Obama Administration to File Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law

[Screech]

I guess my post drew quite a bit of response, I'm going to address everything in bullet-point fashion as quite a few people are essentially repeating the same arguments. No point in addressing the same thing over and over. If you feel I missed something, please bring it up and I'll address it.

• The law doesn't isn't specific about any race, therefore it's not racist! There's no language in the bill the targets Hispanics/Latinos.

At face-value yes, but the majority of those that are in the United States illegally are of Hispanic ethnicity. By this logic, and under the new law officers will be required to check the immigration status of every Hispanic.

This law would fall hardest on a certain group of people, yes; that does not make it illegal. Nowhere would cops be required to check the immigration status of every Hispanic person (but you'll get a karma cookie from me if you can prove otherwise). Unless, of course, you are also assuming that someone being Hispanic is, indeed, reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegal. It isn't. I assume, of course, you are arguing that cops will however take it to mean such a thing. However, IMHO this woul be something that would have to be proven in practice before being struck down in court, ie, someone would have to prove that the practice of this law really is only against Hispanic people and also against all Hispanic people for the supreme court to strike it down; otherwise I don't see the fed government really having such authority to try to strike down a law on a suspicion that something bad might happen.

• What's wrong with having to have ID at all times?

This is a free country, we can go and do what we want was we please. We shouldn't be harassed, just because.

I agree here, and prior to the law being changed so that you would have to have a previous lawful contact first, I would absolutely agree that this is a bad law. However, under the amended law, you can't be harassed just because. At that point, you would already have been asked for ID etc so this basically changes nothing.

• Well, they ask for my ID at a bar!

The exception comes with things such as using public roads, purchasing alcohol and using mass transit. We need to be sure that the people who use these things do so responsibly.

• I don't care, every should have ID on them. If they have ID, then they've got nothing to worry about!

Not quite, a drivers license isn't valid proof of citizenship. A birth certificate, Social Security Card or Passport are evidence of citizenship.
Unforunatly, most people find it a burden to carry these items on them and they can be easily faked. Meaning, that even if every Hispanic Person carried these items, they'd probably be detained in the meantime while ICE checks the validity of thier immigration status. This essentially makes Hispanics second-class citizens.

I'll see your false assumption and raise you a text of the bill in question:

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

• 
  Well, we wouldn't have this problem if the Federal Government actually did their jobs and fixed the borders!

My mom told me that two wrongs, don't make a right. I guess they're aren't a whole lot of good mommies in Arizona.

• This law doesn't do anything the Federal Law doesn't do already.

No, it requires all law-enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect in being on the country illegally, and they're aren't even any guidelines. Hence, there's a complete lack of "probable cause".

The whole 'require' thing is totally blown out of proportion. Basically it is up to the cop to ask if you have a valid US identification of some variety. Not really the end of the world here.....also, most police vehicles and so forth have some pretty high tech equipment for figuring out who people are provided they are in the system. I would know, I just got a speeding ticket. F*ckers.

• Obama is doing anything about the border! Fuck him!

He actually sent 1,200 troops to the border and ICE, Customs are already being rapidly expanded. If you don't like Obama, feel free to vote agaisnt him in 2012. Though, I don't believe you'll be any more impressed by the Republican Opitions given Bush's reluctance to do anything with protecting our border other than passing on the issue to another administration.

• You're an idiot liberal, your points aren't in reality, you're a leftist. Fuck you commie.

You got me, too bad my evil plan of protecting the rights of minorities and the constitution is going to win and your stupid law is going to fail.

I lol'd. 😉 But there is another reason to support this law: It will be a great case study. ie, will state finances get worse? get better? These are questions a lot of people want answered, myself included. Better to try it on a small scale first (AZ) than the entire US, no? That's one of the strengths of our political system, federally/nationally speaking.

My apologies if I am repeating things said previously, but some of the talking points are getting pretty old. Also, I need to get the imported out from in front of my name, I'm not sure where it came from. Maybe mexico. 😉

 

[blackangst1]

edit: nvm

 

[Munky]

At least this is Administration is trying to hold up justice and equality unlike the previous one.

I can't wait until this is law repealed. Freedom!

By going against what the citizens want, and instead pandering to those who are in the country illegally. Way to go with the hippie bullsh!t.

 

[Tab]

This law would fall hardest on a certain group of people, yes; that does not make it illegal.

And I said that were?

Nowhere would cops be required to check the immigration status of every Hispanic person (but you'll get a karma cookie from me if you can prove otherwise).

