Conquer Club

Phatscotty wrote:Arizona Governor Jan Brewer-

I will not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. We will use this tool wisely, and defend the people of Arizona with Honor.

There....

She's a politician, so she's obviously lying.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Arizona Governor Jan Brewer-

I will not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. We will use this tool wisely, and defend the people of Arizona with Honor.

There....

She's a REPUBLICAN politician, so she's obviously lying.

... I fixed it for you. Otherwise any claim you may make in support of the Democrats is stripped of all validity.

... Don't mention it.

...

Nobunaga wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Arizona Governor Jan Brewer-

I will not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. We will use this tool wisely, and defend the people of Arizona with Honor.

There....

She's a REPUBLICAN politician, so she's obviously lying.

... I fixed it for you. Otherwise any claim you may make in support of the Democrats is stripped of all validity.
... Don't mention it.
...

I'm quite confused by this "fix"...do you somehow believe me to be a Democrat? Why on God's green Earth would you believe me to consider Republicans to be "bigger liars" than Democrats?

Woodruff wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Arizona Governor Jan Brewer-

I will not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. We will use this tool wisely, and defend the people of Arizona with Honor.

There....

She's a REPUBLICAN politician, so she's obviously lying.

... I fixed it for you. Otherwise any claim you may make in support of the Democrats is stripped of all validity.
... Don't mention it.
...

I'm quite confused by this "fix"...do you somehow believe me to be a Democrat? Why on God's green Earth would you believe me to consider Republicans to be "bigger liars" than Democrats?

... Typical "posting at work" knee-jerk reaction. I'm glad you agree Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain et al.. are all full of shite.

...

jbrettlip wrote:It seems that people are getting way ahead of themselves thinking that this is turning AZ police into the Gestappo demanding papers from people. People have to show id to the police all the time. If you are a legal alien, with a "green card", you HAVE to have it with you at all times. It is a condition of having that status.

Yes, and if I am in a foreign country, I may need to carry my passport with me at all times.

jbrettlip wrote:Now, in order to be questioned by the police, you have to be suspected of a crime. (illegal search and seizure still applies.).
So it isn't walking around asking Hispanics for papers. It is asking for id, or proof of legal immigration AFTER there has been suspicion of a crime. Basically, it would be the same if they just put a Border Patrol officer in every police car with the police personnel. The law allows the police to enforce what the Border Patrol is tasked with, and failing.

Well, set aside that having a faulty tail light and other very minor offenses are enough to get you contact with a police (as, is, I already mentioned, "loitering"), in this case a NEW level of crime has been established. Simply being in the state illegally is now a crime, not a civil violation.

SO, suspicion that someone might be here illegally is, itself suspicion of a crime.

Non-citizens often ARE required to carry ID. However, that has NEVER been required of those in the US. Even citing someone for loitering has some serious restrictions. Here, that doesn't apply. Furthermore, once someone is considered a non-citizen, is suspected of being a non-citizen, the burden falls on the person. Immigration officials do not have to follow the same "due process" that other law enforcement people do.

You scoffed at police harassing 12 year olds, but if you go to an immigration jail, you do find children. Sometimes they are not even here illegally, they are simply part of a family seeking asylum. However, if you are not a citizen, or are suspected of not being a citizen, then you are not given the rights most citizens expect.


As another note, if you want to study how oppressive governments operate, you see that crackdown on non-citizens, followed closely by requiring citizens to carry ID, to have "proof" of their right to be in the country as first steps to control of the population, to oppression.

So, no, we are NOT being paranoid. Arizona has taken a very, very terrifying step that only very superficially addresses a real problem, but that will impinge upon EVERYONE's rights.

jbrettlip wrote:On a related note, all "sanctuary" cities (ie San Francisco) councils should be arrested for aiding and abetting for passing those ordinances that violate federal law.

Those laws largely came about because immigration officials are not held to anything close to the standards of normal law enforcement officials. Most of those offered sanctuary are specifically people fleeing oppressive governments, seeking assylum here. However, for reasons that seem to have a lot to do with racism, their countries are not afforded the status that allows immigrants to automatically apply for asylum. They have to do so individually. And that generally means going to jail, having no access to anything that will help your case, often you are not even notified of proceedings in advance, etc. People in custody have been mailed forms they needed to complete and not recieved them, either because they were sent to a "last known address" or to an attorney who is very overburdened. So, they don't get the forms, even though they were in custody at the time. (and I joke not!).

At any rate, it is a different topic entirely.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
Patterns and behavior, lets stick with the issue. Whats wrong with observing patters and behavior?.

Well, my father is probably a good example.

Despite my mother's best efforts he is, well... a slob. He also has an accent. He is a naturalized citizen who came here fully legally. However, his mannerisms and such are not, in all ways "American". Its hard to put your finger on particular things, but most people who grew up among immigrants probably have an idea.

When he flies through a large airport, he is ALWAYS one of those "randomly" picked out for an extra search.

Being a man, he often does carry his wallet with him, but not always.

So, who could be "targeted". Folks like my father. Folks who are law-abiding almost to a fault. (its not something they brag about, it just is who they are). Folks who also don't happen to "fit" in what many folks think "law-abiding citizens" should look like.

