State Department submits Arizona immigration law to UN for a human rights review.

[classy]

It spread around the world because the liberals in the media, Barack Obama, and other members of government tried to paint the picture. If they would not have tried to use it for political gain this 'hurt' to our image would never have occurred. At least you are admitting that Obama and crew are causing damage to America.

Please there is plenty of blame on both sides, give me a break. Truth is the law should have never been passed in the first place. Now they are instituting Jim Crow type laws having hispanics fill out more paper than is required by federal law to get a job. Now they are crying because OB mentions it in a report to the UN. Stop doing stupid stuff and maybe you won't find yourself in a report.

 

[classy]

Um. If I am speeding and forgot my drivers license at home what do you think happens when I am pulled over...............

(Hint: You are detained until your identity can be confirmed)

So you end up with 4 scenarios under this law.

1) Produce valid government issued ID.
2) Produce foreign ID and immigration documents (that you are required to carry)
3) Produce foreign ID and no documents. Pretty logical their identity should be further verified.
4) Produce no ID. Detained until ID confirmed.

So you really only end up with a problem in 3/4 and the problem works its self out.

How do you suggest the police confirm your identity if you have no ID?

Hell, police right now check you for warrants even when there is no probable cause that you have a warrant for your arrest. How about that "human rights violation".

You need to go back and read the law because Harvey is 100% right. And another thing people overlook about the law is why you scenario is flawed. Even if a person was stopped and provided id whether they were guilty or not, a police officer had the right to detain a person till he confirmed they were in the country legally. Read this loud and clear, the law never said what would be an acceptable form of id to prove ones citizenship. So your whole scenario is whack.

 

[Patranus]

You need to go back and read the law because Harvey is 100% right. And another thing people overlook about the law is why you scenario is flawed. Even if a person was stopped and provided id whether they were guilty or not, a police officer had the right to detain a person till he confirmed they were in the country legally. Read this loud and clear, the law never said what would be an acceptable form of id to prove ones citizenship. So your whole scenario is whack.

Cop takes ID. Types information into computer. Computer gives details about person.

Happens every time you hand your ID to a cop.

 

[classy]

Cop takes ID. Types information into computer. Computer gives details about person.

Happens every time you hand your ID to a cop.

Wrong. When a cop runs my drivers license it checks my driving record and criminal database for warrants. Not citizenship. Not every one has a drivers a license. Also illegals have been able to get drivers licenses. Read and understand, there is not one id in this country that proves a persons citizenship. We have no national id system. The closet thing is a birth certificate. And now ask Obama how even having that has worked out for him.

 

[EagleKeeper]

That's a load. It mandates law officers to check anyone requires police to ask for papers from anyone they "suspect" is in the country illegally. The counterpoint to that is, NO law requires ANY American citizen to keep proof of their citizenship on them while exercising their right to traveling freely within the U.S.

Exactly WHO do you think police are most likely to suspect? What Constitutionally legal action should or could they take against an American citizen of Hispanic discent who happens not have proof of citizenship or legal residency on them when asked?

Then, there's the issue that is actually at the heart of the DOJ's suit, whether Arizona's law illegally preempts Federal authority over immigration rights and status. Until that question is answered, not much else matters.

Lawful interaction was required before such a question could be asked.

And as to profiling; AZ was to give additional special training to the LEO on such.

And it forced AZ LEO to turn over suspected illegals to ICE for processing.

The only difference between what AZ had and what the existing Federal LEO had was that they were not Feds and were being required to support ICE. If ICE wants to then turn them loose (again), that is between the intent of ICE and the choice of the administration on how to enforce existing Federal laws. They do not have the guts to actually cancel such laws - easier to selectively not-enforce them.

Now one has to have committed multiple crimes instead of just one. Thumbing their nose at US laws.

How that has any impact on human rights, no one has explained

 

[classy]

Lawful interaction was required before such a question could be asked.

And as to profiling; AZ was to give additional special training to the LEO on such.

And it forced AZ LEO to turn over suspected illegals to ICE for processing.

The only difference between what AZ had and what the existing Federal LEO had was that they were not Feds and were being required to support ICE. If ICE wants to then turn them loose (again), that is between the intent of ICE and the choice of the administration on how to enforce existing Federal laws. They do not have the guts to actually cancel such laws - easier to selectively not-enforce them.

Now one has to have committed multiple crimes instead of just one. Thumbing their nose at US laws.

