashbehr
I was talking to my (step)father about this. He is retired LEO and Hispanic. I see no problem with the words “reasonable suspicion”. Yes if the person behind the wheel did not speak English, that is reasonable to question them about there status. To me and him there is no difference between that and getting pulled over for something and having bloodshot eyes and dilated pupils and being questioned for a DWI. I have seen several posts from people who are LEO's and in this case I think they should have the right. Not just for illegals from Mexico but from anywhere. If the person is speaking Chinese, or some other language I believe they should have to prove they have the right to be there.

Crash

Your post is riddled with grammatical errors, such as incomplete and run-on sentences.

Can I see your proof of citizenship? Keep in mind, a driver's license won't cut it, as many states have programs for non-citizens to obtain one legally.

reply to post by maybereal11


When they can't speak english.

What more do you need?



Peace

reply to post by GrampsLEn


Joe Arpaio is a publicity seeking egomaniac with a sadistic streak a mile wide and no morals at all when it comes to ruining anyone who opposes you in any way. Those are his GOOD points!!! His bad ones are too numerous to mention, and too disgusting to contemplate.

Like a thuggish and cruder version of a Dick Cheney, the soulless Arpaio cares ZERO about human suffering, and indeed enjoys seeing those he perceives as' bad guys' suffer indeed. he houses vast numbers of petty offenders, mostly drug use nonsense, in sweltering tents ruled by sadistic guards.

Arpaio dresses the men in pink; humiliation is a natural for him, obviously, and as an ex D.E.A. thug we can expect nu human kindness or traits that would identify a true human being... Joe does NOT recognize people as human; to be human you must be in a certain category, and it has strict rules; People of color not wanted..anyone who dares to oopose Joe gets railroaded and falsely charged...he even charges the judges, and politicians...of course they are dropped later, as the DA is in bed with old Joe...but this kind of racist claptrap is old hat to joe and his ilk.

The voters are scared...intimidated and frightened..by the lying ads Joe minions shower them with at election times....scare tactics about how only HE, the saviour Joe, can protect them from the Mexican hordes and the pot smokers..the ' lawbreakers' that are the boogeymen Joes needs to prop up his personal empire and insure his flag of hate marches on.

Joe and the crooked local DA, who of course is trying to move up even higher in the feeding chain of politics, often charge people with crimes for no good reason. These are always political opponents, and Joe files false charges and it always takes a court outside Joe's perncious influence to undo it and forbid joe from proceeding. it happens all the time with Joe; Taxpayers pay MILLIONS of their tax dollars to settle lawsuits that must be paid to cover the egregious civil rights abuses by his cops.

Joe's deputies have murdered, beaten and abused inmates as well as civilians guilty of nothing. These men get away with a lot, and the worst of it gets paid off by the taxpayers. It is a perfect racket old Joe has going:

As long as he can scare the voters into buying his snake oil lies about the ' dark menace' looming at the border and how he is ' protecting ' them from these monsters, he will take the money and run. He LOVES the cameras and loves to spew his hateful rhetoric anytime and anywhere a TV station will set up and listen.

Publicity hound, sadist, sado-moralizer, political animal, with no conscience and no compunctions about allowing and PROMOTING human suffering on a mass scale; Arpaio might well someday find himself facing a tribunal for crimes against humanity for his treatment of prisoners, and if there were any justice, he and his hero Dick Cheney would both swing from the same rope, preferable made of American hemp.

Here's the best part for those supporting California in opposition of this law:

California penal code
Sec 834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
of being present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
who is present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
status and provide any additional information that may be requested
by any other public entity.
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent
or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
prohibited.

Seems California can "ask for your papers" too. F***ing hypocrites.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Primordial]

reply to post by Primordial


You're missing a key point. California's law only allows officers to ask for their papers when the perosn in question is under arrest for an actual crime. Arizona's law extends that to any "lawful contact", meaning speeding, broken tail light, noise complaints, jaywalking, or "seeming suspicious".

Big difference.

In fact, I encourage you to come visit next time I'm back home in Russia. Not only do police have the power to check immigrants' papers there, but all citizens are required to carry an internal citizenship passport. Police spot-check people coming out of metros, walking down the streets, or meeting in plazas. IF you don't have your "papers", you're fined, on the spot, regardless of your citizenship-status or if you were committing a crime in the process.

[edit on 5/21/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by primus2012

I thought this at first, but this law WILL accomplish stuff. It's a extremely serious and no nonsense law.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by Primordial

 

You're missing a key point. California's law only allows officers to ask for their papers when the perosn in question is under arrest for an actual crime. Arizona's law extends that to any "lawful contact", meaning speeding, broken tail light, noise complaints, jaywalking, or "seeming suspicious".

Big difference.

In fact, I encourage you to come visit next time I'm back home in Russia. Not only do police have the power to check immigrants' papers there, but all citizens are required to carry an internal citizenship passport. Police spot-check people coming out of metros, walking down the streets, or meeting in plazas. IF you don't have your "papers", you're fined, on the spot, regardless of your citizenship-status or if you were committing a crime in the process.

