The war on illegal immigration

[Casurf1978 0]

I'm sure Spock never read Tocqueville, nor have you. It's easy for you so say that sacrifices must be made, when you're the one not making any of them. Are you familiar with majority rule and minority rights, one of the fundamentals of our democracy.

If you're really that die hard against illegal immigration and labor why not vote with your wallet. Find out which industries or companies use the most illegal labor and either boycott them or make sure the products you buy or services you need are provided by legal documented workers.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

This is a worthy goal. But Arizona has promised that profiling won't happen, and deserves a chance to keep its word.

Apparently you didn't read 1070 and/or you didn't read my post where I illustrated on its face that it is a law that promotes racial profiling.

http://www.azleg.gov/...2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION.

Listen....wait, wait, wait, just listen up. Clear your mind of all your preconceptions.

In order to pull you over, you know, the good white people of America, not the shady, lying, cheating brown ones, but in order to pull you over a cop must have PROBABLE CAUSE. This law lowers the bar so that a cop may pull over a person whom he suspects is illegal with just REASONABLE SUSPICION. OK, so what would a =n AZ cop use to determione via his REASONABLE SUSPICION that a motorist is an illegal alien. Well, we know the problem here is that it's teh Mexicans who are sneaking over the border, not the French, the Italians, the Australians, etc. So a cop could formulate his own RS that a car full of Latinos is full of illegals or some could be. So he could pull them over and ask for papers from all and be within the scope of 1070. If 1070 never was, that cop would have to have PC, not RS, so this law does place a HUGE racial element on people who are brown.

Quote

As I read the law, the only time the police would be able to ask for immigration papers would be if there is already legitimate contact with the police for some other reason (giving a traffic ticket or executing a search or arrest warrant for non-immigration reasons) and reasonable suspicion arises as to the person's status.

Wrong, because in order to pull over and issue a traffic ticket an officer must establish PC, not just RS.

And issuing a search or arrest warrant is a directive; way above RS or PC, so that's a different issue altogether. You're convoluting your standards of proof here.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s217.htm

STANDARD OF PROOF
The amount of evidence which a plaintiff (or prosecuting attorney, in a criminal case) must present in a trial in order to win is called the standard of proof. Different cases require different standards of proof depending on what is at stake. The common standards are:

•Beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal cases)--for a criminal defendant to be convicted of a crime, the prosecutor must prove her case to the point that the jurors have no reasonable doubts in their minds that the defendant did whatever he is charged with having done.
•Clear and convincing evidence (civil cases involving the potential loss of important interests such as the termination of parental rights)--for a party to prove a case under this standard, she must show something more than it is more likely than not, but not as much as beyond a reasonable doubt. No legal scholar has ever been able to define clear and convincing evidence more precisely than that.
•Preponderance of the evidence (most civil cases including fault divorces)--preponderance of the evidence generally means that a party will win if she can show that it is more likely than not that her contention is true.

That cover the top 3, clear and convincing evidence is more obscure. The bottom 2 are: PC and RS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Reasonable_suspicion

Standards for detentions, searches, arrests or warrants
[edit] Reasonable suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of proof in the U.S. to determine whether a brief investigative stop or search by a police officer or any government agent is warranted. It is important to note that this stop and/or search must be brief; its thoroughness is proportional to, and limited by, the low standard of evidence. A more definite standard of proof (often probable cause) would be required to warrant a more thorough stop/search. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the United States Supreme Court ruled that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable, and individualized suspicion that crime is afoot. A mere guess or "hunch" is not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion.

A investigatory stop is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The state must justify the seizure by showing that the officer conducting the stop had a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. The important point is that officers cannot deprive a citizen of liberty unless the officer can point to specific facts and circumstances and inferences there from that would amount to a reasonable suspicion. The officer must be prepared to establish that criminal activity was a logical explanation for what he perceived. The requirement serves to prevent officers from stopping individuals based merely on hunches or unfounded suspicions. The purpose of the stop and detention is to investigate to the extent necessary to confirm or dispel the original suspicion. If the initial confrontation with the person stopped dispels suspicion of criminal activity the officer must end the detention and allow the person to go about her business. If the investigation confirms the officer's initial suspicion or reveals evidence that would justify continued detention the officer may require the person detained to remain at the scene until further investigation is complete. In some cases, the investigation may develop sufficient evidence to constitute probable cause.