How that has any impact on human rights, no one has explained

What the hell? Are you serious? You don't think passing a law that many have said would lead to racial profiling blasted all over the world, coming on the heels of the boy who was shot and killed. You don't think that to the world it didn't paint a picture of US hostility towards hispanics. Forget what may or may not have been the facts. You can possibly sit and tell me that this didn't paint the US as a picture of being hostile toward a certain race of folks. You don't think that picture is one of possible human rights violations? Come on man, please.

 

[xj0hnx]

Now they are instituting Jim Crow type laws having hispanics fill out more paper than is required by federal law to get a job.

Bullshit. If you are a legal citizen there is no more to fill out than before, and legal immigrant have documentation that they have to carry with them anywhere they go. This isn't SB1070, it's already existing Federal Law.

You need to go back and read the law because Harvey is 100% right. And another thing people overlook about the law is why you scenario is flawed. Even if a person was stopped and provided id whether they were guilty or not, a police officer had the right to detain a person till he confirmed they were in the country legally. Read this loud and clear, the law never said what would be an acceptable form of id to prove ones citizenship. So your whole scenario is whack.

You are so full of shit, and so is Harvey. If a person can provide a valid license in AZ they are deemed legal since you have to be a citizen to get a license, if they don't have one, and they are a LEGAL immigrant than Federal law already states that they HAVE to carry their "papers" with them where ever they go. Beyond that during a conversation a cop that's worth a damn can determine if you warrant a further into your status with easy, basic questions.

I hate break up your little party, but down here in the south, and south west where the populations is already heavily Hispanic, cops (Hispanic ones even) already deal with this all day, every day. Your "poor me" victim complex where everyone that isn't white is persecuted is a bunch of BS. Down here there's "brown" people in EVERY neighborhood, from the poor to the filthy rich.

 

[Harvey]

Um. If I am speeding and forgot my drivers license at home what do you think happens when I am pulled over...............

(Hint: You are detained until your identity can be confirmed)

Hint: A driver's license is not proof of citizenship. Suppose you had your driver's license, but you didn't have your American passport or a certified copy of your birth certificate, neither of which you are required to carry to drive around an American city? How long are you willing to sit in a holding cell while the police sort it out?

Lawful interaction was required before such a question could be asked.

And as to profiling; AZ was to give additional special training to the LEO on such.

And it forced AZ LEO to turn over suspected illegals to ICE for processing.

And for all of that, a traffic stop for a broken tail light would be enough "lawful interaction," but it would hardly be sufficient to justify detaining any American citizen for hours, let alone days and handcuffing anyone and hauling him/her off to an ICE detention facility while the matter was sorted out.

If you, as an American citizen, happened to appear Hispanic or Middle Eastern, how many hours or days would you put up with it if YOU were so treated? If some officer happened to "think" you were suspicious, or even worse, if some bigoted officer just wanted to haul you in because you looked like the object of his bigotry, all your years of military service wouldn't mean squat. Whether the officer was bigoted or just mistaken, you'd still be sitting in that holding cell for the duration of the process.

If it happened to me, I know I'd be wondering why I bothered to put in my time in the service and WTF I was defending while I was on duty. :thumbsdown:

 

[xj0hnx]

And for all of that, a traffic stop for a broken tail light would be enough "lawful interaction," but would hardly be sufficient to justify detaining any American citizen for hours, let alone handcuffing anyone and hauling him/her off to an ICE detention facility while the matter was sorted out.

If you, as an American citizen, happened to appear Hispanic or Middle Eastern, how many hours or days would you put up with it if YOU were so treated? If some officer happened to "think" you were suspicious, or even worse, if some bigoted officer just wanted to haul you in because you looked like the object of his bigotry, all your years of military service wouldn't mean squat. Whether the officer was bigoted or just mistaken, you'd still be sitting in that holding cell for the duration of the process.

If it happened to me, I know I'd be wondering why I bothered to put in my time and WTF I was defending while I was on duty in the service. :thumbsdown:

Except in reality the suspect would be let go after he produced a license, registration, and insurance, after a brief questioning, and possibly a ticket, but I've seen a lot more warnings for minor offenses. Hate to break it to you, but down here there's a LOT of "brown people", and some are even cops, your the sky is falling race card doesn't play here.

 

[classy]

Bullshit. If you are a legal citizen there is no more to fill out than before, and legal immigrant have documentation that they have to carry with them anywhere they go. This isn't SB1070, it's already existing Federal Law.




You are so full of shit, and so is Harvey. If a person can provide a valid license in AZ they are deemed legal since you have to be a citizen to get a license, if they don't have one, and they are a LEGAL immigrant than Federal law already states that they HAVE to carry their "papers" with them where ever they go. Beyond that during a conversation a cop that's worth a damn can determine if you warrant a further into your status with easy, basic questions.

I hate break up your little party, but down here in the south, and south west where the populations is already heavily Hispanic, cops (Hispanic ones even) already deal with this all day, every day. Your "poor me" victim complex where everyone that isn't white is persecuted is a bunch of BS. Down here there's "brown" people in EVERY neighborhood, from the poor to the filthy rich.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/30/AR2010083004923.html

U.S. files new suit on Ariz. immigration issue

In Monday's lawsuit, Justice officials said the colleges discriminated against nearly 250 noncitizen job applicants by mandating that they fill out more documents than required by law to prove their eligibility to work. That violated the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, the department said.

The law's anti-discrimination provision "makes it unlawful to treat authorized workers differently during the hiring process based on their citizenship status," said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for Justice's Civil Rights Division. He said the government "is acting now to remedy this pattern or practice of discrimination."

If a person is hispanic, a citizen, and has no id should they held on some open to interpretation of "suspicion"? NO. A citizen is not required to carry papers you ignorant fool. How about a drivers license from another state? Should they be locked down to prove something?

If what you say is true, then until we have a National ID system, no one regardless of race should be subjected to prove anymore than you or me they are a citizen of this country. If they are breaking the law, then their background should be thoroughly investigated.

 

[zinfamous]

More disgusting actions from the first administration in the history of the US to have contempt for this country and everything it stands for.

so if he simply calls his acts "Patriotism," as Cheney and Rove advised Bush to do, then you'd perhaps think he were totally pro-American, despite his actions? hahaha. Obama hasn't gone nearly close to Bush in terms of anti-American self destruction.

This sure looks like a stupid move, however.

 

[nobodyknows]

If it happened to me, I know I'd be wondering why I bothered to put in my time in the service and WTF I was defending while I was on duty. :thumbsdown:

Obviously you were defending the rights of non-American's. Isn't that the job of our military these days?

Bush seemed to think so but you disagreed with him. Of course you think Obama can do no wrong and the Dems can do no wrong.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let's just give AZ to the illegals like Obama wants. He certainly hasn't done anything but oppose efforts to slow the tide.

 

[Harvey]

Except in reality the suspect would be let go after he produced a license, registration, and insurance, after a brief questioning, and possibly a ticket, but I've seen a lot more warnings for minor offenses. Hate to break it to you, but down here there's a LOT of "brown people", and some are even cops, your the sky is falling race card doesn't play here.

Except that, in reality, you can't prove any of that. All you can do is spew your unsupported, unsupportable hypothesis about how you imagine things should work. You can't guarantee that abuses of the rights of American citizens and legal residents won't happen.

If you believe otherwise, go find some credible evidence to support your view. If you can't, I can only hope YOU are among the first to have his rights so violated. It wouldn't do me or the country any good, but it might be enough to teach you something about the value of the civil rights you're so willing to strip from others. :thumbsdown:

 

[zinfamous]

(The funny thing is if you go to any other country and don't carry your documents you are fucked)

not really, but the "common" international policy isn't much different from what Arizona is doing. I've actually never been stopped, or questioned about documents while traveling abroad, but I've known enough to realize that such is always possible.

 

[HendrixFan]

Yeah I have a question...where did you get this bullshit? Pull it out of your ass? MOST people prefer not live to next to legal immigrants? Really?

People who have more money choose not to live in minority areas.

A few years back, after I graduated high school the school district was working on redrawing lines for schools. Would you be surprised to find out that schools that were predominantly white became much more white, and schools that were predominantly minority became less white? My high school was around 55% minority before and 65% afterwards. The high school 5 miles away, but in a more affluent area, went from 80% white to 90% white. They had a student population of nearly 2700 and 8 black kids (one of whom is in the NFL now...interesting sidenote). My high school went from 75% of kids on free or reduced lunch to over 90%, whereas the nearby school went from 15% free lunch or reduced lunch to less than 5%.

The lines were drawn awkwardly. There were "pockets" of one school completely surrounded on all sides by the other school. Those pockets happened to be government subsidized housing (both apartments and houses) within a nicer area. The dropout rate was much higher at my high school than the other, but the school was more established and had more experienced teachers. Aggregate SAT scores were higher (at the time) at my high school than the nearby one. If it was about getting a better education for their child, they were doing it wrong.

The census is being collected so new lines are going to be drawn next year. Go to a redistricting school board meeting in any town and you will see the same thing. They can't explicitly draw lines based on race, but going by socioeconomic classes by targeting specific neighborhoods they can achieve the same result.

 

[classy]

Let's just give AZ to the illegals like Obama wants. He certainly hasn't done anything but oppose efforts to slow the tide.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/1/illegal-immigration-down-dramatically/

Illegal immigration down dramatically

Ilegal immigration has seen a "sharp decline" over the last two years, the Pew Hispanic Center said in a new report Wednesday — the first significant drop in the last 20 years.

The drop coincides with both a slowing economy and stepped up enforcement under President George W. Bush and the early months of President Obama, though the report's authors said their data doesn't signal which factor is more important.

"At this point both of those broad factors seem to be working in the same direction," said Jeffrey Passel, the Pew Center's senior demographer.

Still, the drop is substantial. Just 300,000 illegal immigrants came per year in the last two years, or down nearly two-thirds from the rate earlier this decade. And the overall illegal immigrant population dropped from 12 million in 2007 down to 11.1 million as of March 2009, the report said.

The illegal immigrant population clearly shrank in Florida, Nevada and Virginia, and may have fallen slightly in other states, the report said.

The demographers used Census data from the annual Current Population Survey.

Illegal immigration had climbed steadily from 8.4 million in 2000 to a peak of 12 million in 2007, but has declined by 900,000 since.

 

[xj0hnx]

Except that, in reality, you can't prove any of that. All you can do is spew your unsupported, unsupportable hypothesis about how you imagine things should work. You can't guarantee that abuses of the rights of American citizens and legal residents won't happen.

If you believe otherwise, go find some credible evidence to support your view. If you can't, I can only hope YOU are among the first to have his rights so violated. It wouldn't do me or the country any good, but it might be enough to teach you something about the value of the civil rights you're so willing to strip from others. :thumbsdown:

Hahaha the running around spewing of unsupported, unsupportable hypothesis is being done by you, and all the people protesting a law that barely went into effect. Talk about assbackwards. All you are doing is claiming unsupported, unsupportable hypothesis because nothing has even happened yet.

You are clinging to the exception, not the rule. You can't guarantee that abuses to American citizens and legal residents won't happen even if this law didn't exist, as a matter of fact, abuses did happen, but now you get to run around squawking and pointing to SB1070 as if it's the cause of all the problems. I can recall MANY times being pulled over in a car full of Hispanics, and no one was hassled, I can also recall a few times being pulled over in a car full of whites and being hassled. You see in reality world where I live, cops pull you over, and check into crimes, not "zomg, you are the brown, you goin' down!!!"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/1/illegal-immigration-down-dramatically/

Don't forget this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/us/02hurricane.html?src=me

 

[xj0hnx]

People who have more money choose not to live in crime filled crappy areas.

Fixed that for you. It isn't race, it called quality of life. Maybe where you live things are different, but down here in Texas you can go into the richest neighborhood and find "minorities", I say "minorities" because this town is something like 80+% Hispanic.

 

[HendrixFan]

Fixed that for you. It isn't race, it called quality of life. Maybe where you live things are different, but down here in Texas you can go into the richest neighborhood and find "minorities", I say "minorities" because this town is something like 80+% Hispanic.

I'm down here in Austin, Texas and the city is 65% white (as of the 2000 census).

You can find minorities at each school here, even after the redistricting. The simple fact is that the lines were drawn with the intent of making white schools more white, and minority schools less white. There is no good explanation for having the lines gerry mandered like they are, including pockets completely encompassed by another school other than people trying to keep their kids away from minorities.

Why would sending your kid to a school that is 95% white in a city that is 65% white and has lower aggregate SAT scores than a nearby "minority" school (more minorities collectively than whites) be a better "quality of life"? You aren't getting a better education, and you certainly aren't preparing the kids socially to have interaction with other races/cultures.

I think you are bringing us to the point that Infohawk was making earlier:

Most people prefer not to live near recent immigrants, whether they are illegals or not.

You call it "quality of life" to not be around minorities. Most immigrants (legal or not) are minorities.

 

[NoStateofMind]

If you aren't here illegally you have nothing to worry about. This bleeding heart bullshit for people here ILLEGALLY (GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEADS DIPSHITS, YES ITS IN CAPS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT OTHERWISE) are people who have no respect for the rule of law. Yet these ignoramuses are the same one's crying about Bush and his thumbing the nose at the law. You only like the law when it suits you, not all the time. Fucking sad.

 

[Harvey]

Hahaha the running around spewing of unsupported, unsupportable hypothesis is being done by you, and all the people protesting a law that barely went into effect.

That's called denial. You still haven't proven anything other than your own bigotry.

Talk about assbackwards. All you are doing is claiming unsupported, unsupportable hypothesis because nothing has even happened yet.

Unlike you, I can support my posts. It has always been a principle of American law that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Try this article by Alexander Volokh. It starts with a biblical quotation and goes from there.

And Abraham drew near and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes: Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake. And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.

And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

-- Genesis 18:23-32

I suggest you read the entire article and follow some of the footnoted citations.

You are clinging to the exception, not the rule. You can't guarantee that abuses to American citizens and legal residents won't happen even if this law didn't exist, as a matter of fact, abuses did happen, but now you get to run around squawking and pointing to SB1070 as if it's the cause of all the problems. I can recall MANY times being pulled over in a car full of Hispanics, and no one was hassled, I can also recall a few times being pulled over in a car full of whites and being hassled. You see in reality world where I live, cops pull you over, and check into crimes, not "zomg, you are the brown, you goin' down!!!"

That's the point of weighing the law in favor of the innocent. You remember... the ones the Constitution deems to be so UNTIL they are proven guilty in a court of law. If you can't understand that, then we're back to hoping YOU become an early exception to the false accusations of whatever unconstitutional, dictatorial "rule" you would impose on others.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Hint: A driver's license is not proof of citizenship. Suppose you had your driver's license, but you didn't have your American passport or a certified copy of your birth certificate, neither of which you are required to carry to drive around an American city? How long are you willing to sit in a holding cell while the police sort it out?



And for all of that, a traffic stop for a broken tail light would be enough "lawful interaction," but it would hardly be sufficient to justify detaining any American citizen for hours, let alone days and handcuffing anyone and hauling him/her off to an ICE detention facility while the matter was sorted out.

If you, as an American citizen, happened to appear Hispanic or Middle Eastern, how many hours or days would you put up with it if YOU were so treated? If some officer happened to "think" you were suspicious, or even worse, if some bigoted officer just wanted to haul you in because you looked like the object of his bigotry, all your years of military service wouldn't mean squat. Whether the officer was bigoted or just mistaken, you'd still be sitting in that holding cell for the duration of the process.

If it happened to me, I know I'd be wondering why I bothered to put in my time in the service and WTF I was defending while I was on duty. :thumbsdown:

Actually, AZ will accept drivers licences as proof of citizenship from all states except four. I forget which four. Because in those four states they will hand a DL to anyone that walks in and passes the test. And at the end of all that, even then it's highly doubtful that the said person in your example above will spend time in jail if they are from the aformentioned four states. What's more, if you are not a citizen and working here legally, when you get your paper work the immigration official tells you to have it on you at all times. It's federal law and a federal official can ask you for them at anytime regardless of the circumstance.

These 'what if' arguments from Classy and yourself are getting tired.

 

[nobodyknows]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/1/illegal-immigration-down-dramatically/

Illegal immigration down dramatically

Ilegal immigration has seen a "sharp decline" over the last two years, the Pew Hispanic Center said in a new report Wednesday — the first significant drop in the last 20 years.

The drop coincides with both a slowing economy and stepped up enforcement under President George W. Bush and the early months of President Obama, though the report's authors said their data doesn't signal which factor is more important.

"At this point both of those broad factors seem to be working in the same direction," said Jeffrey Passel, the Pew Center's senior demographer.

Still, the drop is substantial. Just 300,000 illegal immigrants came per year in the last two years, or down nearly two-thirds from the rate earlier this decade. And the overall illegal immigrant population dropped from 12 million in 2007 down to 11.1 million as of March 2009, the report said.

The illegal immigrant population clearly shrank in Florida, Nevada and Virginia, and may have fallen slightly in other states, the report said.

The demographers used Census data from the annual Current Population Survey.

Illegal immigration had climbed steadily from 8.4 million in 2000 to a peak of 12 million in 2007, but has declined by 900,000 since.

So according to these stats, 300,000 illegals came in each year during the last 2 years but if you believe the article, we have 900,000 less illegals. That means we had 1.5 million illegals go back home. Is the economy in Mexico so good that they are going back there to work or are these 1.5 million illegals just living off the money they saved while making the big bucks here in the States??

Wake up suckers.