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

[xj0hnx]

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.

You should take that up with AISD. I'd bet financial/class reasons were a much larger determining factor than race.

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

No, I didn't, and I think you know that. Stop being dishonest. 2/3's of my immediate family are immigrants, and they are white, most of my family immigrated from Denmark, Germany, and France. There are very large populations of white immigrants from Ireland, Russia, Germany, and so forth, immigrants aren't always "brown people".

 

[xj0hnx]

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

It isn't denial, you haven't proven any of hte things you claim will happen are going to.

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.

No you can't because nothing you claim is going to happen has.

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

I suggest you read the law you are crying like a baby about.

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.

There's nothing unconstitutional about being stopped by police, and questioned.

 

[xj0hnx]

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

Yip, the progressives whole bitch is made up of stories that haven't happened.

 

[blackangst1]

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?

One doesnt have to prove citizenship. Only legal residence, thus making your argument and blathering faux outrage moot. And with few exceptions, a DL will do just that.

 

[classy]

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.

Well in the legislation, facts, not opinion it was not listed as being an acceptable form of id that would prove ones legal residence or citizenship. Your the one with the what ifs. I quoted fact, fact directly from the legislation itself.

 

[classy]

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Here is the legislation. There is zero in the bill that says if a person has any sort of specific id that they would not be put under any additional scrunity as to whether or not they are an illegal alien.

 

[Fear No Evil]

 

[xj0hnx]

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Here is the legislation. There is zero in the bill that says if a person has any sort of specific id that they would not be put under any additional scrunity as to whether or not they are an illegal alien.

Can you point out where if they don't have a specific ID they would be put under additional scrutiny?

 

[classy]

Can you point out where if they don't have a specific ID they would be put under additional scrutiny?

Well you answered your own question. If they are not requiring any specific id to prove ones legal status why make the law in the first place?

 

[Harvey]

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

It isn't denial, you haven't proven any of hte things you claim will happen are going to.

I post a link to credible info about a major principle of our legal system, including a biblical reference showing how far back and how deeply embedded in our legal history that principle is, and the best you can manage is more denial?

If you have a point to make, try enunciating it clearly and support it with a credible source to support it. If you don't, stop blathering your own unsupported, unconstitutional opinions.

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.

No you can't because nothing you claim is going to happen has.

I unequivocally guarantee you can't support the premise that "nothing (I) claim is going to happen." With gung ho gonzo bigoted assholes like Sheriff Joe Arpaio running a major Arizona law enforcement and stepping up sweeps, I would venture that it's more likely than not that it will, but it doesn't matter. The fact that people have been arrested by well meaning, misinformed or mistaken members of law enforcement agencies has happened is conclusive proof that it CAN happen again. The fact that willful mistreatment by bigoted members of law enforcement agencies has happened is conclusive proof that it CAN happen again. The whole point I made AND SUPPORTED is that our entire legal tradition is based on protecting the rights of the innocent against such abuses, even at the expense of not being able to punish all of the guilty.

Exactly what do you think the maxim, "Innocent until proven guilty" means?

Exactly what do you think the words inscribed above the west portico of the U.S. Supreme Court "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" means?

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

I suggest you read the law you are crying like a baby about.

I suggest, if you don't understand what was written at the page I linked, you could be functionally illiterate.

I further suggest, yet again, that since you don't understand the tyrannical legal demagogy you're spewing, that justice would be served if YOU become one of the first American citizens to be detained in a cell for a few days while the local constabulary establishes that you actually are an American citizen who should never have been held in the first place.

I further suggest that, unless you enjoy being a prisoner, if you were detained, YOU are the one who would be crying like a baby and probably belching threats about how many lawyers you'd hire to sue the local constabulary.

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.

There's nothing unconstitutional about being stopped by police, and questioned.

No, but you still haven't dealt with the fact that there is NO law stating that an American citizen is required to carry documentation of their citizenship to travel within the United States of America.

Nor have you dealt with the fact that a law officer who legally stops any American citizen for a traffic offense has no right to demand such proof of citizenship.

Nor have you dealt with the fact that a law officer who legally stops any American citizen for a traffic offense has no right to assume that an Hispanic or Islamic or Hindu American is more likely to be an illegal alien.

I have no idea what the law is in whatever UN-American, ANTI-American, ANTI-Constitutional freak zone you live in.

One doesnt have to prove citizenship. Only legal residence, thus making your argument and blathering faux outrage moot. And with few exceptions, a DL will do just that.

Irrelevant. If someone IS a citizen who doesn't happen to have his passport or birth ceritificate with him when stopped, he has no proof of anything that would prevent a law enforcement officer from assuming the contrary and violating that citizen's rights for whatever reasons, reasonable, honest or otherwise.

Our entire criminal justice system is founded on the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, NOT the other way around.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[xj0hnx]

I post a link to credible info about a major principle of our legal system, including a biblical reference showing how far back and how deeply embedded in our legal history that principle is, and the best you can manage is more denial?

In your mind this might mean that bad things are going to happen because of SB1070, but in reality it doesn't.

If you don't, stop blathering your own unsupported, unconstitutional opinions.

Speaking of unsupported, how many peoples right have been violated because of SB1070, should be a piece of cake for you to list them.

The fact that people have been arrested by well meaning, misinformed or mistaken members of law enforcement agencies has happened is conclusive proof that it CAN happen again.

Right, can, and already does, isn't because of SB1070.

Exactly what do you think the maxim, "Innocent until proven guilty" means?

No one is saying anyone is guilty before being proven innocent, as a matter of fact, that's what the law does, gives authorities the power to determine people's innocence, or guilt of being here illegally. Hyperbole much?

