Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it doesn't. The law permits officers who either stop someone in the commission of a crime or when there is just cause to suspect a crime mto ask the person stopped to show evidence of citizenship. Not the same thing.
Marlowe, what do you think happens when the person they have stopped cannot prove their citizenship/legal status? And that person happens to be in the US legally?
This reminds me of the patriot act and the reaction to it..."Go ahead and violate my constitutional right to privacy. I've done nothing wrong."
The acceptance of violations on your civil rights is frightening.
Marlowe, what do you think happens when the person they have stopped cannot prove their citizenship/legal status? And that person happens to be in the US legally?
This reminds me of the patriot act and the reaction to it..."Go ahead and violate my constitutional right to privacy. I've done nothing wrong."
The acceptance of violations on your civil rights is frightening.
I don't necessarilly disagree Karma, I just find it ironic in some ways. We have to show ID almost every single day in this country.
Want to buy beer, show ID, cigarettes, ID Please. Cash a check, use a credit card, pulled over for speeding, pick up pharmacueticals, by a house, a car, almost anything and you MUST prove who you are. Don't even mention trying to get on a plane.
Is this slightly different than proving citizenship, yep it is, but you still must show some form of ID or you can't do any of those things. So, maybe a better way to have gone about this would be a mandatory ID law. Oh wait, the fed's already tried that with RealID and most state's told them where to put that, for now anyway.
I still say that the MAIN purpose of this law was Arizona's way of firing the shot across the bow of the USS Congress saying HEY, you guy's need to do something about this, but as usual, they won't.
I honestly don't see why all the uproar. I visit a foreign country and get pulled over for speeding, I fully expect to be asked for my drivers license and passport, or other proof of being in said foreign county legally. So why should it be any different here? We've been too lax too long on many of our immigration laws. Having said that, I also think the laws need to be reviewed and overhauled to work effectively with today's more mobile society. What worked in 1910 won't work in 2010. There's more interaction and travel between countries than 100 years ago, and in many cases, that travel should be easier to do legally.
That's not the issue. No one is complaining about people from foreign countries being hassled. They're complaining about American citizens and legal residents being hassled and possibly detained. It's more like if you were French, just happened to be of African ancestry and the French passed a law requiring anyone who didn't look French enough to prove their citizenship. Seeing as you're not pasty white, that means you.
No it doesn't. The law permits officers who either stop someone in the commission of a crime or when there is just cause to suspect a crime mto ask the person stopped to show evidence of citizenship. Not the same thing.
It also makes it a state crime (criminal trespassing) to be in Arizona illegally. If you can't prove your legal status, you are then considered a suspect in criminal trespassing and will be arrested or detained on suspicion of trespassing until you can prove otherwise.
I still say that the MAIN purpose of this law was Arizona's way of firing the shot across the bow of the USS Congress saying HEY, you guy's need to do something about this, but as usual, they won't.
So what is your alternative solution to the issue?
The law we passed here makes sense and is probably constitutional. If the point is to cut down on crime committed by illegal residents, whenever anyone (and everyone) is arrested verify their status. If they are here illegally, deport them.
That said, that's just a start. We need a massive comprehensive overhaul of our immigration policy. The fact is we need the labor force that illegal immigrants provide. We need to find a way to get them here legally, while making it more difficult for unwanted immigrants (violent criminals) to enter our country.
I still say that the MAIN purpose of this law was Arizona's way of firing the shot across the bow of the USS Congress saying HEY, you guy's need to do something about this, but as usual, they won't.
For what it's worth, Democrats are trying to take up immigration reform before the mid-term elections. Republicans are trying to stall it. Democrats want to turn out the latin vote, which will probably only happen in large numbers if they get something accomplished. Republicans already have the racist segment of their based riled up. So all they have to do is stall.
To everyone who thinks we need massive reform to our Immigration Policies, I would say you're wrong. Now, before I get jumped on, let me explain. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) as written is a rather effective bit of legislation. The problem, however, is that every senator and congressman has twisted and manipulated minor sections here and there, so that now, the INA is the most politically weighted legislation We have.
If you are from Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Mali, Ethiopia and many other countries We can not send you home because either your country doesn't believe you were born there or we have no direct diplomatic relations.
If you are from El Salvador or Honduras, to name a few, you have Temporary Protected Status from a hurricane that happened near a decade ago.
Let Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection Officers and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents and Officers enforce the law as written and things will be different. Sure, many business will complain that We are targeting their work force, "civil rights" groups will say that We are profiling based on race, but the job can get done.
If you do not agree with the Immigration Policy of the United States, please put forth an alternative. If you do not agree with the July 1st law in Arizona due to racial reasons, please read it before stating biases that you have only heard about in the media. A majority of Americans, I would argue are in favor of current Immigration Policies (which are not racist). And even our city, Albuquerque, vote 5-4 (a majority decision) in favor of our mayors Immigration Stance.
Well, I'm just going to play devil's advocate here.
There was no law or system (or even a concept) of land ownership when the Pilgrims arrived so there was nothing technically illegal about their settlement. When Peter Minuit paid the Lene Lenape $24 for access to Manhattan Island, the Lenape believed they were getting away with something because they nor anyone else owned or even permanently resided on that land.
Furthermore, the violence that the early settlers engaged in with the native peoples over access to land and water was no different than what natives were already engaged in. In fact the northeast was in a state of unusual and violent warfare in the 17th century due to massive incursions of Iroquois into what was an Algonquian dominated area (illegal immigrants?) so if we are going to demonize early American settlers we should not ignore the violent and rapacious Iroquois in this discussion. Had the Europeans arrived one hundred years later, we might have been able to discuss the genocide of the Algonquin people by the Iroquois. As it stands, there are still several recognized Algonquian tribes extant in New England and the northeast. The fact that the European settlers eventually dominated can be accounted for due to technological prowess (guns and steel), not some inherent cultural predisposition to oppression.
That said, I agree with you that the illegal Mexican immigrants are considerate and docile about being here. Unlike the Native Americans, the U.S. isn't invading their villages and kidnapping their children.
I am not suggesting that the European settlers were innocent by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think that arguments for the rights of illegal immigrants that rely on false analogies don't hold up.
I also don't think that the argument that Mexicans are Native Americans and should be able to move freely on the continent holds up either. Do you think if Aztecs flooded the middle-Rio Grande valley in Pre-Columbian times that the Puebloans would be standing there with open arms crying, "Brothers!" ?? No, they would be peppering them with arrows.
Finally, let me state for the record that I am opposed to laws that use racist criteria to remedy social problems. I do believe in immigration reform that will help current illegal immigrants who are honestly employed to normalize either as guest workers or potential citizens, but I do not think that a borderless world (unrestricted immigration) is the answer.
the native people did have rivals that they fought with however- they didnt ever kill off entire tribes or do half of what the white people had done to them you can not even compare what they did to the native people to the fights they had amongst themselves, europeans did horrid things to the native peoples, i could go into detail but just google it if you have to it was a massacre and it was done over and over. cherokee people were kicked out of their homes and forced to walk to nothing in oaklahoma many died, many were shot, forced to live in stockades like cattle while on the walk given blankets with small pox yeah no comparison.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