So you see the law lowers the bar to the lowest rung possible for people who could be illegals, brown people. If a cop stopped me for RS of being an illegal, found a bag of dope, I would likely to have the charge and evidence thrown out via fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine; poisonous search warrants poisonous fruit; no admission. If I were brown it would come in as the stop would be legal.

Quote

Immigration status isn't a very visible characteristic. The police can't just stop someone because they look like an illegal alien. If that happens then the federal courts might have to intervene, but there is no evidence to believe that it will.

OK, several brown people in a car, driving north from Tucson, a cop hears them speaking Spanish at a light and there you go. What could happen, they all have ID and let em go? Sure, where's the civil rts violation considering the new law? There isn't one. Absent the law it's all there; lawsuit. RS is the lowest S.O.P. and the line is very thin; pure discretion.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Immigration status isn't a very visible characteristic. The police can't just stop someone because they look like an illegal alien. If that happens then the federal courts might have to intervene, but there is no evidence to believe that it will.

I've worked in criminal justice in multiple states for 30 years. Anyone who truly believes that it is not common practice for police to stop someone solely because of how they look, and then later, if need be, come up with a "legitimate" reason for having done so, is completely naive.

If you're a European or Canadian and have over-stayed your visa in the US, the southern border states are the place for you to hide in plain sight: the cops will leave you alone, because they're too busy targeting the people whose Mayan ancestors were conquered and raped by the Europeans.

Oops; issue-creep. My bad.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

$10B? That is it? when we are spending $3,500B+ in the 2009 federal budget? 0.28% of the federal budget?

Ok then you are right, they cost us $10B/year. But I rest my case. Given what we go through in this country every year on everything else, this money is not even worth chasing down.

So this is "it doesn't cost the U.S. much as far as the overall budget is concerned so we should just ignore the problem and not enforce the laws".

Gottcha.

[turtlespeed 226]

Just a side note . . . Thanks Luck, for consolidating all your posts, it makes it SO much easier to skip over them.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[captain1976 0]

If you're a European or Canadian and have over-stayed your visa in the US, the southern border states are the place for you to hide in plain sight: the cops will leave you alone, because they're too busy targeting the people whose Mayan ancestors were conquered and raped by the Europeans.

Oops; issue-creep. My bad.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

So this is "it doesn't cost the U.S. much as far as the overall budget is concerned so we should just ignore the problem and not enforce the laws".

Gottcha.

First, I don't trust those numbers. However, I chimed in purely on the public benefits part of it, since that is where I have some actual knowledge. We should not ignore the law, we are not ignoring the law. There are stringent requirements in place requiring applicants to prove citizen for many kinds of public benefits (social security, public housing, Medicaid).

Do some people make it through regardless? Yes. However there are costs associated with compliance as well. I'm all for enforcing the law. However at some point the costs for compliance are greater than the amout that is lost in fruad.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Gawain 0]

Don't worry folks! AG Holder is on the scene. He's considering a law suit, is on the record questioning the Constitutionality of the Arizona law...



...there's just one small detail...



...he hasn't read the law... ... ...video

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[skybill 22]

Hi SM and all,
5 pages and growing!! Kinda reminds me of an old T.S. Nast Political Cartoon of the post Civil War era,"Let us clasp hands over that great Bloody Chasm!" Shows two men high on the wall trying to reach across Andersonville Prison. How long before history repeats itself??....How long?

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

I think if you're European or Canadian, you are pretty much left alone anywhere in the US.

Not true--I've known white males from both Europe and Canada who have been arrested and deported. And rightly so because they were breaking the rules, and even though they were friends, they needed to learn to accept responsibility for their actions. But it puts the lie to the claim that a crackdown on illegal immigration is solely about race.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

OK, several brown people in a car, driving north from Tucson, a cop hears them speaking Spanish at a light and there you go. What could happen, they all have ID and let em go? Sure, where's the civil rts violation considering the new law? There isn't one. Absent the law it's all there; lawsuit. RS is the lowest S.O.P. and the line is very thin; pure discretion.

This is where the courts need to weigh in...and there is therefore no proof either way yet as to who is right, you or I.