During any criminal or civil investigation such as a traffic stop, yes it will. Arizona HB 2162, §3.

I agree here, and prior to the law being changed so that you would have to have a previous lawful contact first, I would absolutely agree that this is a bad law. However, under the amended law, you can't be harassed just because. At that point, you would already have been asked for ID etc so this basically changes nothing.

I'll see your false assumption and raise you a text of the bill in question.

Heh.

Assuming, that they have a Arizona Drivers License. Though, I think you should specifically focus on this.

41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

Arizona, already doesn't consider certain states ID to be a valid but more importantly everyone who's Hispanic will be subject to more police questions more so than anyone else.

Essentially creating second class citizens.

The whole 'require' thing is totally blown out of proportion. Basically it is up to the cop to ask if you have a valid US identification of some variety. Not really the end of the world here.....also, most police vehicles and so forth have some pretty high tech equipment for figuring out who people are provided they are in the system. I would know, I just got a speeding ticket. F*ckers.

It's up to the cop, but the language in the bill is quite up to interpretation as there isn't any description of what an illegal immigrant looks like or any instructions on how to identify them at all.

Apart from technology, it still takes time to go back to the cop car, use their computer/phone to verify information assuming the information is even correct. For a few years I had an issue with a duplicate SS number.

Again, more importantly you're putting the burden of proof on the suspect, aren't we suppose to be innocent until proven guilty?

But there is another reason to support this law: It will be a great case study. ie, will state finances get worse? get better? These are questions a lot of people want answered, myself included. Better to try it on a small scale first (AZ) than the entire US, no? That's one of the strengths of our political system, federally/nationally speaking.

That's bullshit.

There are better alternatives than something like this that goes against our constitution and values. All I've seen so far is hundreds of thousands of companies take their business out of Arizona, several states boycott Arizona and even other nation place travel advisory for a law that's essentially un-enforceable.

What a great use of tax payer dollars, brilliant!

My apologies if I am repeating things said previously, but some of the talking points are getting pretty old. Also, I need to get the imported out from in front of my name, I'm not sure where it came from. Maybe mexico.

If you're inferring that I'm using talking points, well then show me the source. If you could actually de-bunk them to that'd be a plus.

 

[Tab]

By going against what the citizens want, and instead pandering to those who are in the country illegally. Way to go with the hippie bullsh!t.

Well.

If what you say is true, than I'd suspect that Obama won't be in office much longer and these "types" of laws will spread.

Though, I suspect it wont.

 

[piasabird]

First of all The O'Bamma administration can not bring a law suit. They are the executive branch.

 

[Screech]

And I said that were?

My apologies for suggesting such; you did not. You went on to imply that because this would fall hardest on a specific group it was bad. I was arguing it doesn't really matter. We can agree to disagree, in any case.

During any criminal or civil investigation such as a traffic stop, yes it will. Arizona HB 2162, §3.

False. You might want to try reading what you cite more carefully:

For any lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). 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.

Bolding is my addition. Capitalization was changes made to the original.
Note that whether or not to check immigration is a choice in any lawful STOP or DETENTION. It is only inevitable in the case of ARREST. I have no problem checking immigration status of people arrested. I got the text from here:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

Heh.

Assuming, that they have a Arizona Drivers License. Though, I think you should specifically focus on this.

Arizona, already doesn't consider certain states ID to be a valid but more importantly everyone who's Hispanic will be subject to more police questions more so than anyone else.

Essentially creating second class citizens.

Then frankly those states shouldn't be giving out DL's to people who aren't citizens. If I was going to go to Arizona I would make sure to have proper identification. Do I think that it is rather silly that I can be asked 'papers, please?' Yeah, a little bit, to be honest. But for a legal citizen, frankly It isn't that big of a deal.

Whether or not it will create a class of second class citizens in Hispanics is all about how it is enforced. Is the potential for abuse there? yeah, but again, for legal citizens it isn't that big of an issue. If I could be pulled over at any time just for the hell of checking immigration status, on the other hand, this would be much, much different.

It's up to the cop, but the language in the bill is quite up to interpretation as there isn't any description of what an illegal immigrant looks like or any instructions on how to identify them at all.

Apart from technology, it still takes time to go back to the cop car, use their computer/phone to verify information assuming the information is even correct. For a few years I had an issue with a duplicate SS number.

Again, more importantly you're putting the burden of proof on the suspect, aren't we suppose to be innocent until proven guilty?

