marks2065 0 #51 April 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Even Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said yesterday he thinks the law is unconstitutional. officers have been stopping people under reasonable suspicion for years. There is case law in your state defining what that means. This is a power play meant to put egg on the face of immigration, or make them do their jobs. What would constitute reasonable suspicion of someone being here illegally? Blues, Dave Dave's question hits the nail on the head. This Op/Ed piece by Stephen Chapman asks this question, and suggests there are no good answers. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0429-chapman-20100429,0,6182155.column Gov. Brewer has stated that she will not allow racial profiling. Fine. But then how are cops supposed to generate a "reasonable suspicion" that someone may be an illegal alien? Does everyone with a foreign accent get detained? This law will likely prove unworkable in practice. If you read the article, it indicates that even the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the law, purely on the practical grounds Dave has raised. Leaving the political arguments aside, I don't see how this law can work without essentially forcing cops to engage in racial profiling. ask everyone they come in contact with to see their drivers license, if they don't have one there is a good possibility they are illegal. Hey, Mark, how's things going? Hope you and Holly are well. I know you are a conservative guy, but are you really in favor of the police asking "everyone they come into contact with" for their papers? All due respect, but you may want to think that one through a bit. The historical context of government officials asking random individuals for their "papers, please" is a little unsettling to many of us, even some conservatives, I'd guess. I get asked for my papers everytime I get pulled over already, my license, ins card and sometimes even vehicle registration. I can not even get back into the country without my passport, I have no problem having illegals getting the same treatment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #52 April 30, 2010 QuoteQuote ask everyone they come in contact with to see their drivers license, if they don't have one there is a good possibility they are illegal. They will need several thousand more cops if they are to ask everyone they have contact with. I think cops have much better things to do. with the increase in crime attributed directly to illegal imigration they are going to need the increase in police forces anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #53 April 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Even Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said yesterday he thinks the law is unconstitutional. officers have been stopping people under reasonable suspicion for years. There is case law in your state defining what that means. This is a power play meant to put egg on the face of immigration, or make them do their jobs. What would constitute reasonable suspicion of someone being here illegally? Blues, Dave Dave's question hits the nail on the head. This Op/Ed piece by Stephen Chapman asks this question, and suggests there are no good answers. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0429-chapman-20100429,0,6182155.column Gov. Brewer has stated that she will not allow racial profiling. Fine. But then how are cops supposed to generate a "reasonable suspicion" that someone may be an illegal alien? Does everyone with a foreign accent get detained? This law will likely prove unworkable in practice. If you read the article, it indicates that even the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the law, purely on the practical grounds Dave has raised. Leaving the political arguments aside, I don't see how this law can work without essentially forcing cops to engage in racial profiling. ask everyone they come in contact with to see their drivers license, if they don't have one there is a good possibility they are illegal. Hey, Mark, how's things going? Hope you and Holly are well. I know you are a conservative guy, but are you really in favor of the police asking "everyone they come into contact with" for their papers? All due respect, but you may want to think that one through a bit. The historical context of government officials asking random individuals for their "papers, please" is a little unsettling to many of us, even some conservatives, I'd guess. I get asked for my papers everytime I get pulled over already, my license, ins card and sometimes even vehicle registration. I can not even get back into the country without my passport, I have no problem having illegals getting the same treatment. Your original proposal was that police officers should ask "everyone they come into contact with" for their papers. I understood that to mean that you were arguing that the police should ask "everyone" they run into for their papers -- people walking down the street, crime victims, witnesses to crimes, people minding their own business, etc. Are you now modifying your original proposal or did I misunderstand you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #54 April 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Even Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said yesterday he thinks the law is unconstitutional. officers have been stopping people under reasonable suspicion for years. There is case law in your state defining what that means. This is a power play meant to put egg on the face of immigration, or make them do their jobs. What would constitute reasonable suspicion of someone being here illegally? Blues, Dave Dave's question hits the nail on the head. This Op/Ed piece by Stephen Chapman asks this question, and suggests there are no good answers. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0429-chapman-20100429,0,6182155.column Gov. Brewer has stated that she will not allow racial profiling. Fine. But then how are cops supposed to generate a "reasonable suspicion" that someone may be an illegal alien? Does everyone with a foreign accent get detained? This law will likely prove unworkable in practice. If you read the article, it indicates that even the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the law, purely on the practical grounds Dave has raised. Leaving the political arguments aside, I don't see how this law can work without essentially forcing cops to engage in racial profiling. ask everyone they come in contact with to see their drivers license, if they don't have one there is a good possibility they are illegal. Hey, Mark, how's things going? Hope you and Holly are well. I know you are a conservative guy, but are you really in favor of the police asking "everyone they come into contact with" for their papers? All due respect, but you may want to think that one through a bit. The historical context of government officials asking random individuals for their "papers, please" is a little unsettling to many of us, even some conservatives, I'd guess. I get asked for my papers everytime I get pulled over already, my license, ins card and sometimes even vehicle registration. I can not even get back into the country without my passport, I have no problem having illegals getting the same treatment. Your original proposal was that police officers should ask "everyone they come into contact with" for their papers. I understood that to mean that you were arguing that the police should ask "everyone" they run into for their papers -- people walking down the street, crime victims, witnesses to crimes, people minding their own business, etc. Are you now modifying your original proposal or did I misunderstand you? everyday police come in contact with many people just by doing their job and now that job will include asking for legal status. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #55 April 30, 2010 Quote everyday police come in contact with many people just by doing their job and now that job will include asking for legal status. where "contact" for an officer doesn't mean walking past someone on the street. Andy and others.... please understand the terminology difference.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #56 April 30, 2010 "Rising in anger"... Sounds like the politically correct libs are inciting violence. The media, of course won't report any violent rhetoric when it comes from libs.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #57 April 30, 2010 QuoteQuote everyday police come in contact with many people just by doing their job and now that job will include asking for legal status. where "contact" for an officer doesn't mean walking past someone on the street. Andy and others.... please understand the terminology difference. Well, what does it mean, then? Does "contact" mean arresting someone? Interviewing a crime victim or witness? Detaining a suspect? Talking to the girl behind the counter at the dount shop? It's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who refuses to define a key term, then scolds others for not understanding what he meant by that term. I can't read your minds, guys. If you refuse to define what you mean by "contact" I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion, because it's pointless. If you want to define what you mean by that term, I'll be happy to continue to talk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #58 April 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote everyday police come in contact with many people just by doing their job and now that job will include asking for legal status. where "contact" for an officer doesn't mean walking past someone on the street. Andy and others.... please understand the terminology difference. Well, what does it mean, then? Does "contact" mean arresting someone? Interviewing a crime victim or witness? Detaining a suspect? Talking to the girl behind the counter at the dount shop? It's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who refuses to define a key term, then scolds others for not understanding what he meant by that term. I can't read your minds, guys. If you refuse to define what you mean by "contact" I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion, because it's pointless. If you want to define what you mean by that term, I'll be happy to continue to talk. Andy, I think you have been hanging out with lawyers a little to long. lawyers make their money living in the gray area while keeping problems from being solved. The law is simple, if a cop pulls you over he asks for the need information, you provide it or get a ticket or go to jail. This bill is just giving the local cops the ability to enforce the already in place laws of the federal governmenmt that they are not enforcing. Will there be some that abuse it, yes, just like every other part of life. Every group of people has its bad elements that abuse situations but that does not mean we stop making or get rid of laws. The problem today is not that we have laws, the problem today is nobdy can enforce the laws we have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #59 April 30, 2010 That's twice I've asked you to define what you mean by "contact" and twice you've refused to do so. That's the reason this discussion is in a "grey area," as you put it. We can't have a coherent conversation if you won't define your terms. See you at the DZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #60 April 30, 2010 unwad the panties.... "contact" as I understand it in a law enforcement context, is interaction with a person as a part of enforcing the law. walking past someone on the street is not interaction. buying a cup of coffee from a vendor, while interaction, is not interaction as part of enforcing the law.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #61 April 30, 2010 Quote unwad the panties.... "contact" as I understand it in a law enforcement context, is interaction with a person as a part of enforcing the law. walking past someone on the street is not interaction. buying a cup of coffee from a vendor, while interaction, is not interaction as part of enforcing the law. you must at all times appear to be white stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #62 April 30, 2010 Quoteunwad the panties.... How old are you? Grow up. "contact" as I understand it in a law enforcement context, is interaction with a person as a part of enforcing the law. walking past someone on the street is not interaction. buying a cup of coffee from a vendor, while interaction, is not interaction as part of enforcing the law. Thanks for a clear definition. Finally. So would you support cops asking crime victims about their immigration status? Suppose a detective is investigating a murder, and is interviewing the victim's family for background information. On your definition, this certainly seems like "contact." Would you be in favor of the detective demanding to see the victim's