But here in CA--and I assume it is the same in AZ--Spanish is very commonly spoken. And many/most people who speak Spanish are here perfectly legal. My belief is that any cop who tried to assert in court that RS was based on someone speaking Spanish would be laughed out of court--and lose his job in the process.

I think we are long, long past the point where speaking Spanish might serve as evidence of illegal status in the USA for any reasonable person. That might have been true in some parts of the USA 30 years ago, but it would be ludicrous today.

Yes there are going to be some lawsuits. But I see that as a good thing. While it is expensive to get the courts involved, when a lot is at stake, sometimes it is necessary. There is a great deal at stake for the people on both sides of this issue, so it is appropriate for the courts to get involved.

Anyone--on either side side of this issue--who truly believes that they are morally right should welcome the opportunity that Arizona has provided to get the courts involved and establish some precedent-setting law.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

I've worked in criminal justice in multiple states for 30 years. Anyone who truly believes that it is not common practice for police to stop someone solely because of how they look, and then later, if need be, come up with a "legitimate" reason for having done so, is completely naive.

I think that police are already aware of the need to walk a fine line when it comes to immigration status. The police need the support of immigrant communities to solve crimes. That isn't going to change because of this law.

If anything this law is going to make it harder to stop someone just because they are 'brown'. The reason is that the law specifically forbids stopping someone for that reason, so anyone suspecting they were stopped for that reason is going to have strong legal ammunition--that they might not have had before--when they go to court.

I think it can also be assumed--because of the high level of scrutiny this law is getting--that this law will be fully tested in court and that both sides in this matter will fully get their day in court. I highly doubt that 'coming up with an excuse for RS after the fact' is going to cut it when it comes to this matter, although in other less high profile situations it might be SOP for the police to get away with it.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

How does it feel to be soooooooo wrong and

so in the minority?

Wait, is that racist?

I have all kinds of points to respond to, yet again, zero from you. Show you have a point to make or counter.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Wrong, because in order to pull over and issue a traffic ticket an officer must establish PC, not just RS.

But they only need reasonable suspicion to pull someone over:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_stop

Once they've pulled someone over they can ask for a DL/registration, and if the person doesn't have it, that would probably be RS that the person might not be here legally.

Now the question arises as to what constitutes RS to pull someone over solely for immigration reasons (ie where no other traffic infraction or crime is suspected). Since the courts haven't weighed in yet, no one knows for sure. But I just think--pending our hearing what the courts think--that it would be patently ridiculous for any reasonable person to suspect a person of being illegally in the country based solely on their race or preferred language.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

I think if you're European or Canadian, you are pretty much left alone anywhere in the US.

Not true--I've known white males from both Europe and Canada who have been arrested and deported.

Really? How many of them were profiled and stopped on the street because they were pink and freckled? Damn IRA terrorists.

[captain1976 0]

Quote

Quote

I think if you're European or Canadian, you are pretty much left alone anywhere in the US.

Not true--I've known white males from both Europe and Canada who have been arrested and deported. And rightly so because they were breaking the rules, and even though they were friends, they needed to learn to accept responsibility for their actions. But it puts the lie to the claim that a crackdown on illegal immigration is solely about race.

Wrong, or maybe right! Canadians and Europeans don't fill our jails with criminal acts while a disproportionate amount of crime comes from those who came from south of the border.

I'm not going into stats here, but just google the financial strain they're putting on our country. I take it personally, this is my tax money and I want them the hell out.

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

Scroll down to 'Crime" Argues that no more crime is committed by illegals than by anyone else. And I agree. Why do you see more Mexicans? Because there are more Mexicans than 'hungarians'. There are more of them in emergency rooms and more of them are in jail and more of them are working on the farm for that matter.

Eastern Europeans also run crime syndicates in the USA; WHITE people with guns, who murder, rape and sell drugs and human beings and worse. But we passed a law that will likely NOT stop any of them because they look 'normal'

Emergency rooms are filled with WHITE people who do not pay their hospital bills, as well as illegals. I sat in the ER here in Zephyrhills and watched a "mexican' family deicde on what they could afford there and then PAID for it in cash.

It is simplay a paradigm that is not true. You actually ARE being racist when you segment one portion of the populace, or one color and blame societies problems on them without basing it on fact. So show me the facts

Welfare is the same way - all 'lazy black people' are on welfare, when in fact, most people on welfare are CHILDREN, and most women on welfare are WHITE.

