Apartheid in Arizona

[tzanth]

No.

Words fail.

:stillsick:

You're clearly a sociopath. Get help.

[Shryke]

Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News about this bill: http://crooksandliars.com/node/36573

Napolitano: She's gonna bankrupt the Republican Party and the state of Arizona. Look at what happened to the Republicans in California with the proposition --

Cavuto: What happens?

Napolitano: Ah, Hispanics -- who have a natural home in the Republican Party because they are socially conservative -- will flee in droves. She's also gonna bankrupt her state, because no insurance company will provide coverage for this. And for all the lawsuits that will happen -- for all the people that are wrongfully stopped -- her budget will be paying for it. Her budget will be paying the legal bills of the lawyers who sue on behalf of those that were stopped.

This will be a disaster for Arizona -- to say nothing of the fact that it's so unconstitutional that I predict a federal judge will prevent Arizona from enforcing it as soon as they attempt to do so. That will probably be tomorrow.

[Shryke]

Words fail.

:stillsick:

You're clearly a sociopath. Get help.

Or a troll.

Either way, it's best to ignore him.

[TrueMetis]

That is the case. As for me and the people of my class, I'd prefer that they stop invading our land and competing with us for jobs, and beyond that nothing about them matters. They're foreign.

I... wow. This make me wonder just how long your family has been in America, because in my experiance the people that think like this tend to have immigrated here fairly recently.

It's possible, but they're not my people. And when their attempts to 'secure the existence of their people and a future for their children' involves doing war on the livelihood of mine, it seems my empathy withers.

No.

And suddenly I don't give a shit how long your family has been in the America's. Your just plain a horrible person. I really hope an immigrant, illegal or otherwise, takes your job.

ETA you know what slighty better than that, I would like to see you lose your job to a full blooded Native American, I like the idea of the immigrant thing being reversed on you.

[CloudFlare]

To me, the concern is that citizens of hispanic origin may be unfairly questioned. I really don't have a problem with aliens, illegal or not, having hte mild inconvenience of being asked to show documentation that they are here legally.

That's an important distinction because it is reasonable to expect that citizens will be conversant in English. It's an explicit requirement for naturalization, and its quite unlikely that an adult U.S. citizen, even one of hispanic origin, is not going to be conversant in basic English.

That suggests an officer will have a reasonable basis to question immigration status if, in the performance of his other normal duties, he encounters people unable to speak English. That's one way I could see this law being enforced that wouldn't infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens.

The "English test" option doesn't work real well in Arizona anymore, at least from my anecdotal experience. I know illegals, usually brought here as kids, with flawless English, and citizens who don't speak a word of English.

Past that, the lines of trying to determine who's illegal and who isn't by appearance, mannerisms, etc are far more blurry than they were 10 years ago.

A far more optimal solution than this law would be for ICE to consistently collect and deport illegals who are arrested and in jail/prison.

But, TPTB have decided to abrogate the laws of the land, so those of us who don't want to live in Mexico Norte have to use whatever else we can.

[Lord Mord]

I think epithets like sociopath hardly help.

First of all, "care" is sort of an ambiguous term. Second of all, although it's fine in theory, to what extent do we actually "care" about the deaths of all the thousands (millions?) who die every day? Third of all, we're talking about an abstraction. It's not surprising that in a strictly theoretical discussion a person could be found who has no deep and abiding "bond of human brotherhood" with an abstraction, particularly one established on a basis already understood as anti-thetical or even threatening to the person being asked.

I mean, you're the one who defined a whole lifetime, a whole mess of passions and interests, values, quests, religious impulses, duties and fears and repressions and laughter, into two words: illegal immigrant. Don't be astonished if the conservative you're talking to doesn't fall to his knees weeping at the thought that your cardboard cutout might have perished.

I doubt very much if, even if most of us were genuinely touched in some indefinable way by the death of say, Karl Rove, that most of us on this board would be in touch enough with those feelings to admit as much; those of us who were, would probably stifle those feelings in order to make it clear how much we hate everything his life was lived for.

