Democrats and Obama working quickly to pass an amnesty bill!

[WhipperSnapper]

The problem with that argument is, it didn't used to be illegal to come here, and the country flourished.

That was decades ago when our population was far below the current population of 300 million and when people could still push westward. The frontier is now closed; we've filled it. Now we have to confront the prospect of having 420-450 million people by 2050 and then figure out where all of the freshwater, clean air, land for housing, and arable land for food is going to come from. (Regarding land for food--the prime land is already being used, so to grow more food you need more than an acre of land (all things being equal otherwise) to grow the same amount of food).

Contrary to what starry eyed love-the-world liberals and free market dogmatists might tell you, the world and our nation's land do in fact have a carrying capacity and resources are limited and only exist in finite quantities. (Ever seen the movie Soylent Green?) There is only so much oil, natural gas, and coal in the world. Freshwater does not exist in infinite quantities and in recent years some parts of the country have reported shortages. (What will happen if the Colorado River every dries up? It can only supply so much water to the Southwest.)

Now, principles of basic economics tells us what happens when the demand for a good that exists in finite quantity increases relative to the availability of that good. The price point increases. This means that the cost of resources--land, clean freshwater that hasn't been polluted (pollution increases as population increases), lumber, oil, gas, coal, fish (we could pretty much fish out the ocean if we wanted to), farmland and thus food--must increase as the population increases. This means that people's standard of living must decrease. (This is what Thomas Malthus pointed out.) These costs increases will be very hard on the poor.

Some liberals argue that we need to allow immigration so that the population doesn't explode in the third world and also for humanitarian reasons, to rescue people from poverty. The problem is that there are so many poor people in the third world that it does little to alleviate problems in the third world and that it impoverishes other Americans. The population in the third world is increasing so rapidly that we could not possibly get ahead of it by taking in immigrants. If we want to help people in the third world we need to help them where they live. I recommend providing effective birth control so that they can address their Malthusian problems.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Glad I never heard of him.

I don't agree with everything Malthus said so I don't call myself a "Malthusian". However, Malthus isn't known and remembered for advocating eugenics. He's remembered for pointing out that an increased population in an area with limited resources decreases the well being of members of that population. This is often illustrated in Biology classes by looking at animal populations. When food is plentiful rabbits breed and when there are too many rabbits, some of the rabbits starve to death. When there are lots of rabbits, predators that eat rabbits will reproduce and after they've eaten too many and increased their population, they will start to die. This is sometimes known as Malthusian Biology.

This doesn't just apply to animals. It also happens to humans. Famine in the third world is a good example of what happens when the population gets to high. Here's an article all about how Haiti's high population led to its malaise; it's an interesting read and I hope you will read it:

(PDF File): Haiti's Problems and Their Lessons

Here's a quote of the first paragraph:

Few people have as much sympathy as I do for the
people of Haiti, especially for the children, for I saw their
desperate plight years before the earthquake. Led by
the U.S., many nations have now committed to solving
Haiti’s problems. The fact is that the immediate relief
problems and earthquake casualties would be much
less with a smaller population. The size of population
now, with the scale of the problems it creates, leads
to an increasingly chaotic situation. More population
exacerbates any efforts needed to solve humanity’s
problems, anywhere, be they immediate or long term.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I never advocated open borders, or illegal immigration. I do question if the changes made in 1965 that affects a country on our border, for the first time in history, makes sense.

My understanding of the situation is that amounts of legal immigration had been reduced after the Great Depression and was then significantly increased after 1965 to about 1 million per year now. See this clip from:

Immigration by the Numbers

1925-1965: 178,000/year

"but in 1965 Congress changed the immigration law and inadvertently sent the numbers skyrocketing"

1965-1989: Average of more than 500,000/year

1990s average: More than 800,000/year

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Can we at least agree on the following instead? "Illegal immigrants are criminals"

Once you get on board with that fact, we'll at least be able to base this discussion in reality, rather than some pretend-world where their first Federal crime -- entering the country illegally -- is ignored.

The problem is that many Americans disagree that it should be a crime any more than smoking marijuana should be a crime. The intellectual battle we need to fight is not that they are breaking our laws, but that mass legal immigration is bad for Americans.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I still favor granting mass amnesty pathways for all people LIVING here in the US now. There's a reason the census didn't care if you were a citizen or not.. we're more libertarian in the US than that.

I might be willing to agree to do that if that meant that after we do it, the borders are sealed and anyone who enters illegally will be summarily tossed out. But that's what was supposed to happen after the 1985 agreement and it never happened! So, it would be foolish for anyone to try to resolve this issue that way.

These people violated our laws and are taking advantage of and flaunting the generosity of the American people. Since they have violated legitimate and proper laws, it is completely justifiable for us to expel them forcibly. In order to protect Americans' economic interests and well being, the only course of action we should take is to expel them from the country by whatever means are necessary.

-Expand affirmative action's reach and power at least 2x (yes, I'm a white male so I have nothing to gain other than social justice).

How is it just to discriminate against white people who grow up in broken homes and in poverty in favor of black people who grew up in upper middle class homes? That very situation is legal and plausible under Affirmative Action. Instead we should abolish Affirmative Action and try to replace it with some sort of colorblind socioeconomic-based system.

That, and I've reached the point with dealing with "conservatives" that anything they oppose is generally a good idea.. or so I've found. Most opposition to recent immigration has nothing to do with The Law or right and wrong. It has to do with race and language.

That is blatantly intellectually dishonest. There are very legitimate non-racial and non-ethnic reasons for opposing immigration, as I have pointed out in other posts. You are being intellectually dishonest if you smear opponents of immigration with a broad brush like that. It's just a sign that you don't have a real argument--you can't explain why it's in Americans rational selfish economic interests.

Why don't you tell us your reasons for supporting immigration? How does it benefit Americans? How will giving citizenship to tens of millions of impoverished Mexicans benefit Americans? (It's not like we don't already have tens of millions of impoverished American citizens in this country.)

 

[palehorse]

The problem is that many Americans disagree that it should be a crime any more than smoking marijuana should be a crime. The intellectual battle we need to fight is not that they are breaking our laws, but that mass legal immigration is bad for Americans.

Actually, out here in the real world, I don't know anyone who does not view illegal entry into the U.S. as a criminal act. I'm also pretty damn sure that polling has shown for years that the vast majority of Americans are outright opposed to illegal immigration.

So perhaps "many" is too strong a word, no? Instead, maybe you should use "a handful of Americans," or "some"... or "a few"... or... "a very teeny tiny (kooky) minority who would like to see the end of national sovereignty and a world without borders"... 😀

EDIT: I believe the debate can be ended by leveraging both the Malthusian factors you described above and the judicial merits of the issue. The trick is finding the right combination of the two in order to convince each individual person who stands in opposition.

I just don't think anything will work without first locking down the entire border completely. Everything else is completely pointless if we leave our backdoor open... if the border situation remains status quo, in the end, as is always the case, we're just gonna get fucked!

We need to close our f'n backdoor! 😀

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You know, I don't necessarily agree with you that often, but you're a sharp cookie. In this case I agree totally, but even when I don't your posts make me think and re-examine my beliefs and facts from another angle. This is a particularly thoughtful, well reasoned, and well stated post (which makes me glad I agree because none of this is practically refutable.) I'm glad you are here even when I vehemently disagree with you.

That is a great compliment and part of the reason why I enjoy posting even when other people disagree with me. Thank you very much. I, too, appreciate the value of having my thoughts challenged and of being forced to chew on ideas.

Much of my intellectual development and my ability to identify and understand fundamental issues in debate and controversy was actually shaped by pro-capitalist novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. I was in fact an advocate of Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, up until about seven or eight years ago when I finally concluded that my true thoughts on some ethical issues and on economics had deviated significantly from the Objectivist philosophy. I've actually been debating politics and ideas on the Internet since about 1996 when I started debating on Usenet, although I was arguing in favor of laissez-faire capitalism back then. You'd probably benefit from reading Rand's works, much of which you would probably agree with, at least on economics. If you haven't already read Atlas Shrugged, I think you would enjoy it immensely. It is an epic and great novel. The theme is: “the role of the mind in man’s existence and, as corollary, the demonstration of a new moral philosophy: the morality of rational self-interest.” Imagine what would happen if all of the innovators and productive people went on strike in protest against socialism?

 

[Tristicus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_ylVIcoWRo

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Actually, out here in the real world, I don't know anyone who does not view illegal entry into the U.S. as a criminal act. I'm also pretty damn sure that polling has shown for years that the vast majority of Americans are outright opposed to illegal immigration.

