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

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder


Where in the Arizona Law, or in the AZ or US Constitution is language removed as a factor? The inability to understand the english language is a BIG clue to determining citizenship.

The Civil Rights act of 1964 declares "national origin" as a protected group. The Surpeme Court and the EEOC both consider language as a protected class under national origin and any differential treatment by a government agent or employer based on language is discrimination, unless the job specifically requires English-speaking ability.

Thus, a police officer giving someone extra scrunity due to their mother tongue is violating both the Civil Rights act of 1964 and EEOC regulations.

Title VI of the CRA of 1964

Not a guarantee by any means however, which is why suspicion is only step 2 in the process, after the individual's arrest or traffic stop for other offenses. Plenty of opportunity to prove citizenship by other ways as time goes on.

You're cherry-picking. The Arizona bill allows such questioning at ANY LAWFUL CONTACT, meaning they can even question someone who is REPORTING a crime. Do you think rapes will become more or less reported among hispanics who are afraid of the police due to this bill?

EDIT: Fixed some spelling errors. I hope no one reports me for my poor English skills! It's certainly a sign I'm illegal


[edit on 5/22/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

The Civil Rights act of 1964 declares "national origin" as a protected group.

This is absolutely spot on. Titles VI and VII specifically.

The Surpeme Court and the EEOC both consider language as a protected class under national origin and any differential treatment by a government agent or employer based on language is discrimination, unless the job specifically requires English-speaking ability.

You are going to have to provide some further sources on this one. As my understanding of the CRA of '64 is does NOT include language, it merely encompasses national origin, race, color, religion and sex. The article you linked does not seem to support you as there is no mention anywhere in the text of an individual's language.

Here is an entry from the EEOC's site:

"An employer can only require an employee to speak fluent English if fluency in English is necessary to perform the job effectively. An “English-only rule”, which requires employees to speak only English on the job, is only allowed if it is needed to ensure the safe or efficient operation of the employer’s business and is put in place for nondiscriminatory reasons."

Seems that an employer CAN require their employees to understand basic english. They simply cannot demand fluency or that employees avoid speaking the language for discrimitory purposes.
Now if an employer can demand that his employees understand the basics of our language, why would an LEO be barred from investigating someone who is incapable of understanding basic english?

You're cherry-picking. The Arizona bill allows such questioning at ANY LAWFUL CONTACT, meaning they can even question someone who is REPORTING a crime.

No I am not cherry-picking

The points that I have quoted several times are directly from the law that the Arizona state legislature passed and the governor signed. The law was amended to rewrite ANY LAWFUL CONTACT as STOP, DETENTION, OR ARREST. STOP in this case refers to a traffic stop. Read the law and quote the newest version back to me. You are examining an older version of a proposed bill, not the current law.

Do you think rapes will become more or less reported among hispanics who are afraid of the police due to this bill?

The law does not allow police to question the immigration status of victims or witnesses, only suspects in custody for other offenses read up on the amended version that was passed by AZ.

Also, please stop trying to get a rise out of me. Emotional games got old when my first marriage ended.

You are going to have to provide some further sources on this one. As my understanding of the CRA of '64 is does NOT include language, it merely encompasses national origin, race, color, religion and sex. The article you linked does not seem to support you as there is no mention anywhere in the text of an individual's language.

Not a problem:
Language considered in "national origin" clause

Seems that an employer CAN require their employees to understand basic english. They simply cannot demand fluency or that employees avoid speaking the language for discrimitory purposes.
Now if an employer can demand that his employees understand the basics of our language, why would an LEO be barred from investigating someone who is incapable of understanding basic english?

You're comparing apples to oranges. If I work for a business that deals with customers who generally speak English, the company should expect me to perform the job well, which would involve being able to speak English to an appropriate degree.

That being said, there is NO expectation that I speak English outside of my work. For example, I am a physician in a large urban hospital. The majority of my patients speak English, so I am required to speak English, fair enough. In my personal life, I don't speak much English, as none of my older family members speak it well, and many of my similar-aged friends/relatives are more comfortable speaking Russian. IF a police officer sees me and my mother walking down the street, chatting back and forth in Russian, and then finds upon stopping us that my mother barely understands him, why should be be able to demand she prove citizenship? That's demanding someone to prove their innocence, a direct violation of "innocent until proven guilty".

The points that I have quoted several times are directly from the law that the Arizona state legislature passed and the governor signed. The law was amended to rewrite ANY LAWFUL CONTACT as STOP, DETENTION, OR ARREST. STOP in this case refers to a traffic stop. Read the law and quote the newest version back to me. You are examining an older version of a proposed bill, not the current law.