Even if sociopath were much of a diagnosis, it's really far, far too small and irrelevant a sample on which to make such an enormous judgment.

Asshole works, though. I do think he's an asshole.

[ErikConrad]

This thread might be going in the wrong direction...

Anywho, I'd think to enforce the law you first need to provide an easy means for people to identify themselves.

In the Netherlands you are required to carry ID wherever you go. This can be your passport, driver's licence or ID card. Passport is bulky, and not everyone has a drivers licence, but the ID card is cheap and easy (creditcard sized). If you cannot show any ID i believe the fine is 50eur (~70USD?), but police can only ask for your ID after something happened, not just for the sake of it.

My point is - this works fine. The people who are fined without their ID are (for the greater part) those who were being naughty. Main targets for this law weren't illegal immigrants btw, but more the soccer hooligans etc.

I don't feel my liberty is compromised because of this legislation, but I understand this is can be a big thing for Americans...

[MinDonner]

:stunned:

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new top troll in residence. I am in awe.

[mormont]

[mod] Enough with the personal commentary. If you think someone is trolling, there is a 'Report' button. Name-calling is against the rules and isn't going to solve anything. [/mod]

[Commodore]

I want to eliminate racist laws, yes, but the most critical factor is the very notion that any citizen should ever be stopped to prove she is a citizen.

Where the fuck do the rest of you guys get off thinking you can stop me and demand to see my papers?

You can't stop someone to make them prove they are a citizen. There must be some other lawful contact first (arrest/traffic stop), then you must also have reasonable suspicion.

If you are pulled over for a traffic violation and don't have your license, the cop could contact INS to determine your immigration status, but he would need a reason to suspect, and being hispanic would not be sufficient.

[CelticBrennus]

You can't stop someone to make them prove they are a citizen. There must be some other lawful contact first (arrest/traffic stop), then you must also have reasonable suspicion.

The trouble is that you can stop someone for pretty much anything, changing lanes without signaling, making too wide of a turn, going over or under the speed limit by 1/2 a mph, or a thousand other pedantic pretexts. If someone is simply waling you could stop them for jaywalking if they cross a street and step out of a crosswalk while doing it. Finding a lawful reason to stop someone while you investigate for something else is a very easy task.

[Emo Targaryen]

Asking to see my driver's license if I'm driving is, I think, a slightly different matter. Use of the roads is a privilege dependent on certain obligations. It's an exchange. As a citizen doing nothing else but standing there being all citizen-y, why should I obliged to prove that's what I'm doing? Isn't that part of the whole idea of freedom, is that I can just stand there with absolutely zero special remittance to the government?

To just stand there, in a country of safety and wealth, built by a society which has set up rules to preserve these qualities, is also a privilege dependent on certain obligations, foremost the obligation to obey the laws, in this case the immigration laws. So yes, in a certain way just standing there and thereby benefitting from my surroundings entitles the police to check my permit to actually be here - as long as the amount of harassment this means to me keeps on a reasonable level. So demanding to see a simple ID, which I can be reasonably expected to have with me, is like demanding ma driver's license; demanding to see my birth certificate would be like do a full checkup of my car to ensure it keeps all technical specifications required by law.

I suppose. In a similar way, I think, the disparity in sentencing on drug offenses between involvement with crack cocaine and involvement with heroin is not racist in itself. After all, we're talking about drugs, and drugs don't have race in of themselves. Of course, the fact that due to social and economic factors it results in enormous disparity between how whites and non-whites are treated for otherwise-similar drug offenses, with heavier and longer sentences for non-whites, pretty much ends up making it racist, but, yeah, I guess if all you want to talk about is words on a page ... then, yeah, it's technically not racist.