So perhaps "many" is too strong a word, no? Instead, maybe you should use "a handful of Americans," or "some"... or "a few"... or... "a very teeny tiny (kooky) minority who would like to see the end of national sovereignty and a world without borders"... 😀

I hope that what you say is true, but I really don't know. I suspect that many Americans (not the majority necessarily) really don't think it's that big of a deal.

EDIT: I believe the debate can be ended by leveraging both the Malthusian factors you described above and the judicial merits of the issue. The trick is finding the right combination of the two in order to convince each individual person who stands in opposition.

I would hope that the economic arguments about self interest would win the day but they probably won't. I certainly agree that pushing the environmental aspect is a good strategy because many Americans, especially the Liberals who favor amnesty, also claim to support environmental concerns and mass immigration is at odds with that, forcing them to confront two contradictory policies that they support.

Unfortunately, the entire issue of population explosion and its effect on the environment receives short shrift from the mainstream media. I mean, population explosion isn't even an issue on the public radar. Talking about population growth is almost like talking about a third rail such as advocacy of eugenics and it shouldn't be.

 

[WAZ]

Of course we are. But I cant find anything that suggests we be a country with open borders, and why that is a great idea.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should have open borders either. We need to crack down on border control; hell, there's probably a pretty decent job market to be created in beefing up border security, where those new jobs could be paid for with the savings from fewer poor people entering the country and costing us money. I'm all for that. And I don't think many people are arguing for "Come one, come all!" The debate right now is really about what to do with the aliens who are already here.

So you also think our federal immigration laws smack of fascism?

No, because our federal laws don't give police the authority to stop someone in the street at will, demand their papers, and haul them off to jail if they don't have them.

The concern people have for the AZ law is the scope — the criteria used to determine if someone might be suspected of being an illegal immigrant? Skin color/nationality. That, at its root, is racial profiling, and makes the AZ law different from federal in the way it lays the groundwork for such.

I don't have the numbers handy, but I believe I heard like 70-80% of Arizonians support the harsher law. I get that; in their own backyard it's certainly much more real and frustrating than it is for me near Chicago. But with that kind of anger and determination (i.e. people in AZ have reached their boiling point; they want something done NOW), that has got to include the police. They're probably as anxious as anybody to crack down on illegal immigrants. The problem is, the new law gives these anxious police much broader grounds to do so.

Pull over a white guy for speeding and there's obviously no suspicion of being an illegal alien. Pull over a Mexican family who's done nothing different from that white guy, they were just speeding 10 MPH over, and what are the grounds for suspicion? Again, their race/nationality. They haven't DONE something "suspicious" but because the officer now has the right to question their citizenship, ask for their papers or else, the scope of what would be considered "suspicious" will be greatly expanded, and now based more on race by default. Intentional or not, that's the reality of racial profiling, and will inevitably result in plenty of innocent, legal Hispanics being harassed as well.

Of course if someone is committing a violent crime or gets arrested on, say, drug or weapons charges, and they can't prove they're legal citizens, then bam, off to jail and/or back to your own country. But a traffic stop? That's not a suspicious activity. Under the new law, the only thing suspicious about them is that they're Mexican.

The fact is, our federal laws havent been enforced in over 50 years, THAT is why we are in the problem we are. Perhaps we need to make a call to WADC to enforce the law? I believe as many that penalties for employing illegals needs to be stiff. As it is, the laws already in place are also not being enforced. THAT is an issue as well.

I agree. The lax enforcement of our existing laws is a real problem. I just don't think the AZ law is the solution. We REALLY need to focus on companies/employers hiring illegal aliens.

Who said that on this board? Certainly illegal aliens, at least here in AZ, commit violent crime at a percentage far higher than their legal counterparts. Those stats have been posted in one of the other threads (I posted them last week).

That's what my initial post in this thread was in response to. The question was, do you really want people like [these illegal aliens who were found to have criminal records] living next door. And the answer is no — but not any less than any other criminal, regardless of race/nationality/legal citizenship status. If you've committed a crime, whether you're an illegal immigrant or a U.S.-born, homegrown, (self-proclaimed) freedom-defending nutjob, I don't care what your nationality or citizenship status is, I don't want you as my neighbor.

I fully believe that if an illegal alien has committed a violent crime here, they're done. No chance at citizenship, no amnesty, no nothing. Jail or deportation. But my initial reply was to dispute the generic profiling of "Illegals are bad because they commit crimes." Of course it's easy to clump certain groups of people under a broad umbrella, but that doesn't help solve the problem.

If we applied the AZ law's concept to the rest of the country, a slick white guy in a business suit could be pulled over for speeding in his BMW in New York. He could be immediately suspected of committing bank fraud because recent events and generic profiling say this rich white dude is a threat to commit some white-collar crime. Not based on something suspicious he was actually doing, but just based on how he looks.

We dont need reform. We need to enforce laws already in place. Which is what we in AZ are going to do. You see, it has already been law that ANY alien carry "their papers" while in the United States. Thats not a new law; however, many places make it illegal to ENFORCE that law. Why do you think that is? Does that make ANY sense whatsoever?

Right, but under what pretenses may law enforcement demand someone's papers? Again I agree that we've been too lax on existing law, but the concern is racial profiling. "Suspecting" and arresting someone NOT because of something suspicious they've done, but because of how suspicious their Hispanic appearance makes them.

It's also law that I have my driver's license when driving, but I have forgotten my wallet at home before. If you're white and get pulled over without your license, you're fine (sadly, this has happened to me twice... d'oh 😳). I'd be terrified to be even a legal Mexican in AZ, though, because that would make me "suspicious" and without my wallet I'd be detained.

No it isnt. Even though illegal aliens make up <5% of Maricopa County (where Phoenix is) violent crimes commited by illegal aliens make up about 40% of all violent crime here. Thats the way it is.

Then the question is, what percentage of those illegal aliens are actually committing those crimes? It's not all of them.

Let's assume you have ~200,000 illegal aliens in Maricopa County. That doesn't mean you have 200,000 violent criminals. It's that smaller percentage of violent illegal immigrants that we need to root out.

And the fact that we have this data and have caught and detained these people and let them back out into the system is just a colossal failure. The ones that have NOT committed these crimes, in my opinion, are another story. The ones who are here to try to feed their families, escape unlivable and unsustainable living conditions, and have better opportunity for themselves and their families. We can't fault them for that, and we can't throw them in haphazardly under the umbrella with the percentage of others that are violent criminals.

These are the people I'm talking about giving an opportunity at citizenship, rather than arresting and deporting them because they made an improper turn on red and happened to be Mexican who we assumed was violent or suspcious.

So basically do what LEGAL immigrants have done?

More or less, yes. You can't turn back time; they're already here, many of them working for companies who hire them intentionally. I think you've already agreed we can't just up and deport 12 million people. IF they haven't committed a violent crime and WILL take the proper steps (i.e. learning a respectable amount of English, taking a citizenship test, paying taxes) then I think we should recognize that and allow them the opportunity to become naturalized citizens.

So you agree we already have a system in place. Im curious though...for those already here, which steps in our current immigration law would you choose to bypass?

Just to reiterate: this is only for those who have NOT, for example, committed a violent crime. And yes, crossing the border without permission was against the law, but so is speeding. (Obviously I'm not saying those are one in the same; I'm just pointing out that just because you break the law, which you're doing when you're going 10 MPH over the speed limit, that doesn't make you a "criminal"). It's a civil infraction, not a criminal act.

So for these people, I believe we should essentially be bypassing the instant, unquestioned deportation without an opportunity at legalizing their citizenship. We have a 3-strike rule for countless criminal acts, giving people multiple chances to right a wrong. So call this the "Immigration Second Chance Act" where as long as you haven't committed a violent crime, you may take the steps I listed earlier and have the chance to become a legal, naturalized citizen. In certain cases we could also, for example, expand on the Refugee Act and treat a percentage of the immigrants appropriately based on their situation. Of course these are in addition to cracking down on existing immigration law, and preventing millions more from continuing to pour through our borders.

I'm not saying these are THE solutions, but there are definitely steps we can take to uphold our safety and still, for lack of a thesaurus to help avoid a cliche, "do the right thing" and remain a land of opportunity. We are a nation of laws, but we're also a great, humanitarian nation. We can do better than the AZ law, which yes, I do believe will result in more racism and fascism-tinged results than we should be embracing.

OK Ive never said any of that lol

Yeah, I know. Sorry, sort of went on a tangent there. 😉 I didn't mean that to sound like it was directed at you, because it wasn't. It was more of a rant about the great anti-American hypocrisies that I see a lot of these days. The immigration debate (along with the health care debate, climate change debate, [insert political topic here] debate) just fuels it, and brings out the worst in people. Between the crazy violent people and all the calls about our "tyrannical" president (who's also a Nazi!), it sort of gets grouped together as this ridiculous sentiment and behavior that is decidedly un-American... hypocritical for people who claim to be great Americans &#8212; just concerned and defending our constitution &#8212; when the root of a lot of it is ideological and misguided.

Anyway, again, sorry, sort of a tangent/rant. And probably unfair of me to generalize, but that's just the un-American vibe I've been getting from a lot of the things I've heard/read about immigration, etc. As for us, I'm enjoying our good, solid debate here. 🙂

 

[werepossum]

That is a great compliment and part of the reason why I enjoy posting even when other people disagree with me. Thank you very much. I, too, appreciate the value of having my thoughts challenged and of being forced to chew on ideas.

Much of my intellectual development and my ability to identify and understand fundamental issues in debate and controversy was actually shaped by pro-capitalist novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. I was in fact an advocate of Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, up until about seven or eight years ago when I finally concluded that my true thoughts on some ethical issues and on economics had deviated significantly from the Objectivist philosophy. I've actually been debating politics and ideas on the Internet since about 1996 when I started debating on Usenet, although I was arguing in favor of laissez-faire capitalism back then. You'd probably benefit from reading Rand's works, much of which you would probably agree with, at least on economics. If you haven't already read Atlas Shrugged, I think you would enjoy it immensely. It is an epic and great novel. The theme is: “the role of the mind in man’s existence and, as corollary, the demonstration of a new moral philosophy: the morality of rational self-interest.” Imagine what would happen if all of the innovators and productive people went on strike in protest against socialism?

I find Rand's mind fascinating, but her prose is too thick for me to enjoy reading. I've purchased Atlas Shrugged a couple of times and never made it all the way through - great idea, but man I find it painful reading. I do endorse her economics in their broadest sense (although I find I'm more open to government-based solutions for those who truly can't help themselves; just like the country, socialism has crept into me. LOL) I certainly do agree though that "rational self-interest' (I prefer "enlightened self-interest") is what drives society to progress and that this should be nurtured, not warred upon.

 

[werepossum]

OT...THAT, sir, is sig worthy 😉

Thanks! I would have thought it to be nothing more than common sense . . .

 

[WAZ]

We're certainly not going to boot out 12 million-plus (as much as Arizona and more than 50&#37; of the rest of the nation would like to ).

fixed.

That's not exactly accurate. The polls &#8212; even the one(s) showing large margins of support &#8212; ask people's opinions of the new Arizona law. Not surprisingly, about 75% of Republicans support it while Democrats generally oppose it (34% support) and Independents are around 50%. Like everything else, it's largely political and, more understandably, regional (i.e. most support from the South).

But the results are beside the point. What the polls do NOT ask is, "Do you favor immediately and forcefully deporting 12-million people?" And they also do not ask WHY the respondents feel the way they do. It stands to reason that a lot of reaction to the AZ law is just applause for state government getting something done... an "in-your-face!" to the Federal Gov't, that if they aren't going to crack down on immigration, then goddammit we'll do it ourselves! Good to see someone finally doing something about it!

The fact that 3/4 of Republicans &#8212; those most against the current federal administration &#8212; come out swinging overwhelmingly in the polls, lends some weight to this theory. That, and the fact that almost ALL Americans acknowledge that something must be done about immigration. I don't think people in these polls even care what that is; they are just happy to see something, anything. Even the Maricopa County Sheriff (I think that was him) said that at the very least, AZ's law would play the Federal government's hand and force them to step it up. In that respect, it may well work.

They modified the law last week. Now, it only effects people who are stopped, detained, or arrested for another crime or violation. Sure, it could be abused -- but so can every other law, of every type, in the entire world.

Therefore, that point -- and that of 99% of the protesters -- is now moot.

Mmm... not exactly. As I said earlier in another post, the scope of what is deemed "suspicious activity" is the main concern. Obviously it's one thing if someone is busted for a robbery, drugs, weapons, a violent crime, etc. Then, by all means, they'd better have their papers or they're out of here. (And honestly, if they're committing a violent crime, they should be imprisoned and/or deported anyway... no second chances, no amnesty, no way you're going to be naturalized).

But a routine traffic stop should not be grounds to interrogate someone suspiciously. As with any other law, it's obviously the officer's discretion as to what's considered suspicious (i.e. if they're acting peculiar or there's something about the car or the people that grabs the officer's attention), but as it stands now it's leaving the door open for being harassed simply by being Mexican. A white guy jaywalks and it's not too big of a deal. Make it a Hispanic family and suddenly the door is open; an officer has reason to believe they're illegal aliens (why else but because they're Mexican?), demand their papers and detain them.

Obviously any law can be abused. So it's important to structure them the best possible way to avoid that. Right now the AZ law is too wide open for abuse. When it reeks of "rounding people up", that's no good. You can imagine the world reaction to the sight of Americans rounding up lines of Latinos, and filing millions of them out the door. It's not a good sight, would only hurt others' views of our country, and is frankly un-American. We're better than that.

Can we at least agree on the following instead? "Illegal immigrants are criminals"

Once you get on board with that fact, we'll at least be able to base this discussion in reality, rather than some pretend-world where their first Federal crime -- entering the country illegally -- is ignored.

Fair enough point, as it pertains to violent crime... but, once again, every American citizen is not a criminal, but every illegal immigrant, by definition, is a criminal. Have you admitted as much yet?

Sorry, but no.

They ARE here illegally, but I don't believe that makes (all of) them "criminals". Not any more than driving 65 in a 55 on my way to work today made me a "criminal". It's a non-criminal, civil offense.

I referenced this earlier: Obviously I'm not saying those are one in the same; I'm just pointing out that just because you break the law, which you're doing when you're going 10 MPH over the speed limit, that doesn't make you a "criminal". It's a civil infraction, not a criminal act.

And I think people who have come here seeking a better life, a chance at work and shelter, food and clean water for their families, cannot be faulted for wanting that &#8212; and should not be criminalized the same as violent criminals. Our immigration laws are not criminal statutes; the sheer act of crossing the border and/or staying here without permission is not a criminal act. If you're talking smuggling or document fraud, etc, that's another story.

Perhaps we should offer amnesty to all first time offenders of non-violent Federal laws... no? Why not? Race? Ethnicity? Severity?... ... Says who? That's essentially a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" for 12 million criminals. Interesting dilemma, eh?

It is a dilemma and there's no easy solution. But I think it could start somewhere in the middle of what you just said. Yes, in a way, it is sort of a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" &#8212; not unlike the 3-strike rules and other existing laws that allow countless REAL criminals to get out of jail and get second and third chances.

We don't need to get into detail about how many people have committed VIOLENT acts (say, rape) and get released from prison only to strike again. And sometimes again after that. Obviously that's a "real" crime FAR worse than the act of crossing the border.

So yes, I think a sort of "Second Chance Act" would be a place to start: give non-violent illegal aliens the opportunity to become legal citizens and become a normal, tax-paying part of society. Seeing how our justice system treats certain violent criminals, it certainly wouldn't be some outrageous, uncharted territory.

/AGREED! However, it should be noted that it is already illegal to do so. Now, if only there was a way to ensure the existing Federal laws are enforced properly... hmm... I have an idea... since the Federal Government has completely failed to enforce their own laws, why don't we let each state handle it instead? Why don't we figure out a way to simply have each state enforce the existing Federal laws? Oh, wait... Arizona just tried that and everyone thinks they overstepped their bounds and went apeshit crazy?! DOH! WTF?! How does that make sense? What did they do wrong?!

Well, I think there's a good chance AZ's take on it (which was to take the Federal Laws and broaden their scope for AZ law enforcement) will push the Federal Government into reforming and finding ways to enforce the Federal laws.

Palehorse' compromise:
Step 1: Lock the border down like fucking prison, except reversed -- guns facing outward. Utilize the National Guard when/where they're needed to make this happen (PLEASE make sure they are permitted to carry real ammunition this time!!!) Double or triple the size of the USCBP and arm them to the teeth.

Step 2: For a period not to exceed 24 months, we shall grant amnesty to any illegal immigrant who does NOT have a violent criminal record. Deport any illegal immigrant who DOES have a violent criminal record -- no exceptions. After the 24 month "amnesty period" is up, ALL illegals who failed to register for said amnesty will be deported upon discovery

Step 3: Fully enforce existing immigration laws for illegal immigrants. All persons entering the country illegally in the future will be asked to justify a case for asylum. If their request for asylum is denied, they will be deported the same day.

Step 4: Fully enforce existing immigration laws for anyone who hires, or attempts to hire, illegal immigrants. Fine them, jail them, and/or liquidate their companies/assets for repeat offenders.

Step 5: Spend some money to make the legal immigration process more efficient and effective throughout the world.

5 Steps... finished.. done.

/compromise.

Truthfully, as much as I've seemed to disagree in theory with a lot of the rest of your post, I think we've found some real common ground here.:thumbsup: I agree with (and posted earlier in favor of) most of these 5 steps... some almost verbatim.

I don't know how a bunch of shoot-on-sight deaths at the border would play out... :hmm: But I agree the borders need to be stronger; beefed up security and Border Patrol for sure. The rest of your steps I completely agree with, especially #2 and #4, to a tee. Add in a requirement to learn a high school level of English to become a U.S. citizen and I think we're golden.

Okay, America's immigration problem = solved. Next! 😀

 

[blackangst1]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should have open borders either. We need to crack down on border control; hell, there's probably a pretty decent job market to be created in beefing up border security, where those new jobs could be paid for with the savings from fewer poor people entering the country and costing us money. I'm all for that. And I don't think many people are arguing for "Come one, come all!" The debate right now is really about what to do with the aliens who are already here.

Mmmmkay...we agree then.

No, because our federal laws don't give police the authority to stop someone in the street at will, demand their papers, and haul them off to jail if they don't have them.

And neither does AZ law. At all. If you think it does, please provide specific statute language and the circumstance in which this will happen. And in return, I will provide statute language, as well as court cases, showing they cant, and wont as policy. Ball is in your court.

The concern people have for the AZ law is the scope &#8212; the criteria used to determine if someone might be suspected of being an illegal immigrant? Skin color/nationality. That, at its root, is racial profiling, and makes the AZ law different from federal in the way it lays the groundwork for such.

You just basically said you havent read the bill. So, the rest of your rant is baseless.

 

[blackangst1]

Mmm... not exactly. As I said earlier in another post, the scope of what is deemed "suspicious activity" is the main concern. Obviously it's one thing if someone is busted for a robbery, drugs, weapons, a violent crime, etc. Then, by all means, they'd better have their papers or they're out of here. (And honestly, if they're committing a violent crime, they should be imprisoned and/or deported anyway... no second chances, no amnesty, no way you're going to be naturalized).

But a routine traffic stop should not be grounds to interrogate someone suspiciously. As with any other law, it's obviously the officer's discretion as to what's considered suspicious (i.e. if they're acting peculiar or there's something about the car or the people that grabs the officer's attention), but as it stands now it's leaving the door open for being harassed simply by being Mexican. A white guy jaywalks and it's not too big of a deal. Make it a Hispanic family and suddenly the door is open; an officer has reason to believe they're illegal aliens (why else but because they're Mexican?), demand their papers and detain them.

Man, with all due respect, youre an idiot, and a perfect mouthpiece for the pro illegal alien crowd. This rhetoric is worse than those who used to spout "death panel" shit. Seriously. You havent read the law, and you havent read court precedence on reasonable suspicion, and you havent read analysis of it. Do yourself a favor and spend a week doing that. How do I know you havent done that? By this lie here:

Well, I think there's a good chance AZ's take on it (which was to take the Federal Laws and broaden their scope for AZ law enforcement)

AZ law mirrors federal. It doesnt expand anything. If you believe it does, then by all means provide the state statute that does so. Go ahead. No one else has been able to. Be a hero. Otherwise, accept youre wrong and move on.

If you want to continue to post lies and trolls, I guess dont be surprised when poople arent as civilized as Im trying to be. Because youre DEAD wrong.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP Our immigration laws are not criminal statutes; the sheer act of crossing the border and/or staying here without permission is not a criminal act. If you're talking smuggling or document fraud, etc, that's another story.

I believe our immigration laws are indeed criminal statutes. The only other possibility would be that they are suggestions. You will note that while many law schools offer courses in immigration law, very few offer course in immigration suggestions.

SNIP
Well, I think there's a good chance AZ's take on it (which was to take the Federal Laws and broaden their scope for AZ law enforcement) will push the Federal Government into reforming and finding ways to enforce the Federal laws.

SNIP

There's a much better chance that Arizona's new law will push the Federal Government into finding ways to negate the Arizona law. It's not by accident that existing Federal laws are not being enforced.

 

[WAZ]

And neither does AZ law. At all. If you think it does, please provide specific statute language and the circumstance in which this will happen. And in return, I will provide statute language, as well as court cases, showing they cant, and wont as policy. Ball is in your court.

Okay, you'll have some reading to do, though, as I won't keep this short. Disclaimer: the all-caps are from the bill; I'm not yelling here. 😉

"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 THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL"

"Any lawful contact" can mean anything. If an officer strolls up to you on the street to ask what you thought of the Coyotes losing to the Red Wings, he's made "lawful contact" (it wasn't illegal contact!). No, they can't bust into someone's house without a warrant, which of course would be illegal, but the text "any lawful contact" could be construed and expanded in so many ways, THAT is where people's initial fear of "sweeping through the streets, asking for people's papers" came from. Not that that would happen, and I know that wasn't the intent, but the language left the door open for it.

Now, of course, they've responded to that and modified the language to say "any lawful stop, detention or arrest." That is a good thing, a start at least &#8212; it's been changed so it can't be interpreted (be either opponents of the bill or by officers themselves, which is important) as an ability walk up to someone randomly on the street who has not done anything visibly wrong, make ANY "lawful contact" with them and ask for their ID.

But in reality, a town, city, county or state officer's "lawful stop, detention or arrest" of someone can still be just about anything. It's not limiting it to someone in the process of being arrested for even a Class 6 Felony; it's saying any LAWFUL STOP: i.e. speeding, jaywalking, violations of property codes (overgrown weeds? car on blocks in the yard?), DUI sweeps or seat belt checks, improper lane change, taillight out, name it. Hell, I was pulled over at 3 AM one night for hugging the right side of the road too much, in the officer's opinion; I hadn't had a drop to drink, I wasn't speeding or swerving or anything, but it was late and I was probably tired and apparently had my car positioned too far to the right of my lane. Pretty petty traffic stop, I thought, but no big deal &#8212; no harm, no foul, and I was on my way. But the point is, it was a perfectly "lawful stop".

Now what grounds would an officer have to suspect me of being here illegally? I'm Caucasian, so none. But say I was Latino in that exact same scenario. I haven't committed a crime, I'm not being arrested... but the officer HAS made a "lawful stop". NOW what grounds does he have to suspect my citizenship? Yep, the fact that I'm Latino. By definition, that's racial profiling.

"WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES"

What would make an officer suspicious that a person is an illegal alien? Yeah, of course something like seeing movement under that blanket in the back of the truck. But aside from the obvious, you can come up with anything: "The driver looked nervous and had shifty eyes." It doesn't really matter what it is, the prime criteria for having your citizenship suspected is race/nationality. Legal immigrants need to carry their birth certificates (for an officer who says your driver's license, IF said individual even drives, is not enough valid proof) and can have their citizenship questioned and proof demanded at a routine traffic stop.

Of course this also applies to a Latino family who just wants to visit Arizona. Not to a white family driving through, but just to Latinos. The problem is, they WON'T be asking for identification or birth certificates from the Canadian murderer or the drug-smuggling white Texan. This suspicion will be of any Latino who has been stopped by an officer for anything. No matter how you spin it, it's racial profiling.

But, but, but... "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution. [...] The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based on race, color or national origin."

Unfortunately this doesn't PREVENT said racial profiling from happening. Unless they're solely rooting out the people smuggling in a trunk full of immigrants &#8212; basically the illegal aliens who are dumb enough and just asking to get caught &#8212; then I ask again, under what other grounds is someone "suspicious" of being here illegally?

What you're going to have are a lot of we said/they said lawsuits. If a cop pulls a Latino over and questions their immigrant status, do you think he's going to tell the court he did it based on race/nationality? Of course not! The Latino says the cop did it based on race, the cop says the guy looked nervous and had shifty eyes which made him suspicious. Unless the guy really WAS doing something (i.e. had drugs or a weapon on him, was hiding someone in his trunk, or other "suspicious" action that could be proven) then it's going to be damn near IMPOSSIBLE to say the officer's actions were NOT based on race/nationality.

I'm not saying all AZ cops are crooked and are going to widely and blatantly abuse the system. But it's hard to deny it WILL happen. You're talking about 80&#37; of people in your area favoring this immigration crackdown; there's a very strong anti-immigration sentiment there (don't get me wrong: that's understandable when it's in your own backyard, and as I said before, that's something I can't relate to near Chicago). But that doesn't make it right &#8212; or Constitutionally legal &#8212; to target and suspect people based on race. Yet it WILL happen.

And when the state gives law enforcement this latitude to question citizenship and demand papers at a traffic stop or when responding to a routine noise complaint, when 4 out of 5 of them want to "root these leeching bastards out," you're going to have an overreach of power. Intentional or not, it's an extremely likely scenario... far more likely than one where this only affects the percentage of suspicious (smuggling? violent?) criminals it should. You know damn well Arizonians are anxious to start rolling on this. I've seen posts by people saying, "About damn time; I wish I was a cop in AZ right about now!" That's the attitude right now, and it's rooted in anger and an urgency to do something&#8212;anything&#8212;and fast. And I see where people directly involved might feel that way, but that doesn't make it right if this is the result, intended or not.

If the law was limited to, say, an actual arrest for a certain level of specified crime &#8212; if they modified the language to remove "lawful stop" and instead specified "lawful detention or arrest for at least a Class [X] felony/misdemeanor" &#8212; I don't think we'd be having this conversation. You'd be targeting the people doing something unlawful, while greatly protecting innocent, legal immigrants from baseless, race-based questioning, and making it explicitly clear that Latinos not doing anything wrong (outside, of course, routine traffic/civil/property violations) could NOT be interrogated because they look Latino (suspicious) or fear detainment for not having their papers.

You'd also prevent a hell of a lot of lawsuits. If you want to link to a bunch of court cases where he said/she said and they threw it out because of something race-based, be my guest. I know cases can be thrown out WHEN civil rights violations are actually determined; that's not proving anything. And it doesn't quell concerns that racial profiling &#8212; finding reasons to question someone's status &#8212; will still be at the root of a lot of these. If it results in countless cases dropped due to civil rights violations, then what; now we've just wasted everyone's time and tax dollars and the cases are being thrown out anyway. If that's the case, I guess the law won't do much of anything and this is all a moot argument.

That's why it needs to go further to prevent racial profiling and reduce this granted power back to federal law levels. And if federal law allows police to question your immigration status and demand your papers because you had a taillight out, then that's all the more reason the law needs to be REFORMED.

Man, with all due respect, youre an idiot

... says the guy with Alex Jones' hilarious drivel in his sig. LOL.

No need to get shitty when someone disagrees with you, son, but I guess I'm not surprised. For a second I thought I was having a conversation, but you've just reminded me that you're just another right-wing hack. So thanks for wasting my time.

Honestly, I thought you were the one; I thought you were different. I feel a bit disappointed and led-on, but I guess it's best this came out now before we went any further in our relationship. I think a clean break is best. Ah well, I'll always have the memories...

 

[blackangst1]

Okay, you'll have some reading to do, though, as I won't keep this short. Disclaimer: the all-caps are from the bill; I'm not yelling here. 😉

"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 THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL"

"Any lawful contact" can mean anything. If an officer strolls up to you on the street to ask what you thought of the Coyotes losing to the Red Wings, he's made "lawful contact" (it wasn't illegal contact!). No, they can't bust into someone's house without a warrant, which of course would be illegal, but the text "any lawful contact" could be construed and expanded in so many ways, THAT is where people's initial fear of "sweeping through the streets, asking for people's papers" came from. Not that that would happen, and I know that wasn't the intent, but the language left the door open for it.

Now, of course, they've responded to that and modified the language to say "any lawful stop, detention or arrest." That is a good thing, a start at least &#8212; it's been changed so it can't be interpreted (be either opponents of the bill or by officers themselves, which is important) as an ability walk up to someone randomly on the street who has not done anything visibly wrong, make ANY "lawful contact" with them and ask for their ID.

But in reality, a town, city, county or state officer's "lawful stop, detention or arrest" of someone can still be just about anything. It's not limiting it to someone in the process of being arrested for even a Class 6 Felony; it's saying any LAWFUL STOP: i.e. speeding, jaywalking, violations of property codes (overgrown weeds? car on blocks in the yard?), DUI sweeps or seat belt checks, improper lane change, taillight out, name it. Hell, I was pulled over at 3 AM one night for hugging the right side of the road too much, in the officer's opinion; I hadn't had a drop to drink, I wasn't speeding or swerving or anything, but it was late and I was probably tired and apparently had my car positioned too far to the right of my lane. Pretty petty traffic stop, I thought, but no big deal &#8212; no harm, no foul, and I was on my way. But the point is, it was a perfectly "lawful stop".

Now what grounds would an officer have to suspect me of being here illegally? I'm Caucasian, so none. But say I was Latino in that exact same scenario. I haven't committed a crime, I'm not being arrested... but the officer HAS made a "lawful stop". NOW what grounds does he have to suspect my citizenship? Yep, the fact that I'm Latino. By definition, that's racial profiling.

In your scenario you contridict yourself because if said latino hasnt done anything wrong, and wasnt acting suspicious, there would be no lawful stop, correct? Also, you might want to read up on the statutes for stop and ID states (there are 24 of them, AZ being one). Specifically Terry vs Ohio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio. A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio.

"WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES"

What would make an officer suspicious that a person is an illegal alien? Yeah, of course something like seeing movement under that blanket in the back of the truck. But aside from the obvious, you can come up with anything: "The driver looked nervous and had shifty eyes." It doesn't really matter what it is, the prime criteria for having your citizenship suspected is race/nationality. Legal immigrants need to carry their birth certificates (for an officer who says your driver's license, IF said individual even drives, is not enough valid proof) and can have their citizenship questioned and proof demanded at a routine traffic stop.

Reasonable suspicion has been covered ad nauseum, with court cases provided. Do you think AZ LEO are just getting into the illegal immigration game? Maybe you read where Ive posted Maricopa County and Sheriff Joe ALONE has had over 2100 lawsuits filed against them in the last 4-5 years for exactly the thing youre alleging, including by the ACLU. Guess how many have stuck.....NONE. What that means is, the courts have ruled the circumstances in each case did not, in fact, violate anyone's rights, and each case was legal. Im not sure why you think this bill will somehow give them more cause for illegal stops. Now, if youre questioning reasonable suspicion, you have to question it in EVERY law. Many laws are based on this. But reasonable suspicion has been covered by the courts in Terry vs Ohio.

Of course this also applies to a Latino family who just wants to visit Arizona. Not to a white family driving through, but just to Latinos. The problem is, they WON'T be asking for identification or birth certificates from the Canadian murderer or the drug-smuggling white Texan. This suspicion will be of any Latino who has been stopped by an officer for anything. No matter how you spin it, it's racial profiling.

But, but, but... "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution. [...] The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based on race, color or national origin."

Unfortunately this doesn't PREVENT said racial profiling from happening. Unless they're solely rooting out the people smuggling in a trunk full of immigrants &#8212; basically the illegal aliens who are dumb enough and just asking to get caught &#8212; then I ask again, under what other grounds is someone "suspicious" of being here illegally?

Im not sure what youre looking for here. It seems you are looking for a laundry list of specific circumstances in which LEO can question immigration status. That, sir, is unreasonable. Reasonable suspicion is at the officers discretion, as it should be. Theres no way a laundry list of "permitted circumstances" could possibly be written into law. If you did it with this law, you would have to do it for every law. But, as I mentioned above, AZ LEO has already been down this road, and have been shown to be professional, respectful, and within the law. Is is possible some officer will profile? Absolutely. But you cant legislate that possibility away. It just cant be done. What can be done, however, is to make the legislation as restrictive as possible, which is what AZ has done. But if abuses happen, they will need to be looked at one case at a time, as has been done over 2100 times in Maricopa County. If abuses DO happen, you can bet the courts will be all over it.

What you're going to have are a lot of we said/they said lawsuits. If a cop pulls a Latino over and questions their immigrant status, do you think he's going to tell the court he did it based on race/nationality? Of course not! The Latino says the cop did it based on race, the cop says the guy looked nervous and had shifty eyes which made him suspicious. Unless the guy really WAS doing something (i.e. had drugs or a weapon on him, was hiding someone in his trunk, or other "suspicious" action that could be proven) then it's going to be damn near IMPOSSIBLE to say the officer's actions were NOT based on race/nationality.

There already are, and have been, alot of said lawsuits. And in each case, the officers involved were found to have followed the law. What more do you want?

I'm not saying all AZ cops are crooked and are going to widely and blatantly abuse the system. But it's hard to deny it WILL happen. You're talking about 80&#37; of people in your area favoring this immigration crackdown; there's a very strong anti-immigration sentiment there (don't get me wrong: that's understandable when it's in your own backyard, and as I said before, that's something I can't relate to near Chicago). But that doesn't make it right &#8212; or Constitutionally legal &#8212; to target and suspect people based on race. Yet it WILL happen.