You're absolutely right, I was reading the previous iteration of the bill. It has, in fact, been amended to remove "lawful contact" to some extent.

That being said, no one has answered my question yet: what is probable cause for an immigration status check that does not involve ethnicity or language profiling?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Not a problem:
Language considered in "national origin" clause

From your source:

"The laws mentioned above make it illegal for employers to discriminate against an employee because of his or her national origin. (“National origin” refers to the country that a person, or that person’s ancestors, came from.)
But because the primary language a person speaks is closely related to the place that person came from, or the place that person’s family came from, being discriminated against for using that language, or because of
characteristics having to do with that language, is essentially the same as that person being discriminated against because of his or her national origin.

Once again there is nothing to stop an employer from requiring that his employees understand the basics of english, only that an employer may not discriminate for an employee's mother tongue. The ability to speak english is still not mentioned anywhere... you CAN demand that your employees learn the language, at least the basics. At least so says wikipedia, the EEOC, and the CRA of '64.

This once again goes back the current AZ law, which requires that the individual already be held or suspected of another crime.

If a LEO picks a member of MS 13 on a suspect homicide and the young "lad" can't understand even the most basic english if would give the officer reasonable suspicion that the individual has not spent a great deal of time in this country. As the laws are currently written this would give the LEO the authority to investigate the individuals immigration status. That is where the state level LEO's are done.

Remember two important things about this law.

1.Law enforcement may only question the immigration status of those they stop in traffic, or those being held on other charges. In these situations your ID is established regardless. That is as far as this law extends.

2.Assuming the person is indeed here illegally the AZ LEO's then hand the perp off to the Feds, that's it. AZ will merely hand them over to the Feds in the vain "hope" that the federal government will do it's job.

You're comparing apples to oranges. If I work for a business that deals with customers who generally speak English, the company should expect me to perform the job well, which would involve being able to speak English to an appropriate degree.

I am not speaking of business ethics, or corporate policy. I am discussing the constitutional and legal validity of the current attempts to control illegal immigration.

No where in the CRA, the EEOC, or the other sources you have posted is the ability to not speak english a protected political group. The ability to speak spanish, japanese, chinese, french or any other language is; however lack of english is NOT PROTECTED.

Please point out where I am wrong if I am. I am the type that can admit a mistake I promise you.




[edit on 22-5-2010 by Shark_Feeder]

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Shark_Feeder]

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Shark_Feeder]

reply to post by Prove_It_NOW


I've skimmed through all 19 pages (link: www.azleg.gov... ) and found a very large number of gross violation of human rights.

Summary: There are five gross violations of human rights, with each violation often occurring several times in the bill. The same is true of the three moderate violations of human rights found in the bill. And as ALWAYS, the bill outlines how the government never has to follow any of their own rules and doesn't even try. The people who wrote this belong in prison for attempted crimes against humanity. It really is that terrible.

Gross Human Rights Violation #1
Page 2:
36 UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN
37 ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON
38 PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
39 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
40 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
41 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
42 IDENTIFICATION.
43 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
44 STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL
45 GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Explanation: This section of law seems to be requiring everyone to carry around their papers, Nazi Germany style. I'm sorry but a person must be assumed to be a legal resident until proven otherwise. NOT the other way around. You don't have to prove your citizenship. Rather, the police have to prove you ARE NOT a citizen. Common sense... that is how the law works... innocent until proven guilty. I find it disgusting that the police think you are guilty until proven innocent. Its a very fundamental rights violation.


Moderate Human Rights Violation #1
Page 4
6 SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT
7 LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE
8 THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER
9 THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

Explanation: As usual, it sounds like Arizona will reap monetary benefit from making more things illegal. Profiting from making new crimes is a sickening crime against humanity. I miserably disrespect anyone who is involved or supports crime-for-profit laws. Crime should not be profitable for anyone!

Each new law that carries a fee penalty just invites more and more corruption as if the system were not corrupt enough without such uncivilized provisions.

Moderate Human Rights Violation #2
Page 5
32 H. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT
33 THAT THE MAXIMUM FINE IS ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND FOR A FIRST VIOLATION OF
34 THIS SECTION IS: THE COURT SHALL NOT SENTENCE THE PERSON TO MORE THAN
35 TWENTY DAYS IN JAIL AND FOR A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION THE COURT
36 SHALL NOT SENTENCE THE PERSON TO MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS IN JAIL.

Same reasoning as with previous violation.