Nah, he will just go to prison for 27 years for not having his wallet on him......right? Oh, the police have computers nowadays?

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
Patterns and behavior, lets stick with the issue. Whats wrong with observing patters and behavior?.

Well, my father is probably a good example.

Despite my mother's best efforts he is, well... a slob. He also has an accent. He is a naturalized citizen who came here fully legally. However, his mannerisms and such are not, in all ways "American". Its hard to put your finger on particular things, but most people who grew up among immigrants probably have an idea.

When he flies through a large airport, he is ALWAYS one of those "randomly" picked out for an extra search.

Being a man, he often does carry his wallet with him, but not always.

So, who could be "targeted". Folks like my father. Folks who are law-abiding almost to a fault. (its not something they brag about, it just is who they are). Folks who also don't happen to "fit" in what many folks think "law-abiding citizens" should look like.

Nah, he will just go to prison for 27 years for not having his wallet on him......right? Oh, the police have computers nowadays?

No, my mom will find him missing and will raise #@@##.
A wallet is not proof of citizenship.
But, even if it were, the point is a citizen should not be put in jail when they have committed no crime. Until now, not carrying citizenship-proving ID wasn't a crime.

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
Patterns and behavior, lets stick with the issue. Whats wrong with observing patters and behavior?.

Well, my father is probably a good example.

Despite my mother's best efforts he is, well... a slob. He also has an accent. He is a naturalized citizen who came here fully legally. However, his mannerisms and such are not, in all ways "American". Its hard to put your finger on particular things, but most people who grew up among immigrants probably have an idea.

When he flies through a large airport, he is ALWAYS one of those "randomly" picked out for an extra search.

Being a man, he often does carry his wallet with him, but not always.

So, who could be "targeted". Folks like my father. Folks who are law-abiding almost to a fault. (its not something they brag about, it just is who they are). Folks who also don't happen to "fit" in what many folks think "law-abiding citizens" should look like.

Nah, he will just go to prison for 27 years for not having his wallet on him......right? Oh, the police have computers nowadays?

A citizen of this country should not have to be hauled to the police station simply because "you don't have your papers with you, sir".

But if they are suspected of committing a crime, they should. It doesn't have anything to do with carrying papers.

jbrettlip wrote:But if they are suspected of committing a crime, they should. It doesn't have anything to do with carrying papers.

Where in PLAYER's example was her father suspected of committing a crime? Other than the crime of "looking and acting as if they might possibly be an illegal"?

jbrettlip wrote:But if they are suspected of committing a crime, they should. It doesn't have anything to do with carrying papers.

You are missing a BIG part of this. There is no necessity that there is any suspicion of another crime. That they might be here illegally IS all the suspicion that is needed. Therefore, you can be walking down the street, doing absolutely nothing wrong, not look like anyone who just committed a crime or anything else that might, in other states, give police a reason to stop you. In Arizona, now, you can STILL be stopped and if you don't have papers, then you can be hauled into jail. Not only does this law place a new requirement on citizens, but you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jbrettlip wrote:But if they are suspected of committing a crime, they should. It doesn't have anything to do with carrying papers.

You are missing a BIG part of this. There is no necessity that there is any suspicion of another crime. That they might be here illegally IS all the suspicion that is needed. Therefore, you can be walking down the street, doing absolutely nothing wrong, not look like anyone who just committed a crime or anything else that might, in other states, give police a reason to stop you. In Arizona, now, you can STILL be stopped and if you don't have papers, then you can be hauled into jail. Not only does this law place a new requirement on citizens, but you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

you are projecting the shit out of your own fears on this issue

Sometimes paranoia really IS warranted.

I find it rather strange that you don't agree, actually, given how paranoid you are in general about government "takeovers".

I love the title of the AP press release "Furor grows over Arizona's illegal immigration law." (At first glance it sounds like the law is illegal.)

"If every state had its own laws, we wouldn't be one country; we'd be 50 different countries," said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Welcome to the God Damned UNITED STATES of AMERICA!

The law says simply that it will now be a prosecutable crime to enter Arizona illegally. It says nothing about any increased measures to apprehend illegals, it says nothing about randomly checking papers and it says nothing about someone going to jail simply because they don't have papers on them.

Why don't we wait and see if it will happen before we start pissing and moaning about it? Too simple?


Honibaz

tzor wrote:I love the title of the AP press release "Furor grows over Arizona's illegal immigration law." (At first glance it sounds like the law is illegal.)

"If every state had its own laws, we wouldn't be one country; we'd be 50 different countries," said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Welcome to the God Damned UNITED STATES of AMERICA!

who here thought these people would not fight, lie, and smear, tooth and nail, for the benefits?

I wonder if all these Hispanic citizens will have any sort of recourse if wrongly imprisoned. Maybe the US or AZ should have a place call it a "court" where perhaps they could "sue" for damages??? Too bad there isn't any of these places, or this law could make a little more sense, and also be a tight leash on all those racist police officers.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has said the law criminalizes immigration and opens the door to "intolerance, hate, and discrimination.