I agree, but that system is what we already have now. If I got pulled over on the road and had no ID I would be getting boned by the long hard dick of the law. This doesn't change that.

That's bullshit.

There are better alternatives than something like this that goes against our constitution and values. All I've seen so far is hundreds of thousands of companies take their business out of Arizona, several states boycott Arizona and even other nation place travel advisory for a law that's essentially un-enforceable.

What a great use of tax payer dollars, brilliant!

I agree there are better alternatives as well, but frankly I think any other government or other level of government seems way too incompetent to actually see anything get done. Ending the drug war, building a wall, and then considering amnesty 10 years after the first two are completed, would probably make these sorts of discussions a thing of the past. Unfortunately I don't think our government will do those two in the next couple decades....but you never know.

We'll agree to disagree on whether it is constitutional or not (that will be decided in due course, obviously). As for the boycotts, as someone near multiple boycotts (I'm in the Bay Area currently) let me tell you that they are seriously some of the most spineless political commentary moves I've ever seen. It goes like this:
government😀 : Hey guys, let's boycott Arizona because they passed a racist law!
citizens 🙂 : Um, we don't really care, but whatever.
government😀 : Oh uh, we still want tasers so we can keep you guys in line....oh and, you know, electricity from AZ.....oh and....uh......well, hmm.

The unenforceability part is part of the concept. The goal isn't to actually enforce the law; just to make illegal immigrants leave on their own. Watch as the California budget explodes even further as the state is flooded with people we cannot pay for. It will be a party, just with all the people and none of the fun! Oh well, at least we'll have some jose cuervo.

As far as wasting taxpayer dollars: lol? The primary waste (as well as loss) is from people who are against this law -- those who will cause increased court fees from taking it to court, etc. And if you think this is blind to taxpayer money being spent, I suggest you go to the primary schools in not-so-well-off communities near the border. Yeah, the immigration debate very strongly revolves around taxpayer money being spent......most people would just rather spend it on, you know, fellow citizens. I bet a lot of Legalized Hispanic immigrants feel similarly.

If you're inferring that I'm using talking points, well then show me the source. If you could actually de-bunk them to that'd be a plus.

I've thought of the "everyone who is hispanic will be harassed because this law requires it!" hysteria as a generally annoying strawman that needed to be put to rest. It allows the police to ask you your status. Not requires until an arrest is made. I probably shouldn't have used the words 'talking point' for which I apologize. Obviously I am sloppy and not very exact in the diction I choose.

 

[rudder]

Pakistani-born Faisal Shahzad pleads guilty to terror charges '100 times over,' telling NYC courtroom in great detail how he trained to bomb Times Square

Many more attacks to come.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...errorists-crossing-az-border-into-u.s.%3F

and obama wants to sue AZ?

 

[Tab]

Bolding is my addition. Capitalization was changes made to the original.
Note that whether or not to check immigration is a choice in any lawful STOP or DETENTION. It is only inevitable in the case of ARREST. I have no problem checking immigration status of people arrested. I got the text from here:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

Uh.

That's not what is says, officers will be forced as citizens can sue their local,state government law enforcement organizations.

Then frankly those states shouldn't be giving out DL's to people who aren't citizens.

Certain states do and do so for good reasons, many states on the border regularly give out driver licenses to Canadians and I'm sure the same is for many folks on the East Coast who have dual-citizenship and travel frequently.

If I was going to go to Arizona I would make sure to have proper identification.

Unless you're Caucasian.

Do I think that it is rather silly that I can be asked 'papers, please?' Yeah, a little bit, to be honest. But for a legal citizen, frankly It isn't that big of a deal.

If it wasn't a big deal, I don't think you'd have hundreds of civil rights attorneys stacking up lawsuits.

Whether or not it will create a class of second class citizens in Hispanics is all about how it is enforced. Is the potential for abuse there? yeah, but again, for legal citizens it isn't that big of an issue. If I could be pulled over at any time just for the hell of checking immigration status, on the other hand, this would be much, much different.

Expected, if you're white you'd never be pulled over.

I agree, but that system is what we already have now. If I got pulled over on the road and had no ID I would be getting boned by the long hard dick of the law. This doesn't change that.

No, it's the same system. Police now have may now detain individuals, assets just because they have a hunch that they may be an illegal immigrant before it's even verified and until so. In most cases officers can write a "notice-to-appear", but not in this case.

I agree there are better alternatives as well, but frankly I think any other government or other level of government seems way too incompetent to actually see anything get done.