Exactly what do you think the words inscribed above the west portico of the U.S. Supreme Court "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" means?

Under your bigoted assumptions police are going to abuse the law, and not apply it fairly, that makes YOU the bigot.

Irrelevant. If someone IS a citizen who doesn't happen to have his passport or birth ceritificate with him when stopped, he has no proof of anything that would prevent a law enforcement officer from assuming the contrary and violating that citizen's rights for whatever reasons, reasonable, honest or otherwise.

Bullshit and you know it. Keeping on foaming at the mouth though.

 

[Harvey]

In your mind this might mean that bad things are going to happen because of SB1070, but in reality it doesn't.

Speaking of unsupported, how many peoples right have been violated because of SB1070, should be a piece of cake for you to list them.

Right, can, and already does, isn't because of SB1070.

No one is saying anyone is guilty before being proven innocent, as a matter of fact, that's what the law does, gives authorities the power to determine people's innocence, or guilt of being here illegally. Hyperbole much?

Under your bigoted assumptions police are going to abuse the law, and not apply it fairly, that makes YOU the bigot.

Bullshit and you know it. Keeping on foaming at the mouth though.

What a freaking crock. I posted legal facts and history supported by competent references. It's not "foaming at the mouth." It's a rational, documentd presentation of facts you can't refute. That's far more than you've presented in even one post in this thread.

I'm not going to bother replying further to repeat the points to someone who posts nothing but denial and name calling and refuses to address the issues.

 

[xj0hnx]

What a freaking crock. I posted legal facts and history supported by competent references. It's not "foaming at the mouth." It's a rational, documentd presentation of facts you can't refute. That's far more than you've presented in even one post in this thread.

I'm not going to bother replying further to repeat the points to someone who posts nothing but denial and name calling and refuses to address the issues.

There nothing rational about pretending that because people in the past have abused the law, that this law is somehow going to be worse. As a matter of fact, because of all the progressive lunacy they will be under extreme scrutiny.

 

[blackangst1]

Irrelevant. If someone IS a citizen who doesn't happen to have his passport or birth ceritificate with him when stopped, he has no proof of anything that would prevent a law enforcement officer from assuming the contrary and violating that citizen's rights for whatever reasons, reasonable, honest or otherwise.

What's irrelevant is you blathering on about having to prove citizenship, which has NOTHING to do with SB1070.

By the way, have you tried oxygen? Might help you think more clearly. You seem to be suffering from possibly oxygen deprived delusions.

Also BTW can you list ONE court case where AZ LEO has been convicted of human rights violations under the guise of racially profiling? Because I can show thousands of cases where they have been accused, and found not guilty. In fact, more people have been wrongly convicted of murder than human rights violations under the guise of immigration enforcement by AZ LEO. Perhaps we should legalize murder now...you know, since there's room for abuse

And as a last BTW...one of the seven lawsuits filed against AZ has already been thrown out. Will be a trend...just watch

 

[blackangst1]

What a freaking crock. I posted legal facts and history supported by competent references. It's not "foaming at the mouth." It's a rational, documentd presentation of facts you can't refute. That's far more than you've presented in even one post in this thread.

I'm not going to bother replying further to repeat the points to someone who posts nothing but denial and name calling and refuses to address the issues.

But, what you havent posted, is the language in SB1070 and commentary on how it will cause human rights violations.

Funny thing eh?

 

[EagleKeeper]

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.

Hispancis are not being asked to fill out more paperwork.

in requiring noncitizens to provide their green cards before they could be hired for jobs.

Non-US citizens being asked for proof that they are here and able to work legally.

ICE provides a document that states you are allowed to work in the US if yoiu are here legally but not a citizen.

The AZ law does not state that it has to be hispanics that provide the proof.
Asians, Europeans, Canadeans will also have to if they apply for a job.

It is the racists that are trying to throw mud hoping something will stick because they support ILLEGALS.

 

[EagleKeeper]

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?

A drivers license is acceptable proof of legal residence in the US except for a few states where proof is not required.
Therefore, if you have a license from one of the "amnesty" states, it will not be acceptable proof of legality in AZ and other states that enforce the driver license as proof of residency.

Those states that do not require proof can also be suscepable to fraudulent licesnse more easily.

And at least in CO, a birth cirtificate from a city does not count for legality, it must be from a state.

It is a LEO judgement call whether to follow up on information provided when there is an interaction.

Driving a buddy's car with a broken taillight. Act funny and you may be taken into custody while they check out your story. Convince the LEO that there is nothing to be concerned about and go on your way with a fix it ticket.

The only thing that the AZ law has done is require LEO to turn over suspects to ICE. US Border Patrol, Coast Guard, TSA, US Marshal and other federal agencies have the same power. Use the LEO discretion in determining whether one walks or is detained for followup. so why should not a state LEO be able to perform the same procedure. they are trained as well as some Fed LEO and in a few cases (TS for example) better.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Exactly what do you think the maxim, "Innocent until proven guilty" means?

One is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The state has the responsibility to prove guilt.
If the state can not prove without a resopnable doubt, the person is free.

This is respect to a court; not a street stop.

If a person is arrested/charged; then they must be proven to be guilty of the charge in a court of law in order to be detained according to a sentence issued by the court. not a court of public opinion.

Nothing applies to detaining before the trial/hearing

 

[Bateluer]

None of the UN's business. The law already had majority backing in Arizona, this should rally support for it even more.

Its ironic though. 8 months ago, it looked like Governor Brewer was easily going to lose the Republican nomination. Now, she's basically clinched it as all her competitors have dropped out, leaving only Terry Goddard to challenge her on the DNC ticket. Goddard, incidentally, actually backs 1070.