Yes, it will. We are intolerant of law breakers, we actually hate them, and are so tired of them we are going to discriminate against them. Wait, that attitude isn't new. It's been the norm for several hundred years. The door was opened a long time ago, and apparently now that we want to close the door, they get mad.

bedub1 wrote:

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has said the law criminalizes immigration and opens the door to "intolerance, hate, and discrimination.

Yes, it will. We are intolerant of law breakers, we actually hate them, and are so tired of them we are going to discriminate against them. Wait, that attitude isn't new. It's been the norm for several hundred years. The door was opened a long time ago, and apparently now that we want to close the door, they get mad.

Baloney. We tolerate law breakers as long as they have money or are making those with money more. It's only when they are percieved to be poor that it becomes a problem.

That's why this law targets the symptom, people who want to come here because they know other people will hire them, rather than the "disease", which is so many who are willing to save a few bucks through hiring folks illegally. And, since the penalties are so, so much worse for those who are working than those who do the hiring, the disease will continue... and so will the symptoms.

The worst part about this is that now police officers will have to spend time picking up otherwise law-abiding immigrants. So, either they divert time from real crimes or they hire more people. Either way, the taxpayers lose. Meanwhile, those who hire the illegal aliens, who have hired them, get to keep their money and make more. Many of them, in the process of hiding the fact that they were hiring illegals, have also found nifty ways to avoid taxes. So... again, this will result in LESS money, a lot of headaches and likely do little against illegal entry. (other crackdowns have failed, so why should this one succeed?)

PLAYER57832 wrote:Sometimes paranoia really IS warranted.

I find it rather strange that you don't agree, actually, given how paranoid you are in general about government "takeovers".

for Arizona specifically, I agree with your premise, BUT, there are a few things to consider...

all points are after the fact that we both agree It is an emergency.

1) Obama set his Justice Department on Sheriff Arpiao over a year ago, and those agents follow AZ law enforcement everywhere they go, and since then, not a single incident has been found out. The record for racial profiling incidences in AZ are only equaled by the amount of gun shots fired at tea parties.....ZERO. These people in AZ are resposnbile, and if they aren't Obama's agents are already there.

2) It is not akin to the patriot act and habeus corpus, but something does need to be done (State/federal)

3) you can not "assume" anyone questioned has American rights. If they are here illegally, then those rights do not exist. If they are here legally, then I am going with the premise it will be question #3 after license and registration (going with most likely scenario)

4) Arizonians are going to have to do their part. If they agree to carry their papers with them, just in case, then that is what they are subjecting themselves to.

case in point....
I got a traffic ticket in another state. I committed a crime. I paid my fine. I still got a letter from that state saying I need to fill out an additional form and mail them 80$ for their "library fund". I also received a letter from my state when I renewed my license, saying that there is an unresolved issue in another state, and if I am ever pulled over here in my state, I may suffer "significant inconvenience". So guess what. I am a man. I understand I broke the law. I completely disagree with the additional 80$, but I also realize this is on my record and there is only 1 way to get it off there. So, I keep all my papers pertaining to this incident in my wallet in case I ever get pulled over, even months after I donated to the library and got the issue resolved (of course!). I know there is an issue, and it is all because of me and my fault. Therefore, if I get pulled over, I am going to hand him those papers, in full disclosure, in hopes that I may get as smooth and experience as possible, becuase the letter I got about "significant inconvenience" worries me. However I do understand the law and why it is there.

Likewise, a person who is here illegally should expect the same if not more inconvenience. It's the consequence for breaking the law. The only inconvenience that should be afforded to citizens, is, like I said, question #3....license, insurance, legal papers (if warranted) please? Here is a perfect realistic example of what will happen most often I am willing to bet.....

An officer pulls over a car for not using his blinker. The officer gets to the person window, and asked for a drivers license. The driver hands the officer a Mexican Voting card.

probable cause to use the new AZ law and investigate further.

There is nothing wrong with this

bedub1 wrote:

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has said the law criminalizes immigration and opens the door to "intolerance, hate, and discrimination.

Yes, it will. We are intolerant of law breakers, we actually hate them, and are so tired of them we are going to discriminate against them. Wait, that attitude isn't new. It's been the norm for several hundred years. The door was opened a long time ago, and apparently now that we want to close the door, they get mad.

well put

... Interesting side note. 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the new law.

... Arizona is but 50% White.

... I suppose the minorities in favor are naught but "Uncle Toms", eh. (is there a Spanish equivalent to Tom?)

...

Nobunaga wrote:... Interesting side note. 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the new law.

... Arizona is but 50% White.

... I suppose the minorities in favor are naught but "Uncle Toms", eh. (is there a Spanish equivalent to Tom?)

...

No- Spanish speakers don't have Bibles.

Nobunaga wrote:... Interesting side note. 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the new law.

... Arizona is but 50% White.

... I suppose the minorities in favor are naught but "Uncle Toms", eh. (is there a Spanish equivalent to Tom?)

...

and a n overwhelming number of Arizona Democrats as well support it. They are on the front lines fighting this battle, and Obama is trying to trip them up. Look at him panicking and racially, sexually, and demographically profiling hispanics, blacks, women, and young people.