Two wrongs don't make a right, or did your mommie not you that either?

We'll agree to disagree on whether it is constitutional or not (that will be decided in due course, obviously). As for the boycotts, as someone near multiple boycotts (I'm in the Bay Area currently) let me tell you that they are seriously some of the most spineless political commentary moves I've ever seen. It goes like this:
government : Hey guys, let's boycott Arizona because they passed a racist law!
citizens : Um, we don't really care, but whatever.
government : Oh uh, we still want tasers so we can keep you guys in line....oh and, you know, electricity from AZ.....oh and....uh......well, hmm.

The unenforceability part is part of the concept. The goal isn't to actually enforce the law; just to make illegal immigrants leave on their own. Watch as the California budget explodes even further as the state is flooded with people we cannot pay for. It will be a party, just with all the people and none of the fun! Oh well, at least we'll have some jose cuervo.

That's a fantastic anecdotal story.

As far as wasting taxpayer dollars: lol? The primary waste (as well as loss) is from people who are against this law -- those who will cause increased court fees from taking it to court, etc. And if you think this is blind to taxpayer money being spent, I suggest you go to the primary schools in not-so-well-off communities near the border. Yeah, the immigration debate very strongly revolves around taxpayer money being spent......most people would just rather spend it on, you know, fellow citizens. I bet a lot of Legalized Hispanic immigrants feel similarly.

Why? Arizona Conservatives brought up and put in place a law they knew would be struck down and it's not like the Federal Government has a choice in the matter to pursuing it either; as it's their job the enforce the law and constitution.

Laws, past cases and the Constitution all say this can't happen.

I've thought of the "everyone who is hispanic will be harassed because this law requires it!" hysteria as a generally annoying strawman that needed to be put to rest. It allows the police to ask you your status. Not requires until an arrest is made. I probably shouldn't have used the words 'talking point' for which I apologize. Obviously I am sloppy and not very exact in the diction I choose.

Essentially, anyone who is hispanic in a police encounter will possibly have more to worry about and rightfully so as they're put into a position where they have to prove their innocence - something that is quite un-precedanted in that last decade on this scale.

Here's one of the better sites I've found for explaining what the new law does.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/qa-guide-arizonas-new-immigration-law

 

[mrjminer]

Essentially, anyone who is in a police encounter will possibly have more to worry about and rightfully so as they're put into a position where they have to prove their innocence - something that is and has been standard procedure on a national scale when it comes to insurance, but hasn't been done with citizenship.

I went ahead and fixed all of the implied generalizations and presumptions you've so cleverly left yourself innocent of making with the use of "possibly," as well as corrected your factual errors.

I'm sure you'll thank me for saving you the effort of correcting your own viewpoint.

 

[werepossum]

Uh.
SNIP

Why? Arizona Conservatives brought up and put in place a law they knew would be struck down and it's not like the Federal Government has a choice in the matter to pursuing it either; as it's their job the enforce the law and constitution.

Laws, past cases and the Constitution all say this can't happen.

SNIP

I'll do you a favor and assume that you are so debilitatingly stupid as to honestly be unable to grasp the breathtaking irony inherent in this statement, so I'll spell it out: If the federal government were doing its job enforcing the law and the Constitution this Arizona law would never have been conceived.

 

[Supersonic64]

Obama refuses to secure the border, both by not sending ARMED troops and by halting construction on the border fence. So Arizona takes matters into it's own hands and passes a strong armed law aimed at taking a bite out of illegal immigration.

What does Obama do? Condemn the law and file suit against it so the state cannot defend itself from the illegal immigration plague, and it's bad.

Drug cartels already have control of some extreme southern territories in Arizona, that's just not right, we need to send in the cavalry.

 

[Screech]

Uh.

That's not what is says, officers will be forced as citizens can sue their local,state government law enforcement organizations.

So you are arguing that because all courts will take seriously the charge that all hispanic people must be questioned by police at all times and to do otherwise is against the law, that therefore police departments will have to question all hispanic people?

This is pretty laughable for a number of reasons, first because the charge would probably be laughed out of court, and second, how would a private citizen know what the police are asking someone else on the side of the road? Not many people going around trying to listen in on cop conversations in their spare time....

You are also reaching here in another way; you are saying this requires that this law will as a result be enforced, when that portion of the bill only relates to Federal law:

A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws

Are you Eric Holder? I hear he hasn't read the bill either....

Certain states do and do so for good reasons, many states on the border regularly give out driver licenses to Canadians and I'm sure the same is for many folks on the East Coast who have dual-citizenship and travel frequently.

absolutely.

Unless you're Caucasian.

No, seriously. Being white doesn't mean I can't be pulled over for traffic infractions. Although when it comes down to it, my ability to speak English (relatively) fluently would probably be enough.

If it wasn't a big deal, I don't think you'd have hundreds of civil rights attorneys stacking up lawsuits.

And you would think people would know that hot coffee is hot, but hey, never rain on a good business opportunity.

Expected, if you're white you'd never be pulled over.

Text of where I would be pulled over based on race? Or did you not see the part where you can only be questioned after being pulled over for some other reason?

Also, maybe your eyesight is a lot better than mine, but I wouldn't be able to tell someone ethnicity from simply driving behind them anyway......well, I can tell black from white, but hispanic from white? doubtful.

No, it's the same system. Police now have may now detain individuals, assets just because they have a hunch that they may be an illegal immigrant before it's even verified and until so. In most cases officers can write a "notice-to-appear", but not in this case.

I agree that this can be an issue. This is why I would carry my ID.

Two wrongs don't make a right, or did your mommie not you that either?

I realize you are simply trying to be a pompous dick at this point when I've been more than courteous, but just to humor you, you might notice that my agreeing that there are superior alternatives is not equivalent to agreeing that this is wrong.

That's a fantastic anecdotal story.

Hey, you brought up the boycotts, so I simply felt inclined to ramble for a bit on it 😉 But if you would like links:
http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxltaser,0,6173004.story
That's sacremento, but you get the idea.....anyway, this is all pretty tangential.

Why? Arizona Conservatives brought up and put in place a law they knew would be struck down and it's not like the Federal Government has a choice in the matter to pursuing it either; as it's their job the enforce the law and constitution.

Laws, past cases and the Constitution all say this can't happen.

The federal government has no choice? If they were so uptight about upholding the laws, they might have started by following their own immigration laws(which this mirrors), but whatever. In any case, theres not much else to say on constitutionality other than 'we shall see.'

Essentially, anyone who is hispanic in a police encounter will possibly have more to worry about and rightfully so as they're put into a position where they have to prove their innocence - something that is quite un-precedanted in that last decade on this scale.

That's true, but again, people aren't going to be pulled over because of how they look. Or questioned based on how they look, for that matter. The proving innocence part I will admit it somewhat worrying, but again, is no different from existing systems where if caught driving with no ID, you get f*cked.

Here's one of the better sites I've found for explaining what the new law does.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/qa-guide-arizonas-new-immigration-law

There's some goo stuff there, as well as garbage. For example, from the link:

Explicitly requires state and local law enforcement officials to inquire about immigration status during any lawful stop, detention, or arrest.

False, as shown above. (I'm really getting tired of having to refute this one, partly because it is the one most commonly brought up against the law).

Also, first it was "During any criminal or civil investigation such as a traffic stop, yes it will. Arizona HB 2162, §3."; then it was "That's not what is says, officers will be forced as citizens can sue their local,state government law enforcement organizations." Will you ever admit that maybe the original charge wasn't correct, or will the goalposts move yet again? Don't don't feel bad about moving them again though, I need the exercise anyway.

 

[Tab]

I'll do you a favor and assume that you are so debilitatingly stupid as to honestly be unable to grasp the breathtaking irony inherent in this statement, so I'll spell it out: If the federal government were doing its job enforcing the law and the Constitution this Arizona law would never have been conceived.

No shit. Really! You think so! 🙄

I'm just curious, were was your outrage during the last 8 years of the Bush Administration? From what I can tell he didn't do jack shit.

Obama refuses to secure the border, both by not sending ARMED troops and by halting construction on the border fence. So Arizona takes matters into it's own hands and passes a strong armed law aimed at taking a bite out of illegal immigration.

Expect, Obama did send in troops and fence construction is under way.

So you are arguing that because all courts will take seriously the charge that all hispanic people must be questioned by police at all times and to do otherwise is against the law, that therefore police departments will have to question all hispanic people?

This is pretty laughable for a number of reasons, first because the charge would probably be laughed out of court, and second, how would a private citizen know what the police are asking someone else on the side of the road? Not many people going around trying to listen in on cop conversations in their spare time....