Even if you took welfare completely out of the budget, we would save 1% of the total federal budget. I think we haev bigger fish to fry.

Are Mexican gangs running drugs and violence in our country? Yes they are. Is that bad? Yes it is. Do I want it to stop? Yes I do.

Legalize all the drugs that they are selling and the problem almost instantly goes away. We take their money away at the source and now they have nothing to do. Instead we spend billions trying to chase them around.

If you think that stopping some Mexican guy in Phoenix to ask for his ID is going to get rid of the gang problem, then ...... I have no idea what to say.....

TK,

I respect your views as I respect you, however the average illegal immigrant family uses $2,700/year more in services than it pays in taxes. Stats just a few years ago revealed this amounted to a $10.4 billion drain on the federal budget. Some of the greatest federal costs included: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

.

2nd request - credible unbiased SOURCE for your numbers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

$10B? That is it? when we are spending $3,500B+ in the 2009 federal budget? 0.28% of the federal budget?

Ok then you are right, they cost us $10B/year. But I rest my case. Given what we go through in this country every year on everything else, this money is not even worth chasing down.

So this is "it doesn't cost the U.S. much as far as the overall budget is concerned so we should just ignore the problem and not enforce the laws".

Gottcha.

You assume those numbers are correct. We have not been given a source - they could be quite biased if they came from an anti-immigrant source like CIS, or just plain wrong.

As a legal immigrant 33 years ago, I have no sympathy for illegals. Equally, some of the anti-immigrant rhetoric is just plain false.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[captain1976 0]

I think that police are already aware of the need to walk a fine line when it comes to immigration status. The police need the support of immigrant communities to solve crimes.

[captain1976 0]

2nd request - credible unbiased SOURCE for your numbers.

Look em up, the internet is full of them. Besides, I got to get ready for jumpin tomorrow

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

$10B? That is it? when we are spending $3,500B+ in the 2009 federal budget? 0.28% of the federal budget?

Ok then you are right, they cost us $10B/year. But I rest my case. Given what we go through in this country every year on everything else, this money is not even worth chasing down.

So this is "it doesn't cost the U.S. much as far as the overall budget is concerned so we should just ignore the problem and not enforce the laws".

Gottcha.

You assume those numbers are correct. We have not been given a source - they could be quite biased if they came from an anti-immigrant source like CIS, or just plain wrong.

As a legal immigrant 33 years ago, I have no sympathy for illegals. Equally, some of the anti-immigrant rhetoric is just plain false.

Dude
anything you dont agree with has a biased source

Suck it up and get used to it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

$10B? That is it? when we are spending $3,500B+ in the 2009 federal budget? 0.28% of the federal budget?

Ok then you are right, they cost us $10B/year. But I rest my case. Given what we go through in this country every year on everything else, this money is not even worth chasing down.

So this is "it doesn't cost the U.S. much as far as the overall budget is concerned so we should just ignore the problem and not enforce the laws".

Gottcha.

You assume those numbers are correct. We have not been given a source - they could be quite biased if they came from an anti-immigrant source like CIS, or just plain wrong.

As a legal immigrant 33 years ago, I have no sympathy for illegals. Equally, some of the anti-immigrant rhetoric is just plain false.

Dude
anything you dont agree with has a biased source

Suck it up and get used to it

Well, when an organization announces on its web site that it is anti-immigration, you might reasonably assume some bias.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

2nd request - credible unbiased SOURCE for your numbers.

Look em up, the internet is full of them. Besides, I got to get ready for jumpin tomorrow

Indeed, and they claim everything from the numbers you cite, all the way to the country MAKES money off illegals.

Why won't you cite which source you used?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[captain1976 0]

Quote

Quote

2nd request - credible unbiased SOURCE for your numbers.

Look em up, the internet is full of them. Besides, I got to get ready for jumpin tomorrow

Indeed, and they claim everything from the numbers you cite, all the way to the country MAKES money off illegals.

Why won't you cite which source you used?

Because I have to go back and find it on my office computer. Its not that I won't, its just that I have a life outside the forums

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[rushmc 23]

In the dictionary kallend is listed as bias!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln