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.
If Grandpa looks out of his front window, and sees to Hispanic people standing there, and calls the police and reports possible illegals in his neighborhood, the police MUST show up and question them, and ask for documentation proving their citizenship status.
If they don't, they can be sued for not doing their duty, or responding to the scene of a crime.
And yes, police can ask you for your proof of citizenship, without any prior infraction.
See what I mean? This lie is everywhere. Take it away, and these whiners have nothing at all.
Peop0le are driven by emiton of the moment. That is why we are where we are;from teh econmy to our energy problems.We tend to let things go tot eh crisis stage causing a reactive society rahter tha pro active. often the thihngs we are proactive on turn out to be silly and detrmenatl to out survival.
This forum allows you something like fifteen minutes after you post, to go back and edit your post to correct typos, misspellings, etc.
PLEASE use it. Reading your posts will be a lot less painful.
Federal agents have been authorized to ask for proper ID when they reasonably suspect a person is an illegal alien, for more then 60 years. You never had a problem with that until today?
BTW, what gives you the idea the agent did NOT have reasonable grounds for asking? Do you think cops (Federal or otherwise) like getting sued by the hordes of lawyers and ACLU fascists that swarm around every case like this?
BTW, I was reading and analyzing the Constitution and the 10th amendment (correctly) when you were still playing with crayons (poorly). I suggest you try another argument.
A local cop is not a Federal Agent. Federal INS Agents are trained in how to deal with aliens legal or illegal. It's their specialty. Now, local Arizona cops with little training will be making these decisions in and amongst their usual policing duties. This is stupid. It's why the Arizon organization of police cheifs don't support the policy and why at least one sherrif wont be enforcing the illegitimate law.
So what is lawful contact? In many states, including Arizona, a police officer can stop you for any reason, and it can be legally defined as "lawful contact". That means, they can stop you, for any reason, and check your ID.
Thats asking for your papers.
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
This is the exact wording. Again, as I've said many times, I AM NOT AGAINST CHECKING THE IDS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. I am against wording in legislation that is to vague, and needs to be better defined.
Either "lawful contact" needs to be defined by the state, or "reasonable suspicion".
According to the AZ legislature, they are going to define "lawful contact" because those two terms is where all of the problems are coming from. If they define lawful contact in AZ as being pulled over by police for speeding, or something of the like, then I will have no problem with the bill.
The problem with the bill, again, is that the wording is to vague for such a powerful law enforcement technique.
See what I mean? This lie is everywhere. Take it away, and these whiners have nothing at all.
What lie, the example clearly depicts "lawful contact"..Now the police only need "reasonable suspicion" to believe somebody is an illegal before asking for "papers". Not even the governor who signed the bill into law could explain what the reasonable suspicion" and neither will the police..Man, I bet civil attorneys a booking flights to Arizona in droves.
A local cop is not a Federal Agent. Federal INS Agents are trained in how to deal with aliens legal or illegal. It's their specialty. Now, local Arizona cops with little training will be making these decisions in and amongst their usual policing duties. This is stupid. It's why the Arizon organization of police cheifs don't support the policy and why at least one sherrif wont be enforcing the illegitimate law.
None of local law enforcement has the resources to actually try to implement this. Pretty obvious.
It is just a politician's wet dream to get a little national splash with the press and "make a statement"...as damaging and ultimately irrelevant that statement will end up being.
Take away the lies about AZ immigration law, and liberals will have nothing to say about it at all.
Well this liberal has quite a bit to say and not one word of it will be anything approaching a lie.
FALSEHOOD: Liberals have not stated that Arizona police can now walk up to anybody and demand, “Your papers, please!”
What liberals say and the law allows is for any police officer who during a legal contact with a person, when presented with "reasonable cause" to suspect that they are illegal, can demand proof of legal status.
What we liberals argue is that the definition of "reasonable cause" is so broad as to in effect, allow the police to employ racial profiling, and to use the flimsiest context to construct "reasonable cause". And while the law, in part forbids "racial profiling" by stating that race cannot be used as the sole basis for establishing probable cause, in the real world, I am dying to know how it will be avoided.
FALSEHOOD: This isn't a liberal argument, it is a law enforcement argument based upon the real world knowledge that much need cooperation from the community is needed to report and act as witnesses to crimes. If the community fears that they will be subject to questions regarding their legal status, the fear of law enforcement is that they will cease to cooperate.
NOT A FALSEHOOD: The new Arizona law is unconstitutional because only the Federal government can deal with immigration and border matters.
TRUTH: The Constitution says that the Federal government has the power to set uniform standards for immigration. By the 10th amendment, that removes this power from the states and forbids them to set such policy. The argument that Arizona is simply enforcing Federal law is ridiculous since there is no Federal charge for trespass, nor is there a Federal law that requires any individual or class of individuals to carry on or about their person any papers or identification proving their resident status.
