Arizona signs immigration bill into law

[bob4432]

If I call and complain about noise disturbances about my neighbors, would the police have to check the IDs of the occupants? Would that satisfy the "legal contact" clause?

What if I suspected "domestic violence" and called in for that?

more talking point? where did you get them from?

anyway, answered in this video from a local interview w/ the governor

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Gov-Brewer-sits-down-with-3TV-to-talk-about-SB-1070-92506274.html

also, amended language
http://www.azfamily.com/video/featured-videos/Lawmakers-amend-language-of-SB-1070-92499929.html

 

[flavio]

the law doesn't list anything in particular. it just says reasonable suspicion. the AG could write an opinion that any driver's license negates reasonable suspicion.

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

An out of state license might be accepted if you are required to prove your legal status to get it. A lot of them don't.

 

[flavio]

Flavio, you're clearly unhappy about this. Why not consider moving out of AZ? Perhaps to San Francisco? Why not take some of the illegals with you. Help them out.

I live in Oakland. Not that anything you said has anything to do with the discussion.

 

[DAGTA]

I live in Oakland. Not that anything you said has anything to do with the discussion.

Wow. so you really have no clue what it's like to live in Phoenix and see problems related to illegal immigration in your daily life.

 

[flavio]

This whole talk of stopped for walking to get ice cream and similar blatent lies

Not sure who said that. The law says "any lawful contact". No offense needs to have been committed but there has to be some reason for the lawful contact.

 

[flavio]

Wow. so you really have no clue what it's like to live in Phoenix and see problems related to illegal immigration in your daily life.

I've been to Phoenix pretty often. A friend of mine lives there.

Not sure how that is relevant though. Yes, there are problems related to illegal immigration. That's not a good excuse to give up you freedom. That was what was being discussed.

 

[flavio]

Law is being changed. Now opponents have NOTHING to stand on for their complaints. Skin color can't be used nor any other protected class of the civil rights act. And lawful contact is being changed to stop/detain/arrest. That puts an end to every complaint and still gets the job done of getting rid of illegals.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_521396.html

Interesting, looks like the boycotts worked pretty fast. I'll look into this.

 

[blackangst1]

Not sure who said that. The law says "any lawful contact". No offense needs to have been committed but there has to be some reason for the lawful contact.

The President of the United States did in the article posted a couple pages back.

"suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed." ​

And your point about lawful contact is incomplete, conveniently. The legislation says

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS".

​

As Ive pointed out earlier with case law, reasonable suspicion doesnt mean being non-white.

​

 

[bob4432]

for those that can't read...

...changed from 'lawful contact' to 'stop, detain or arrest'.

 

[palehorse]

The law has now been modified to nullify previous (Flavio's) objections.

/thread
/debate
/check and mate

 

[Infohawk]

The law has now been modified to nullify previous (Flavio's) objections.

/thread
/debate
/check and mate

So are we all happy friends now?

 

[spidey07]

Interesting, looks like the boycotts worked pretty fast. I'll look into this.

You claim to have a 13 year old daughter, so you must have some understanding of negotiations based on your age. Set the bar high and then lower it somewhat to make sure both sides feel like they "win".

This is the perfect scenario and negotiating. Throw something out there that most agree upon but with a minority being against. Let the minority rabble, then crush them with a little give.

I've been a corporate boy long enough to understand exactly what this is, use your enemy against them. Kudos to Arizona for getting the end goal which is to rid the state of criminal illegal aliens, because every rabble is now mute.

GO ARIZONA! Has anybody kept track of other states that are now putting such legislation forward?

 

[flavio]

The President of the United States did in the article posted a couple pages back.

This was not part of my argument was it?

As Ive pointed out earlier with case law, reasonable suspicion doesnt mean being non-white.

And once again you're arguing against something I did not claim.

 

[flavio]

The law has now been modified to nullify previous (Flavio's) objections.

/thread
/debate
/check and mate

Check and mate for the boycott?

 

[flavio]

You claim to have a 13 year old daughter, so you must have some understanding of negotiations based on your age. Set the bar high and then lower it somewhat to make sure both sides feel like they "win".

This is the perfect scenario and negotiating. Throw something out there that most agree upon but with a minority being against. Let the minority rabble, then crush them with a little give.

Looks like what happened is they tried something ridiculous and are getting crushed by boycotts.

With the new language "stop, detain or arrest" there is certainly an improvement. Although you still don't need to be committing any offense for a "stop".

 

[blackangst1]

This was not part of my argument was it?



And once again you're arguing against something I did not claim.

Was I adressing you when I posted this? There are others in this thread who have said as much. Dont be so arrogant.

 

[blackangst1]

This was not part of my argument was it?



And once again you're arguing against something I did not claim.

Looks like what happened is they tried something ridiculous and are getting crushed by boycotts.

With the new language "stop, detain or arrest" there is certainly an improvement. Although you still don't need to be committing any offense for a "stop".