I see your point, and it reaches far beyond issues of race. The whole notion of "equality before the law" suffers from this. E.g. at the moment some European countries plan to make laws against wearing clothing in public which covers your face. Some say it's racist and aimed at muslim women with their burqa, others say it's not, as technically it pertains to everyone who has the strange notion of walking the streets of Paris wearing a balaclava. Of course in these cases one could say that technical equality isn't real fairness as long as features like "covering your face" are almost exclusively restricted to certain groups. But then there's the question: where do you stop? There's no sharp line, but a very blurry transition zone. E.g. in Switzerland there's an excruciatingly high vanity tax on lemonade-vodka mixed drinks - but none at all on wine. Of course it fits the criteria of technical equality, as it's paid by everyone buying these drinks, but guess what the guys sitting in parliament and making these laws would rather drink. Even though the distinction here isn't based on race, but rather on age, you could call this sort of discrimination. But then, you could apply this argument to literally every law. Is making burglary a crime a discrimination against the poor, as the wealthy aren't going to break into a house anyway? Is it sexist to make physical violence more of a crime than slandering, as men are more apt to solve their conflicts this way? On the other hand, wouldn't it be sexist to base law on such prejudice? So I'd say, despite all its problems, "technical equality" is the best solution, as all other solutions will end up making laws based on prejudice.

I have to wonder: was it not already illegal for them to employ illegals? Does the law give special new tools for enforcing such earlier laws, or am I just wrong about what went before?

I don't know. I just read that it's explicitely mentioned in the new law, so I suppose the law changes something about it. I just know that in Europe exploiters of illegal immigrants are treated far to gentle in my eyes, don't know how America handles this.

in any case as long as we, who have done nothing to earn them except be born on the right side of a magical mystical line can suck off the Imperial teat, I think it's rank hypocrisy, at the least, not to admit the more heinously exploited to the same buffet. Such discrimination coming from people who share my suspicions of and distaste for empire strikes me as the more curious, because I thought we were all on the same side when it came to narcissism and feelings of entitlement, and the wreckage they leave in their wakes.

Of course it's just a lucky accident for one individual to be born in a rich country - but I'm not sure whether it's just a lucky accident of history that some countries are richer than others. Perhaps "we" - not as individuals, but as a society - have really achieved some things to earn this. So I think it's our obligation to share these achievements (namely the progress from arbitrariness and feudalism to rule of law and democracy) with the world - and I do think US and EU international policies with their pampering of dictators often jeopardize this goal - but I don't think it's our obligation to share our wealth with the world, at least not in the sense of letting people come here indiscriminately to partake in our wealth.

[Watcher]

You can't stop someone to make them prove they are a citizen. There must be some other lawful contact first (arrest/traffic stop), then you must also have reasonable suspicion.

If you are pulled over for a traffic violation and don't have your license, the cop could contact INS to determine your immigration status, but he would need a reason to suspect, and being hispanic would not be sufficient.

How do you enforce this without targeting hispanics or other racial profiling? And why should I have to prove my citizenship, shouldn't it be up to the government to prove that I'm not a U.S. citizen if the cop has a "reasonable suspicion"?

[Altherion]

I can certainly see what you mean here, but I have to wonder: was it not already illegal for them to employ illegals? Does the law give special new tools for enforcing such earlier laws, or am I just wrong about what went before?

It was and is illegal, but these laws are simply not enforced. That is, the federal government occasionally makes a raid and deports a few hundred illegal immigrants or stops them at the border, but the enforcement is at least two orders of magnitude short of what it would take to make a non-trivial difference. The state law essentially duplicates the federal law because the federal government is not doing its job (I would assume because they don't want to mess with those who are profiting from the cheap labor). This is also the reason why there is a provision for suing the enforcement agency if they don't enforce the laws.

[aeu]

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html

Is "lawful contact" a legal term in general? My google skills are failing me, pretty much anything I could find is in relation to the language in this bill.

"That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law,"

Is this just one man's interpretation of a vaguely defined (non-defined?) concept, or is there some established / binding definition of what a "lawful contact" is?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Is this just one man's interpretation of a vaguely defined (non-defined?) concept, or is there some established / binding definition of what a "lawful contact" is?

That's a great question. I saw a guy on TV last night who played a role in the drafting of this bill. He said that the most important thing about the bill that gets overlooked is that, like any other law, it inherently incorporates constitutional standards that already exist. So, for example, a police officer couldn't simply walk up to a bunch of hispanic looking people standing on a corner looking for I.D., just as they couldn't do it before the bill. He said the police already know when stops are lawful, and that the bill doesn't change that. He also claimed the bill contained an express provision barring racial profiling.

[Datepalm]

I love how the conservative position in this thread appears to be all about the inherent trustworthiness of government institutions and the importance of the social contract.

[The Mance]

Is "lawful contact" a legal term in general? My google skills are failing me, pretty much anything I could find is in relation to the language in this bill.

I haven't found anything definitive about the term either. Though I think I remember* from reading about Terry stops a few years ago that pretty much any time you willingly or voluntarily engage a LEO you have established what could be described as "lawful contact", as far as what is needed for them to request your ID. Reasonable suspicion is required for them to detain you beyond that, but as far as asking for ID all they need is eye contact or even proximity.

*could be talking out my ass. eta: It could just be that this is how the practical implementation of the law works out, rather than the intent in how they are written.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

This thread might be going in the wrong direction...

Anywho, I'd think to enforce the law you first need to provide an easy means for people to identify themselves.

In the Netherlands you are required to carry ID wherever you go. This can be your passport, driver's licence or ID card. Passport is bulky, and not everyone has a drivers licence, but the ID card is cheap and easy (creditcard sized). If you cannot show any ID i believe the fine is 50eur (~70USD?), but police can only ask for your ID after something happened, not just for the sake of it.

My point is - this works fine. The people who are fined without their ID are (for the greater part) those who were being naughty. Main targets for this law weren't illegal immigrants btw, but more the soccer hooligans etc.

I don't feel my liberty is compromised because of this legislation, but I understand this is can be a big thing for Americans...

That may be fine for you Dutch people. America was founded, and still has significant attatchment to different ideals. Freedom from having to prove anything to the government, without first being formally charged and seeing the evidence against you is right at the top.

So yes, in a certain way just standing there and thereby benefitting from my surroundings entitles the police to check my permit to actually be here - as long as the amount of harassment this means to me keeps on a reasonable level.

Lets back the fuck up. We don't have permits to be here. We don't need fucking permission to live in our own fucking country that our fathers and grandfathers bled and sweated and died to preserve for us. If someone thinks I don't belong here, then they can bloody well make a case. Then we'll see who is ready to eat a lead breakfast to enforce it. I will be damned before I'll allow someone to tell me I need a PERMIT from people whose salary is stolen from my paycheck just to walk the street.

Fuck. This thread is pissing me off.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Lets back the fuck up. We don't have permits to be here. We don't need fucking permission to live in our own fucking country that our fathers and grandfathers bled and sweated and died to preserve for us. If someone thinks I don't belong here, then they can bloody well make a case. Then we'll see who is ready to eat a lead breakfast to enforce it. I will be damned before I'll allow someone to tell me I need a PERMIT from people whose salary is stolen from my paycheck just to walk the street.

Fuck. This thread is pissing me off.

Ah, hell....

I sympathize with that, and I'm not really sure how to respond. I think it is a legitimate function of limited government to secure borders and make sure that people who don't belong here, aren't. To achieve that, I've personally got no problem with showing my I.D. to make it easier on the cops to round up people who are here illegally. That being said, I'm not sure my personal willingness to do that should be binding on anyone else, including Tormund.

My preferred way to do this is to secure the borders by greatly increasing the Border Patrol, building physical obstacles where appropriate, and making it easier for employers to instantly verify legal status of workers. Couple that with heavy fines on employers who hire illegals, and I think the problem starts to resolve itself without asking citizens to flash I.D.'s. Oh, and have a better guest worker program.