mother's immigration papers, and detaining her if those papers were not in order? Or suppose it is a rape victim? Do you support the cops detaining the victim if she cannot produce the proper papers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #63 April 30, 2010 Quote you must at all times appear to be white racist -- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #64 April 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteunwad the panties.... How old are you? Grow up. "contact" as I understand it in a law enforcement context, is interaction with a person as a part of enforcing the law. walking past someone on the street is not interaction. buying a cup of coffee from a vendor, while interaction, is not interaction as part of enforcing the law. Thanks for a clear definition. Finally. So would you support cops asking crime victims about their immigration status? Suppose a detective is investigating a murder, and is interviewing the victim's family for background information. On your definition, this certainly seems like "contact." Would you be in favor of the detective demanding to see the victim's mother's immigration papers, and detaining her if those papers were not in order? Or suppose it is a rape victim? Do you support the cops detaining the victim if she cannot produce the proper papers? That depends on if one thinks public paid services such as the police are intended for citizens amd legal immigrants only.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #65 April 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteunwad the panties.... How old are you? Grow up. "contact" as I understand it in a law enforcement context, is interaction with a person as a part of enforcing the law. walking past someone on the street is not interaction. buying a cup of coffee from a vendor, while interaction, is not interaction as part of enforcing the law. Thanks for a clear definition. Finally. So would you support cops asking crime victims about their immigration status? Suppose a detective is investigating a murder, and is interviewing the victim's family for background information. On your definition, this certainly seems like "contact." Would you be in favor of the detective demanding to see the victim's mother's immigration papers, and detaining her if those papers were not in order? Or suppose it is a rape victim? Do you support the cops detaining the victim if she cannot produce the proper papers? nope. certainly would seem to reduce the reporting of crimes in the illegal's community... oh wait... they're already afraid of the cops and don't report many crimes or talk to police. I see your point. I really do. As I've said elsewhere. Part of the point here is to make residency in the state undesirable for illegals (as subset of which are people who will cooperate with Mexican organized crime). The goal of which would be to reduce the Mex org crime traffic in the area. That may or may not be the result. Is yet to be determined. I've made phone calls to judges and prosecuters informing them that a defendant was an illegal immigrant. The response was always "sorry... nothing we can do". I've been personally effected by illegal immigration and crime associated with some of the immigrants. Maybe that's why I feel the way I do. I get that it sucks for the illegal immigrants that aren't causing problems here. They fix my roof. They build my fence. They do the landscaping in my neighborhood. And the ones that I know that went through the process to get legal are pissed at the ones who aren't.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #66 April 30, 2010 Quote Quote you must at all times appear to be white racist that's the state of arizona for you stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #67 April 30, 2010 Quote Quote Quote you must at all times appear to be white racist that's the state of arizona for you didn't know you lived in AZ.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #68 April 30, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote you must at all times appear to be white racist that's the state of arizona for you didn't know you lived in AZ. heard it's pretty much a police state now stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #69 April 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteunwad the panties.... How old are you? Grow up. "contact" as I understand it in a law enforcement context, is interaction with a person as a part of enforcing the law. walking past someone on the street is not interaction. buying a cup of coffee from a vendor, while interaction, is not interaction as part of enforcing the law. Thanks for a clear definition. Finally. So would you support cops asking crime victims about their immigration status? Suppose a detective is investigating a murder, and is interviewing the victim's family for background information. On your definition, this certainly seems like "contact." Would you be in favor of the detective demanding to see the victim's mother's immigration papers, and detaining her if those papers were not in order? Or suppose it is a rape victim? Do you support the cops detaining the victim if she cannot produce the proper papers? nope. certainly would seem to reduce the reporting of crimes in the illegal's community... oh wait... they're already afraid of the cops and don't report many crimes or talk to police. I see your point. I really do. As I've said elsewhere. Part of the point here is to make residency in the state undesirable for illegals (as subset of which are people who will cooperate with Mexican organized crime). The goal of which would be to reduce the Mex org crime traffic in the area. That may or may not be the result. Is yet to be determined. I've made phone calls to judges and prosecuters informing them that a defendant was an illegal immigrant. The response was always "sorry... nothing we can do". I've been personally effected by illegal immigration and crime associated with some of the immigrants. Maybe that's why I feel the way I do. I get that it sucks for the illegal immigrants that aren't causing problems here. They fix my roof. They build my fence. They do the landscaping in my neighborhood. And the ones that I know that went through the process to get legal are pissed at the ones who aren't. OK, now that we're playing nice, I'll admit that I completely understand the frustration folks in AZ must have over the illegal immigration issue. AZ is at the forefront of the immigration problem, and the