Actually, there isnt any real world difference. It adds LEO may not use race, ethnicity or national origin as a factor for questioning. Reasonable suspicion language remains.

 

[flavio]

Was I adressing you when I posted this? There are others in this thread who have said as much. Dont be so arrogant.

Yes, you were. You quoted me and then "your point". Don't be such a coward and just admit it when you're wrong.

 

[spidey07]

Looks like what happened is they tried something ridiculous and are getting crushed by boycotts.

With the new language "stop, detain or arrest" there is certainly an improvement. Although you still don't need to be committing any offense for a "stop".

You just showed your age or total inexperience with how the real world works, especially with negotiations.

Arizona still achieves their goal to get rid of criminals, the criminals feel like they won the battle. That's win/win. You see the purpose is to put something out there that is so outrageous the compromise still supports one's end goal. As the other side feels they have done their duty, the winning side is more than happy to allow them to feel that way and give an inch to gain a mile.

This how the real world works, in any kind of negotiation between two parties. Be it politics or anything else. That you don't understand this says much about you, flavio.

 

[flavio]

Actually, there isnt any real world difference.

Hopefully your wrong about that. We'll have to see what a legal "stop" entails. Obviously you still don't have to have done anything wrong but out of the following scenarios I'm curious what qualifies...

1. You witness a crime
2. Your the victim of a crime
3. They're canvassing a neighborhood looking for witnesses
4. You report a crime
5. You ask for directions
6. DUI checkpoints

Reasonable suspicion language remains.

Yeah, what does that mean anyway? What type of things would cause them to become reasonably suspicious?

 

[blackangst1]

Yes, you were. You quoted me and then "your point". Don't be such a coward and just admit it when you're wrong.

Ah yes. When you replied to my general info post, which was not directed at you. I was answering your statement of you not knowing who said that.

Jesus Christ youre nit picky.

 

[blackangst1]

Hopefully your wrong about that. We'll have to see what a legal "stop" entails. Obviously you still don't have to have done anything wrong but out of the following scenarios I'm curious what qualifies...

1. You witness a crime
2. Your the victim of a crime
3. They're canvassing a neighborhood looking for witnesses
4. You report a crime
5. You ask for directions
6. DUI checkpoints



Yeah, what does that mean anyway? What type of things would cause them to become reasonably suspicious?

A legal stop would follow reasonable suspicion. Duh?

And I havent seen you post AZ law that says citizens must carry their "papers" as you've claimed. Can you post that for me?

 

[flavio]

You just showed your age or total inexperience with how the real world works, especially with negotiations.

I think you have a total inexperience with the way debate works or are just way too young.

You make a claim you have not facts to support like... "You see the purpose is to put something out there that is so outrageous the compromise still supports one's end goal." ...and then I can either just call you on making unsubstantiated claims or I can just pull something out of thin air too.

So I'll say "It was 100% boycott pressure that caused them to change the law to something a little better."

I can even point to the article and show that it mentions it "has drawn a storm of protest from civil rights activists" and claim the protest is responsible while you can't point to anything that backs up your statement.

So while both of our statements are completely unproven mine has some backing.

But really unsubstantiated claims have no place in reasoned debate. That you don't understand this says much about you, spidey07.

 

[blackangst1]

I think you have a total inexperience with the way debate works or are just way too young.

You make a claim you have not facts to support like... "You see the purpose is to put something out there that is so outrageous the compromise still supports one's end goal." ...and then I can either just call you on making unsubstantiated claims or I can just pull something out of thin air too.

So I'll say "It was 100% boycott pressure that caused them to change the law to something a little better."

I can even point to the article and show that it mentions it "has drawn a storm of protest from civil rights activists" and claim the protest is responsible while you can't point to anything that backs up your statement.

So while both of our statements are completely unproven mine has some backing.

But really unsubstantiated claims have no place in reasoned debate. That you don't understand this says much about you, spidey07.

And here you make a claim you cannot back up

"It was 100% boycott pressure that caused them to change the law to something a little better."

When in fact, factually, you are 100% wrong.

http://www.azdailysun.com/news/state-and-regional/article_b79cd5c4-5ac3-5dd3-9763-361ac7675c9f.html

But by Thursday, after the filing of two lawsuits challenging the new law on several grounds, including racial profiling, Pearce backed off. He now is saying the provision is probably unnecessary, as the U.S. Constitution already precludes racial profiling.

So the fact is, it was changed due to two lawsuits filed.

 

[flavio]

A legal stop would follow reasonable suspicion. Duh?

You got this backwards. The law read...

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN

So the stop would be more likely before the suspicion not after as you're claiming. If you're trying to claim that the only reason you would be stopped is if they suspect you're an alien then that really opens it up.

What would cause them to suspect you are an alien and stop you?

And I havent seen you post AZ law that says citizens must carry their "papers" as you've claimed. Can you post that for me?

A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.

2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

So citizens will have to have their papers to be presumed not an alien.