NOT A FALSEHOOD: The new Arizona law is racist because it will crack down on Hispanics. The new law may apply to everyone who is found in this country illegally, whether it’s a Mexican citizen who walked across the border, or a Norwegian student who overstayed his visa, or a Chinese sailor who slid down the anchor chain of the Chinese freighter he crewed in Los Angeles and hitchhiked to his second-cousin’s house in Phoenix. But as well all know, that their isn't any vocalized protest about Norwegian students overstaying their visas, or Chinese ship passengers, the issue for Arizonans is brown people. To argue otherwise is the height of disingenuousness
If somebody robbed a bank, do you think he should then be allowed immediate access to that bank, able to walk in, get in line, open an account, deposit and withdraw money (legitimately this time), interact with the customers, get loans, and get the free toaster... all without ever being tried for his previous crime, without serving a day in jail, and without giving back the money he stole?
Similar question. Identical answer.
This was a poorly thought out analogy to what's going for many of the following reasons.
If someone robbed a bank there's an actual cost to society, that can be assessed and valued at the time of the robbery. If he stole $100 bucks from a bank society's cost is $100 plus the additional cost to arrest, jail, and send him through the court system. The total cost of the initial crime might have only been $100, but the additional criminal/legal process might run the total cost up to $50,000 for a crime in which only $100 dollars was stolen. (In other words catching the criminal in this case proved to be much costlier than allowing him to go free and rely on insurance to cover the $100 dollars he/she stole.)
We can agree If the individual is caught he pays a fine to society in terms of his most valuable resource time. Time he could have been using to make himself better off, either working, stealing, or doing whatever the hell it is he did prior to prison.
Now, with this same logic there is a monetary value that can be placed on illegal immigration. There are cost and there are benefits associated with illegal immigration. Most of us only focus on the negative cost, to social services, crime, and overpopulation (which goes with providing social services). However, there is a positive monetary value/benefit as well that could be placed on illegal immigration, this is often equally hard to estimate.
We know a large portion work at reduces wages, which has the effect of raising margins, for farmers, construction companies, and other industries that employ these individuals. We can agree whoever hires an illegal at a reduced wage is raising their margin and thus gaining higher, net income, contributing to higher tax payments to the state.
This has the effect of raising profits before taxes, which has the effect of generating higher tax revenue for the state. What is the value of this positive benefit and how much have illegals benefited companies in Arizona in terms of real dollars?
There is also the benefit of money spent in the United States staying in the United States. Not every dollar an illegal from Mexico or where ever earns is shipped back to their home country. Many of the US dollars they earn are used in the local towns, counties, and states, in which they illegally reside, which contributes positively to state tax revenue and thus can have the effect of offsetting some of the overall cost they incur when they use the towns/cities/states social services.
Even at the federal level illegal immigrants benefit tax payers, because they are not counted as citizens, the amount in wages they earn, which is often very small would make them eligible for all sorts of tax breaks and refunds, so from a federal level, there is a crap load of subsidies saved from illegals who work. (just thought of that one)
The question you should be asking yourself as well as Arizonians is what is the cost benefit and is there a much more effective cheaper way to enforce the law and also benefit the general population?
There is really no one shoe fits all scenario, they could potentially be contributing more than they are taking, but due to the large amount of propaganda and the inability to estimate and gather data on such things it is rather hard to quantify.
Now, my question to you Little Acorn, what good does it do society at large to create laws, that give more authority to a police state? These Laws could potentially be more costly to locals, towns, cities, and the state in general. What's the cost of jumping the boarder into the US? 100 dollars? How much money does an illegal generate in terms of tax revenue for a state and how much does an illegal cost a state in terms of social services. Now you have to factor in new additional cost of this piece of legislation, which many people are clearly too emotionally charged to think about or consider. How much are we going to raise the cost to house, feed, detain, and process these illegals through the criminal justice system? How much lost additional tax revenue will be lost by companies employing them at cheap labor? How much productivity will this cost the State of Arizona? How much sales tax revenue will be lost, because of wasting tax payer money jailing someone that works and contributes to the local economy?
I understand the goal is to reduce and punish individuals for breaking the law, but what sort of value do you put on American Citizenship? Give me two numbers to work with, the first, what is the lowest monetary value you would place on your American citizenship, if someone wanted to buy it from you, and the second, is the highest value you'd place if someone wanted to buy it from you? (ie the lowest price id' accept for my US citizenship is 1,000 dollars...the highest value I'd sell my us citizens for $1,000,000 etc). Basically I'm trying to figure out how much you value your US citizenship and apply your value to all illegals, so i can figure out why you think this law is good and just.
In 20 something years of life I've learned each argument presented by two opposing sides contains a mid-point and the majority of the individuals usually fall into the good side of the mid-point.
Last edited by dorock99; 05-01-2010 at 12:29 PM..
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.