And if it does, the courts will deal with it. As theyve done over 2100 times in Maricopa County alone.

And when the state gives law enforcement this latitude to question citizenship and demand papers at a traffic stop or when responding to a routine noise complaint, when 4 out of 5 of them want to "root these leeching bastards out," you're going to have an overreach of power. Intentional or not, it's an extremely likely scenario... far more likely than one where this only affects the percentage of suspicious (smuggling? violent?) criminals it should. You know damn well Arizonians are anxious to start rolling on this. I've seen posts by people saying, "About damn time; I wish I was a cop in AZ right about now!" That's the attitude right now, and it's rooted in anger and an urgency to do something&#8212;anything&#8212;and fast. And I see where people directly involved might feel that way, but that doesn't make it right if this is the result, intended or not.

Can you explain why the federal law AZ mirrors hasnt come under the same scrutiny? And can you explain why there isnt such a big crowd claiming federal law requiring all aliens to carry their papers while in the USA isnt overstepping constitutional boundaries?

If the law was limited to, say, an actual arrest for a certain level of specified crime &#8212; if they modified the language to remove "lawful stop" and instead specified "lawful detention or arrest for at least a Class [X] felony/misdemeanor" &#8212; I don't think we'd be having this conversation. You'd be targeting the people doing something unlawful, while greatly protecting innocent, legal immigrants from baseless, race-based questioning, and making it explicitly clear that Latinos not doing anything wrong (outside, of course, routine traffic/civil/property violations) could NOT be interrogated because they look Latino (suspicious) or fear detainment for not having their papers.

There you go again saying LEO will target latinos 🙄 The fact is, due to existing stop and identify statutes, and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, precedent has already been set in regards to whats legal and whats not. So your fears are completely unfounded.

You'd also prevent a hell of a lot of lawsuits. If you want to link to a bunch of court cases where he said/she said and they threw it out because of something race-based, be my guest.

Ive linked plenty of cases that support AZ law, if you care to read them. AZ isnt doing anything that doesnt have a case setting precedent. That and, before this law, AZ LEO have hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits filed against them every year.

I know cases can be thrown out WHEN civil rights violations are actually determined; that's not proving anything. And it doesn't quell concerns that racial profiling &#8212; finding reasons to question someone's status &#8212; will still be at the root of a lot of these. If it results in countless cases dropped due to civil rights violations, then what; now we've just wasted everyone's time and tax dollars and the cases are being thrown out anyway. If that's the case, I guess the law won't do much of anything and this is all a moot argument.

Then why is federal law able to exist?

That's why it needs to go further to prevent racial profiling and reduce this granted power back to federal law levels. And if federal law allows police to question your immigration status and demand your papers because you had a taillight out, then that's all the more reason the law needs to be REFORMED.

Nothing needs to be reformed. What needs to happen is existing law needs to be ENFORCED.

No need to get shitty when someone disagrees with you, son, but I guess I'm not surprised. For a second I thought I was having a conversation, but you've just reminded me that you're just another right-wing hack. So thanks for wasting my time.

Well, you seem to be ignoring everything Ive posted. How about I change idiot to hard headed?

Honestly, I thought you were the one; I thought you were different. I feel a bit disappointed and led-on, but I guess it's best this came out now before we went any further in our relationship. I think a clean break is best. Ah well, I'll always have the memories...

Sorry to have pummled you with facts that you seem to be ignoring. Sorry to disappoint 🙂

 

[WAZ]

Ugh... Okay, I've read your other posts in other threads about this subject and besides reading them being an exhausting exercise in Groundhogs Day re-enactments, I now realize that this debate is basically going nowhere, as everyone who argues with you is called, in your words, a "tool", an "idiot", or something else condescending. I chimed in originally because I thought we could have a real discussion, but from your trends in posting (everywhere) on this subject, unfortunately it's obvious that will be impossible. If I wanted to get into childish name-calling I'd pick a fight with a 6-year-old... I wasn't aware that's what was going on here.

That said, I'll address a couple of points and continue to go further nowhere in this debate because watching you balance on that soapbox is making me queasy.

In your scenario you contridict yourself because if said latino hasnt done anything wrong, and wasnt acting suspicious, there would be no lawful stop, correct?

Incorrect. A "lawful stop" can be a missing taillight, leaving your brights on accidentally, being visited because a neighbor complained that your weeds are overgrown or you were making too much noise — even if you weren't. But regardless, even if the Latino hasn't "done" something wrong or committed a crime, a complaint has been made and the officer is there, having now made lawful contact.

From there it's up to him if he thinks the person might be an illegal immigrant. What might he base that on? I'll ask again what you ignored earlier:

Unless they're solely rooting out the people smuggling in a trunk full of immigrants or committing a crime in plain view — basically the illegal aliens who are dumb enough and just asking to get caught — then I ask again, under what other grounds, besides their race/nationality, is someone suspected of being here illegally?

The concern is that race/nationality will indeed be the basis for many illegal immigrant busts, as well as demanding papers from and mistakenly detaining LEGAL immigrants.

Go ahead, say it won't. I am fully aware now you can predict the future to a tee, while I am incapable of such speculation (unless it mirrors yours). The truth is, right now, we're both making guesses and assumptions as to how this will play out... with our opinions based unsurprisingly in our beliefs and politics.

Im not sure what youre looking for here. It seems you are looking for a laundry list of specific circumstances in which LEO can question immigration status. That, sir, is unreasonable. Reasonable suspicion is at the officers discretion, as it should be. Theres no way a laundry list of "permitted circumstances" could possibly be written into law. If you did it with this law, you would have to do it for every law.

Nope, I just want a few examples from you. If someone is not "doing" something suspicious, but they HAVE been pulled over for a simple traffic infraction or a neighbor sent a cop to their house to investigate the loud music, then the officer can still question their citizenship and demand their papers. I'd like an idea of what that could be based on, besides race/nationality, if the person is not "doing" something suspicious but has still been "lawfully stopped".

A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio.

Everyone knows what a Terry Stop is. Unfortunately, the wrinkle in the AZ law is this: while it's common to stop a person suspected of criminal activity, or even pull someone over and stumble upon guns, drugs, stolen vehicle, etc, there are no grounds to suspect someone of BEING an illegal immigrant except for their race/nationality. If you LOOK Latino, you're immediately suspected and CAN be demanded to show your papers.

We're not talking about not detaining suspicious individuals who have committed a crime and are found to be illegal aliens. I'm (everyone's?) all for that. The problem is with the criteria used to determine if someone is an illegal alien. It's impossible to make that assumption without basing it on their race/nationality. That's the sheer nature of it.

Having blood on your shirt makes you suspicious of being involved in a violent crime. Swerving and slurring your speech during a traffic stop makes you suspicious of DUI. "Being Mexican" makes you suspicious of being an illegal immigrant. And even if you're NOT doing something suspicious, just "Being Mexican" is enough grounds to have your citizenship questioned and papers demanded, once that officer has made that first "lawful stop".

As I said earlier, I think if you eliminate "lawful stop" and focus it on people engaged in legitimate, proven/provable suspicious or criminal activity, then we have far less of a problem. Then LEGAL immigrants cannot be targeted unless they're really do something wrong or suspicious. The Hiibel case is based on an officer's determination that the person is engaged in criminal activity. It's a stretch to say the Latino with the missing taillight was engaged in a criminal activity the officer feels a need to dispel suspicion of.

You can point to precedent all you want, but there's no knowing how those will hold up with the new law. Since you no longer have to be doing an actual suspicious activity, it is up to the officer (where 80% of Arizonians want an illegal alien crackdown) to ponder whether the person they've pulled over might be an illegal alien. Again, if they're not doing anything criminal or suspicious per se, but the officer HAS made lawful stop on other grounds, then the criteria to question them and demand papers boils pretty much down to being a minority = could be illegal.

And the 2,100 cases against your Sheriff Joe are a fascinating look at where tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars are going. I feel that the loopholes for lawsuits are even bigger now, with the potential to create MORE lawsuits and cost MORE taxpayer money. In my opinion, they'd be better served tightening those loopholes and focusing the effort on a more specific group — those actually engaging in criminal activity and being arrested, and NOT those who happened to be lawfully stopped for the slightest of civil infractions but can, by human nature, be suspected for no other reason than because they're a minority.