[edit on 5/21/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

It still doesn't make it racist, which is the accusation. I've been stopped for speeding, red lights, and yes I actually got stopped one time for "looking suspicious". Seriously, while just driving my work van making a delivery. I am as white as they come.

Lawful contact means they have a legitimate reason to stop you, then they can shake you down... just like every other citizen of the US.

Not everything is about race.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Primordial]

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Primordial]

reply to post by maybereal11


Why don't you do all of us a favor and include the first part of that paragraph, and I think it will answer your question...

Where reasonable suspicion exists (and here's the part you conveniently forgot to include) - AFTER A LAWFUL CONTACT is made. Basically that means that if an officer has, for example, already pulled you over for speeding, and he has a reasonable suspicion that you are in the country illegally - i.e. you have no drivers' license, you have no proof of insurance - that officer is then obligated to verify your legal status before letting you go about your business. In this scenario all he has to do is go back to his cruiser, type your name into his onboard and if you show up, you get let go... if you don't, you're detained. It's that simple. It's not racist, it's not profiling and it's not heavy handed... and I, for one, have no problem with it.

Next time try not to slant the law by only including the parts that weakly prove your point.

If you come back at me with "Yeah well, it's just a matter of time before this law is abused by a cop with a grudge..." I would ask you to tell me which law isn't.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by Legion2112]

reply to post by Primordial


No one is claiming the act of stopping someone is racist. The potential for racism (note, I said potential, not intent) comes into play when the officer is required to make a case for reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal immigrant. What do illegal immigrants look like? Dress a bit funny and can't speak English? That was me (and my parents) when we immigrated here twenty years ago from the Soviet Union. My mom still can't speak English to a large extent, but she's a housewife and mostly socializes with other Russians. Why should she be required to speak the language perfectly? I spoke with an incredibly thick accent (and still do when tired/aggravated), and my entire family looked like we had just come from the Moscow slums for years after we moved here. Would we have been stopped? Probably not, because we aren't the "right" kind of immigrant, i.e. brown.

Originally posted by richierich
reply to post by GrampsLEn

 

Joe Arpaio is a publicity seeking egomaniac with a sadistic streak a mile wide and no morals at all when it comes to ruining anyone who opposes you in any way. Those are his GOOD points!!! His bad ones are too numerous to mention, and too disgusting to contemplate.

Like a thuggish and cruder version of a Dick Cheney, the soulless Arpaio cares ZERO about human suffering, and indeed enjoys seeing those he perceives as' bad guys' suffer indeed. he houses vast numbers of petty offenders, mostly drug use nonsense, in sweltering tents ruled by sadistic guards.

Arpaio dresses the men in pink; humiliation is a natural for him, obviously, and as an ex D.E.A. thug we can expect nu human kindness or traits that would identify a true human being... Joe does NOT recognize people as human; to be human you must be in a certain category, and it has strict rules; People of color not wanted..anyone who dares to oopose Joe gets railroaded and falsely charged...he even charges the judges, and politicians...of course they are dropped later, as the DA is in bed with old Joe...but this kind of racist claptrap is old hat to joe and his ilk.

The voters are scared...intimidated and frightened..by the lying ads Joe minions shower them with at election times....scare tactics about how only HE, the saviour Joe, can protect them from the Mexican hordes and the pot smokers..the ' lawbreakers' that are the boogeymen Joes needs to prop up his personal empire and insure his flag of hate marches on.

Joe and the crooked local DA, who of course is trying to move up even higher in the feeding chain of politics, often charge people with crimes for no good reason. These are always political opponents, and Joe files false charges and it always takes a court outside Joe's perncious influence to undo it and forbid joe from proceeding. it happens all the time with Joe; Taxpayers pay MILLIONS of their tax dollars to settle lawsuits that must be paid to cover the egregious civil rights abuses by his cops.

Joe's deputies have murdered, beaten and abused inmates as well as civilians guilty of nothing. These men get away with a lot, and the worst of it gets paid off by the taxpayers. It is a perfect racket old Joe has going:

As long as he can scare the voters into buying his snake oil lies about the ' dark menace' looming at the border and how he is ' protecting ' them from these monsters, he will take the money and run. He LOVES the cameras and loves to spew his hateful rhetoric anytime and anywhere a TV station will set up and listen.

Publicity hound, sadist, sado-moralizer, political animal, with no conscience and no compunctions about allowing and PROMOTING human suffering on a mass scale; Arpaio might well someday find himself facing a tribunal for crimes against humanity for his treatment of prisoners, and if there were any justice, he and his hero Dick Cheney would both swing from the same rope, preferable made of American hemp.

Maybe you should post this RANT in a thread about Sheriff Arpaio. He was not mentioned anywhere in the OP and not mentioned in the Arizona Bill.

Also, Sheriff Arpaio is the Sheriff of Maricopa County. There are 15 Counties in Arizona. That might help you.

reply to post by maybereal11


It will if Joe white farmer's name gets input into a cruiser's database and nothing comes up... if it does come up, Joe white farmer gets a warning ticket and a lesson on why you're supposed to have your license with you when you drive and he's sent on his way.