Gross Human Rights Violation #2
Page 6
11 A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the
12 smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.
13 B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.
14 C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of
15 this section:
16 1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under
17 eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over
18 eighteen years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon
19 or dangerous instrument.
20 2. Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or
21 threatened use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for
22 suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on
23 any other basis except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until
24 the sentence imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for
25 release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.

Explanation: Punishing someone for a victimless "crime" with a felony is a gross violation of human rights. Smuggling someone across the border has no victim. The penalty therefore must be minor or its a violation of people's right from excessive punishments as clearly outlined in the US constitution.

Gross Human Rights Violation #3
Page 8
20 C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE
21 UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR
22 WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR
23 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.

Work is required to live. People who are illegally in the US have the same right to life as you and I. Therefore, this is a very clear violation of human rights.

Gross Human Rights Violation #4
Page 8
1 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL
2 OFFENSE TO:

13 3. ENCOURAGE OR INDUCE AN ALIEN TO COME TO OR RESIDE IN THIS STATE
14 IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT SUCH COMING TO,
15 ENTERING OR RESIDING IN THIS STATE IS OR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

Explanation: Is one really needed? Its an obvious violation of the freedom of speech.

Listen carefully: I would highly encourage everyone to enter into the United States without the mandatory paperwork because frankly its a mafia protection racket kind of thing. You pay $10,000 for what? A piece of paper? Talk about a criminal scam. I'm sorry, nobody should enter in the United States legally because doing so supports a criminal enterprise: specifically charging people $10,000 for a worthless piece of paper. Its wrong and it needs to stop immediately.

My point of saying the previous paragraph is that I have the freedom of speech to say that now if I live in Arizona. However, just saying what I said would be ILLEGAL in Arizona after the law passes. Therefore, the law is a violation of our most basic human rights on that count.

Double Standard #1
Page 8
30 C. E. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
31 WORKER ACTING IN THE WORKER'S OFFICIAL CAPACITY

As always, government can be trusted to break the law. They need special exceptions like on page 8 line 30. Really? Government can be trusted to transport illegal alien but you can't? Laughable. Do as I say, never as I do, says uncle sam.

Gross Human Rights Violation #5
Page 10
27 D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall
28 be brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where
29 the unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The
30 county attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any
31 violation of subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1,
32 2008. A second violation of this section shall be based only on an
33 unauthorized alien who is or was employed by the employer after an action
34 has been brought for a violation of subsection A of this section or
35 section 23-212.01, subsection A.

Explanation: Being required to work for the state of Arizona is slavery. Plain and simple. If Arizona wants to keep out unauthorized immigrants they damn well better do it themselves because its not the job of private businesses to do so. Slavery is one of the grossest violations of human rights I can imagine.

Being required to work against your will is slavery. Determining whether an immigrant is authorized or not is work. Therefore, being required to check on the authorization of immigrants is slavery. Checking whether an immigrant is authorized is a task the government can do all they want as far as I'm concerned, but no private person can be required to do.

More importantly, giving someone a job helps them. Therefore, this employment law makes it a crime to help people. I find it sickening that I cannot help someone HOWEVER I SEE FIT just because they didn't hit the geographical lottery. Sickening, really. People should be embarrassed to support such a violation of human rights. I want to help someone such as by giving them a job and there are people out there who want to put me in prison for that? Wow, thats immoral. Thats wrong. Thats a violation of human rights.

Moderate Human Rights Violation #3
Page 11
36 B. A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a
37 vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the
38 vehicle and if all of the following apply:

Taking without permission is THEFT! Who is this Uncle Sam to first tell us never to take without permission or we'll go to prison, then go around stealing people's cars. So, what is the nasty freak Uncle Same stealing from people for? For punishment for wanting a better life for them self and their family without paying the $10,000 extortion the feds get out for a piece of paper approving you. Theft is rude. Theft is nasty. Theft is a moderate violation of human rights. And its right there for all to see, proudly presented by Arizona's legislature.

Originally posted by truthquest
Gross Human Rights Violation #4
Page 8
1 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL
2 OFFENSE TO:

13 3. ENCOURAGE OR INDUCE AN ALIEN TO COME TO OR RESIDE IN THIS STATE
14 IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT SUCH COMING TO,
15 ENTERING OR RESIDING IN THIS STATE IS OR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

Explanation: Is one really needed? Its an obvious violation of the freedom of speech.

Actually... I do believe this section has legal merit merit.

"Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

also:

"Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation."

In other words your freedom of speech ends when you tell someone they SHOULD COMMIT A CRIME.

I am still working through your post; interesting points... thanks.

Sri Oracle