Of course, my opinion doesn't matter and is not going to change anything, so instead of kicking the shit out of that dead horse I think I'm done trying to articulate it. I'll accept being hard-headed if you'll accept the scathing irony of you calling me that. 🙂

 

[blackangst1]

Ugh... Okay, I've read your other posts in other threads about this subject and besides reading them being an exhausting exercise in Groundhogs Day re-enactments, I now realize that this debate is basically going nowhere, as everyone who argues with you is called, in your words, a "tool", an "idiot", or something else condescending. I chimed in originally because I thought we could have a real discussion, but from your trends in posting (everywhere) on this subject, unfortunately it's obvious that will be impossible. If I wanted to get into childish name-calling I'd pick a fight with a 6-year-old... I wasn't aware that's what was going on here.

That said, I'll address a couple of points and continue to go further nowhere in this debate because watching you balance on that soapbox is making me queasy.


Incorrect. A "lawful stop" can be a missing taillight, leaving your brights on accidentally, being visited because a neighbor complained that your weeds are overgrown or you were making too much noise — even if you weren't. But regardless, even if the Latino hasn't "done" something wrong or committed a crime, a complaint has been made and the officer is there, having now made lawful contact.

From there it's up to him if he thinks the person might be an illegal immigrant. What might he base that on? I'll ask again what you ignored earlier:

Unless they're solely rooting out the people smuggling in a trunk full of immigrants or committing a crime in plain view — basically the illegal aliens who are dumb enough and just asking to get caught — then I ask again, under what other grounds, besides their race/nationality, is someone suspected of being here illegally?

You have not read the ruling on Terry v Ohio, or Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, have you? (Im sure you have, yet you ask this?) Is reasonable suspicion still fuzzy for you? You understand that standard is used in much of law enforcement investigations, right?

The concern is that race/nationality will indeed be the basis for many illegal immigrant busts, as well as demanding papers from and mistakenly detaining LEGAL immigrants.

Go ahead, say it won't. I am fully aware now you can predict the future to a tee, while I am incapable of such speculation (unless it mirrors yours). The truth is, right now, we're both making guesses and assumptions as to how this will play out... with our opinions based unsurprisingly in our beliefs and politics.

Ive never said it wasnt a possibility. In fact, what Ive said was, it is; however, Ive also pointed out that the rules of reasonable suspicion are pretty defined, by SCOTUS. Ive also said that any investigations that find that profiling did in fact take place, I support punishing that behavior. In all your reading I guess you missed that. Perhaps you also missed where I stated AZ LEO is not a rookie in the racial profiling accusation game. The first federal investigation into such practices, that I know of, was about 4-5 years ago, as well as ACLU lawsuit against Maricopa, as well as another 1200 or so lawsuits against Maricopa in the last 4 years...all of which failed to come up with a conviction. Why? Because in this country an illegal alien can sue, and they, along with those here legally who support them, are PISSED. Im not talking about the average illegal but rather the criminal sector.Because AZ LEO are costing the human, drug, and weapons smugglers BILLIONS. Do you not think if all this abuse was so rampant, and the possibilities so great, at least ONE case would come to fruition?

Nope, I just want a few examples from you. If someone is not "doing" something suspicious, but they HAVE been pulled over for a simple traffic infraction or a neighbor sent a cop to their house to investigate the loud music, then the officer can still question their citizenship and demand their papers. I'd like an idea of what that could be based on, besides race/nationality, if the person is not "doing" something suspicious but has still been "lawfully stopped".


Everyone knows what a Terry Stop is. Unfortunately, the wrinkle in the AZ law is this: while it's common to stop a person suspected of criminal activity, or even pull someone over and stumble upon guns, drugs, stolen vehicle, etc, there are no grounds to suspect someone of BEING an illegal immigrant except for their race/nationality. If you LOOK Latino, you're immediately suspected and CAN be demanded to show your papers.

Really? Thats it? Have you spoken to AZ LEO or seen video or read interviews on how legal questioning could reveal theyre illegal? Or maybe federal ICE agents? I doubt you have, and I believe you are being far too simplistic. Again, I hate to say this again, but you would think with all the pressure AZ LEO and Sheriff Joe have gotten over the last few years ONE case would make it through as a conviction, no? How do you explain that?

We're not talking about not detaining suspicious individuals who have committed a crime and are found to be illegal aliens. I'm (everyone's?) all for that. The problem is with the criteria used to determine if someone is an illegal alien. It's impossible to make that assumption without basing it on their race/nationality. That's the sheer nature of it.

Ah, so questioning certainly couldnt reveal that, could it? You honestly think the only way to do it is ask "are you an alien or a citizen"? Really? Then you underestimate LEO.

Having blood on your shirt makes you suspicious of being involved in a violent crime. Swerving and slurring your speech during a traffic stop makes you suspicious of DUI. "Being Mexican" makes you suspicious of being an illegal immigrant. And even if you're NOT doing something suspicious, just "Being Mexican" is enough grounds to have your citizenship questioned and papers demanded, once that officer has made that first "lawful stop".

I honestly dont think you grasp the idea behind Terry v Ohio, or stop and identify statutes. You just arent understanding for whatever reason. Reasonable suspicion is pretty clear.

As I said earlier, I think if you eliminate "lawful stop" and focus it on people engaged in legitimate, proven/provable suspicious or criminal activity, then we have far less of a problem. Then LEGAL immigrants cannot be targeted unless they're really do something wrong or suspicious. The Hiibel case is based on an officer's determination that the person is engaged in criminal activity. It's a stretch to say the Latino with the missing taillight was engaged in a criminal activity the officer feels a need to dispel suspicion of.

Exactly. And as Ive said before, the statutes for reasonable suspicion are pretty clear, and it wouldnt be difficult to ask a few random questions to see response. The few times Ive been stopped for things, I was always asked where I was going, where I lived, what I was doing in the area, etc. Was I profiled? Because someone here illegally is probably gonna crack under such basic questions. THAT could create reasonable suspicion.

You can point to precedent all you want, but there's no knowing how those will hold up with the new law. Since you no longer have to be doing an actual suspicious activity, it is up to the officer (where 80% of Arizonians want an illegal alien crackdown) to ponder whether the person they've pulled over might be an illegal alien. Again, if they're not doing anything criminal or suspicious per se, but the officer HAS made lawful stop on other grounds, then the criteria to question them and demand papers boils pretty much down to being a minority = could be illegal.

eh, how is this possible under the premise of reasonable suspicion?

And the 2,100 cases against your Sheriff Joe are a fascinating look at where tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars are going. I feel that the loopholes for lawsuits are even bigger now, with the potential to create MORE lawsuits and cost MORE taxpayer money. In my opinion, they'd be better served tightening those loopholes and focusing the effort on a more specific group — those actually engaging in criminal activity and being arrested, and NOT those who happened to be lawfully stopped for the slightest of civil infractions but can, by human nature, be suspected for no other reason than because they're a minority.

Here's a tip for you: being in this country IS an illegal activity. And if you look through ICE records of those AZ LEO has turned over to them, you would see AZ LEO isnt looking at seemingly innocent people. The majority of turn overs are criminals. Have you seen our crime stats? Illegals make up less than 5% of our population yet are responsible for >40% of violent crime. We are a major hub and destination for human and child trafficking. The majority or the US's meth now comes from Mexico, thus much of it passes through our state. We have the highest number of kidnaps in the US, 2nd highest in the world. In other words, LEO doesnt have time to go after Joe Martinez who picks tomatos, unless of course his employer is raided.

Of course, my opinion doesn't matter and is not going to change anything, so instead of kicking the shit out of that dead horse I think I'm done trying to articulate it. I'll accept being hard-headed if you'll accept the scathing irony of you calling me that. 🙂

Ive been called worse 🙂

 

[werepossum]

Ugh... Okay, I've read your other posts in other threads about this subject and besides reading them being an exhausting exercise in Groundhogs Day re-enactments, I now realize that this debate is basically going nowhere, as everyone who argues with you is called, in your words, a "tool", an "idiot", or something else condescending. I chimed in originally because I thought we could have a real discussion, but from your trends in posting (everywhere) on this subject, unfortunately it's obvious that will be impossible. If I wanted to get into childish name-calling I'd pick a fight with a 6-year-old... I wasn't aware that's what was going on here.

That said, I'll address a couple of points and continue to go further nowhere in this debate because watching you balance on that soapbox is making me queasy.


Incorrect. A "lawful stop" can be a missing taillight, leaving your brights on accidentally, being visited because a neighbor complained that your weeds are overgrown or you were making too much noise — even if you weren't. But regardless, even if the Latino hasn't "done" something wrong or committed a crime, a complaint has been made and the officer is there, having now made lawful contact.