You are also reaching here in another way; you are saying this requires that this law will as a result be enforced, when that portion of the bill only relates to Federal law:

Depending on the judge and the jury there's some chance that it wouldn't be laughed out of court, especially in a state such as Arizona. That's not the point, the point is it doesn't need to be taking this far in the first place.

Citizen do all the monitor police actions, did you not see the video that's been all over national and even international news over two black women struggling with a Seattle Cop?

Are you Eric Holder? I hear he hasn't read the bill either....

Exactly, and the bill it's contradicts it's self.

And you would think people would know that hot coffee is hot, but hey, never rain on a good business opportunity.

Did you know the the United State's or even the world best lawyers end up working for the ACLU? I'd have hard time believe those that spent years at Harvard,Yale,etc are taking up this lawsuit without some serious consideration. On the other hand this law was drafted by a Neo-Nazi Group.

I realize you are simply trying to be a pompous dick at this point when I've been more than courteous, but just to humor you, you might notice that my agreeing that there are superior alternatives is not equivalent to agreeing that this is wrong.

And you brought up the same point that I've addressed before and to another post. I don't like it when you repeat essentially the same argument that's already been de-bunked twice.

Though, I'm going to ask it again. Do two wrongs, the Federal Government not properly enforcing immigration laws and Arizona passing a bill that's unconstitutional, promotes racial profiling okay?

The federal government has no choice? If they were so uptight about upholding the laws, they might have started by following their own immigration laws(which this mirrors), but whatever. In any case, theres not much else to say on constitutionality other than 'we shall see.'

Uh huh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SB_1070#Challenges_to_legality_and_constitutionality

That's true, but again, people aren't going to be pulled over because of how they look. Or questioned based on how they look, for that matter. The proving innocence part I will admit it somewhat worrying, but again, is no different from existing systems where if caught driving with no ID, you get f*cked.

How do you know?

Driving without ID is a completely different issue, I've already addressed this twice in the very thread. Unless, you want to debate about giving anyone the opportunity to operate several tons of steal death.

False, as shown above. (I'm really getting tired of having to refute this one, partly because it is the one most commonly brought up against the law).

Also, first it was "During any criminal or civil investigation such as a traffic stop, yes it will. Arizona HB 2162, §3."; then it was "That's not what is says, officers will be forced as citizens can sue their local,state government law enforcement organizations." Will you ever admit that maybe the original charge wasn't correct, or will the goalposts move yet again? Don't don't feel bad about moving them again though, I need the exercise anyway.

I'm not sure what you're getting at all, please expand.

 

[Tab]

On second thought, I'm finished with this thread for now as I've addressed the same points, some up to four times. In short, I'm done with the thread unless there's some new argument that hasn't already been address by typical political sites.

 

[spidey07]

On second thought, I'm finished with this thread for now as I've addressed the same points, some up to four times. In short, I'm done with the thread unless there's some new argument that hasn't already been address by typical political sites.

Fine by we the people. See you illegal lovers in court. We are going to win.

teabagtag

 

[shortylickens]

On second thought, I'm finished with this thread for now as I've addressed the same points, some up to four times. In short, I'm done with the thread unless there's some new argument that hasn't already been address by typical political sites.

Its true. We in Anandtech P&N really havent covered any new ground on this issue, despite having hundreds of threads on the subject. We are now at the point where its an awful lot like abortion and gun control. Pretty much everyone has their logic and their opinions and no one else is going to change it. Its unlikely a newb will come in with no info and ask us to provide an objective analysis of both sides. And we just keep rehashing the same stats and same arguments over and over.

Since I am one of the bigger loudmouths on the issue, I will follow suit and give up the Anandtech debate tonight. Anyone who is tired can join us.

 

[spidey07]

Screw giving up. The very fabric of our country is being torn apart from invaders and Obama is supporting the invaders.

I will never give up.

 

[Tab]

Fine by we the people. See you illegal lovers in court. We are going to win.

teabagtag

I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Tab]

Its true. We in Anandtech P&N really havent covered any new ground on this issue, despite having hundreds of threads on the subject. We are now at the point where its an awful lot like abortion and gun control. Pretty much everyone has their logic and their opinions and no one else is going to change it. Its unlikely a newb will come in with no info and ask us to provide an objective analysis of both sides. And we just keep rehashing the same stats and same arguments over and over.

Since I am one of the bigger loudmouths on the issue, I will follow suit and give up the Anandtech debate tonight. Anyone who is tired can join us.

I don't mind joining in on discussions that have been discussed, but fuck I do require that people read the thread in it's entirety before posting.