federal government has done absolutely nothing to fix it, and the problem is getting worse. I get the motivation behind the law. I just worry that there will be practical problems with its implementation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #70 April 30, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteunwad the panties.... How old are you? Grow up. "contact" as I understand it in a law enforcement context, is interaction with a person as a part of enforcing the law. walking past someone on the street is not interaction. buying a cup of coffee from a vendor, while interaction, is not interaction as part of enforcing the law. Thanks for a clear definition. Finally. So would you support cops asking crime victims about their immigration status? Suppose a detective is investigating a murder, and is interviewing the victim's family for background information. On your definition, this certainly seems like "contact." Would you be in favor of the detective demanding to see the victim's mother's immigration papers, and detaining her if those papers were not in order? Or suppose it is a rape victim? Do you support the cops detaining the victim if she cannot produce the proper papers? nope. certainly would seem to reduce the reporting of crimes in the illegal's community... oh wait... they're already afraid of the cops and don't report many crimes or talk to police. I see your point. I really do. As I've said elsewhere. Part of the point here is to make residency in the state undesirable for illegals (as subset of which are people who will cooperate with Mexican organized crime). The goal of which would be to reduce the Mex org crime traffic in the area. That may or may not be the result. Is yet to be determined. I've made phone calls to judges and prosecuters informing them that a defendant was an illegal immigrant. The response was always "sorry... nothing we can do". I've been personally effected by illegal immigration and crime associated with some of the immigrants. Maybe that's why I feel the way I do. I get that it sucks for the illegal immigrants that aren't causing problems here. They fix my roof. They build my fence. They do the landscaping in my neighborhood. And the ones that I know that went through the process to get legal are pissed at the ones who aren't. OK, now that we're playing nice, I'll admit that I completely understand the frustration folks in AZ must have over the illegal immigration issue. AZ is at the forefront of the immigration problem, and the federal government has done absolutely nothing to fix it, and the problem is getting worse. I get the motivation behind the law. I just worry that there will be practical problems with its implementation. Help me understand why if the new state law is essentioally what the old federal law was, why is it so much worse all of a sudden? I submit it is because the feds were not enforcing it. If they were they would be considered the same by the critics then, as the state is now. That is the only thing that makes sense to me Am I missing something?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #71 April 30, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote you must at all times appear to be white racist that's the state of arizona for you didn't know you lived in AZ. heard it's pretty much a police state now That is truly funny coming from a a subject of the crown living in your idyllic nanny state with cameras everywhere watching your daily life Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #72 April 30, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote you must at all times appear to be white racist that's the state of arizona for you didn't know you lived in AZ. heard it's pretty much a police state now That is truly funny coming from a a subject of the crown living in your idyllic nanny state with cameras everywhere watching your daily life we've got it tough here stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #73 April 30, 2010 QuoteWe’ve been living in a political desert here for a long time, and irony is only relevant if it can be strip-mined. While the state’s coffers have precipitously hit their nadir, legislators have rolled out corporate tax breaks, passed “birther” requirements for ballot access, forced our public education system down to the bottom rung, and shilled for more concealed weapons in our midst. Now we get apartheid laws that even go so far as to criminalize anyone who transports, harbors, employs, or attempts to shield from enforcement an “unauthorized alien” (which is of course a euphemism for “illegal immigrant,” which is in turn a euphemism for “persona non grata”). SB 1070 further cracks down on “day laborers” and those who utilize said labor, indicating an obvious anti-Latino strain permeating this shameful legislative act. Much of the commentary thus far has understandably focused on the ethnic and racial aspects of the bill. Undoubtedly, the measure is aimed directly at vulnerable communities of color, and consequently the sense of fear and terror among people already used to being persecuted has risen to unprecedented levels. Many are considering leaving the state, and indeed this type of en masse forced migration may be part of what the law’s advocates have intended all along. Less considered in the analysis are the profoundly negative economic impacts likely to be the result of the law, which flies in the face of the standard line advanced by proponents that illegal immigrants are an economic drain on the state. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/30-11stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #74 April 30, 2010 The new law says that law enforcement must do their jobs. If they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, they must ask questions. That's pretty much it. I'm getting tired of everyone telling lies about what the law says. Almost all of them have failed to look for facts. Pure emotional drivel.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #75 April 30, 2010 Quote Quote Many are considering leaving the state, and indeed this type of en masse forced migration may be part of what the law’s advocates have intended all along. ... illegal immigrants are an economic drain on the state. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/30-11 Wow. I actually agree with something on that site. AZ does want illegal immigrants to leave, partially because they are an economic drain. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