From there it's up to him if he thinks the person might be an illegal immigrant. What might he base that on? I'll ask again what you ignored earlier:

Unless they're solely rooting out the people smuggling in a trunk full of immigrants or committing a crime in plain view — basically the illegal aliens who are dumb enough and just asking to get caught — then I ask again, under what other grounds, besides their race/nationality, is someone suspected of being here illegally?

The concern is that race/nationality will indeed be the basis for many illegal immigrant busts, as well as demanding papers from and mistakenly detaining LEGAL immigrants.

Go ahead, say it won't. I am fully aware now you can predict the future to a tee, while I am incapable of such speculation (unless it mirrors yours). The truth is, right now, we're both making guesses and assumptions as to how this will play out... with our opinions based unsurprisingly in our beliefs and politics.


Nope, I just want a few examples from you. If someone is not "doing" something suspicious, but they HAVE been pulled over for a simple traffic infraction or a neighbor sent a cop to their house to investigate the loud music, then the officer can still question their citizenship and demand their papers. I'd like an idea of what that could be based on, besides race/nationality, if the person is not "doing" something suspicious but has still been "lawfully stopped".


Everyone knows what a Terry Stop is. Unfortunately, the wrinkle in the AZ law is this: while it's common to stop a person suspected of criminal activity, or even pull someone over and stumble upon guns, drugs, stolen vehicle, etc, there are no grounds to suspect someone of BEING an illegal immigrant except for their race/nationality. If you LOOK Latino, you're immediately suspected and CAN be demanded to show your papers.

We're not talking about not detaining suspicious individuals who have committed a crime and are found to be illegal aliens. I'm (everyone's?) all for that. The problem is with the criteria used to determine if someone is an illegal alien. It's impossible to make that assumption without basing it on their race/nationality. That's the sheer nature of it.

Having blood on your shirt makes you suspicious of being involved in a violent crime. Swerving and slurring your speech during a traffic stop makes you suspicious of DUI. "Being Mexican" makes you suspicious of being an illegal immigrant. And even if you're NOT doing something suspicious, just "Being Mexican" is enough grounds to have your citizenship questioned and papers demanded, once that officer has made that first "lawful stop".

As I said earlier, I think if you eliminate "lawful stop" and focus it on people engaged in legitimate, proven/provable suspicious or criminal activity, then we have far less of a problem. Then LEGAL immigrants cannot be targeted unless they're really do something wrong or suspicious. The Hiibel case is based on an officer's determination that the person is engaged in criminal activity. It's a stretch to say the Latino with the missing taillight was engaged in a criminal activity the officer feels a need to dispel suspicion of.

You can point to precedent all you want, but there's no knowing how those will hold up with the new law. Since you no longer have to be doing an actual suspicious activity, it is up to the officer (where 80% of Arizonians want an illegal alien crackdown) to ponder whether the person they've pulled over might be an illegal alien. Again, if they're not doing anything criminal or suspicious per se, but the officer HAS made lawful stop on other grounds, then the criteria to question them and demand papers boils pretty much down to being a minority = could be illegal.

And the 2,100 cases against your Sheriff Joe are a fascinating look at where tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars are going. I feel that the loopholes for lawsuits are even bigger now, with the potential to create MORE lawsuits and cost MORE taxpayer money. In my opinion, they'd be better served tightening those loopholes and focusing the effort on a more specific group — those actually engaging in criminal activity and being arrested, and NOT those who happened to be lawfully stopped for the slightest of civil infractions but can, by human nature, be suspected for no other reason than because they're a minority.

Of course, my opinion doesn't matter and is not going to change anything, so instead of kicking the shit out of that dead horse I think I'm done trying to articulate it. I'll accept being hard-headed if you'll accept the scathing irony of you calling me that. 🙂

We previously had a lovely, ethnically Mexican designer working here who has since left to do the stay at home mom thing. She's a second generation immigrant and I can't imagine her being asked for her "papers" because she has an excellent command of the English language. This law will disproportionally affect Latinos ONLY because they comprise 8 of 10 illegal immigrants, much in the same way crack cocaine busts disproportionally affect blacks and Oxycontin busts disproportionally affect whites. However other races without a command of English will engender the same suspicion. You cannot have one race or ethnicity comprise 80% of offenders and expect that race or ethnicity will not be singled out. Similarly, if I am in Mexico I will be the one asked for my "papers".

Obviously you support illegal immigration only because the majority of illegals look and sound like yourself. This too is human nature but it is something you should recognize, as your perception of it as a racial issue makes you project that on its opponents. For most of us, Latino illegal immigrants are neither better nor worse than Asian, African, or Eastern European illegal immigrants (hot Asian chicks aside) except for their overwhelming numbers and correspondingly high effects on our society. As far as the "slightest of civil infractions" thing, I'll shut up about illegal immigration when the government stops enforcing speeding laws. Maybe you've noticed the lack of speeding gangs, speeding identity theft, speeders getting free health care, and speeders on welfare?

 

[blackangst1]

WAZ: you know what? Obviously we've reached an impasse. Your only contention seems to be the possibility of racial profiling happening. You seem to think its very likely. In return, I have offered evidence to the contrary. I have offered evidence that AZ LEO has been tested time, and time, and time again, thousands of times, only to be found by the courts to be above board. Why you somehow think things will change now is anyone's guess. All of your other issues i.e. the notion of reasonable suspicion, has been covered ad nauseum, yet you still question it. Why? *shrug* I dunno but its validity in investigation is already pretty much way of law for more than just immigration enforcement. I have also offered dozens of cases where laws similar to AZ's had stood. So at this point, I guess we'll agree to disagree, unless you have something substantitive to offer. Up until now, I have offered not only opinion but court cases, statute quotations, and news articles. All you have is allegation, suspicion, and what if's. Not a very strong stand. :et me know if you come up with something other than conjecture.

Have a good day.

 

[TechAZ]

Of course there is a possibility of abuse by LEO. There's also a possibility right now that a LEO will shoot you in the face point blank for no reason and plant a gun on you, saying you shot first.

Living here in the U.S. is not a right unless you were born here, or went through the immigration process.

I cannot believe this is an issue.

 

[Jaskalas]

That was decades ago when our population was far below the current population of 300 million and when people could still push westward. The frontier is now closed; we've filled it. Now we have to confront the prospect of having 420-450 million people by 2050 and then figure out where all of the freshwater, clean air, land for housing, and arable land for food is going to come from. (Regarding land for food--the prime land is already being used, so to grow more food you need more than an acre of land (all things being equal otherwise) to grow the same amount of food).

Contrary to what starry eyed love-the-world liberals and free market dogmatists might tell you, the world and our nation's land do in fact have a carrying capacity and resources are limited and only exist in finite quantities. (Ever seen the movie Soylent Green?) There is only so much oil, natural gas, and coal in the world. Freshwater does not exist in infinite quantities and in recent years some parts of the country have reported shortages. (What will happen if the Colorado River every dries up? It can only supply so much water to the Southwest.)

Now, principles of basic economics tells us what happens when the demand for a good that exists in finite quantity increases relative to the availability of that good. The price point increases. This means that the cost of resources--land, clean freshwater that hasn't been polluted (pollution increases as population increases), lumber, oil, gas, coal, fish (we could pretty much fish out the ocean if we wanted to), farmland and thus food--must increase as the population increases. This means that people's standard of living must decrease. (This is what Thomas Malthus pointed out.) These costs increases will be very hard on the poor.

Some liberals argue that we need to allow immigration so that the population doesn't explode in the third world and also for humanitarian reasons, to rescue people from poverty. The problem is that there are so many poor people in the third world that it does little to alleviate problems in the third world and that it impoverishes other Americans. The population in the third world is increasing so rapidly that we could not possibly get ahead of it by taking in immigrants. If we want to help people in the third world we need to help them where they live. I recommend providing effective birth control so that they can address their Malthusian problems.

Quoted because its so damn good it needs to be said again. People need bashing over the head with this truth until I can simply look at their forehead and recite it word by word.

Thank you WhipperSnapper.

 

[Acanthus]

Grant these illegals legal status and more will flood in. I appreciate that these people want a better life for themselves. However, guess what? They got the short end of the stick by being born in a 3rd world/developing nation. 3-4 billion other people also got the short end. They need to live with it and do the best with what they have. If we accept all the poor people from all the poor nations, well take our GDP and multiply it by a % in the single digits.

As written in the post, enforcement would dramatically increase on the borders when this passes. It is a solution to the problem of all of the people already here. Make them legal and make them pay taxes etc... Hasn't this been a GOP scapegoat for a few decades? What happens when they are all legal and the borders are actually closed?