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.
The difference in the case you mention, and also in the example ak.neesa gives is that your court case revolves around someone identifying themselves AFTER they are stopped by law enforcement for another reason. Thereby establishing probable cause for the officer to identify them and their personal information, like citzenship status.
The Arizona law bypasses that nuance and allows officers to stop and question citizens without probable cause, without reason. Just because they are hispanic. That is the problem.
I don't care if they check EVERY criminal for legal status. I care if they stop every hispanic person and force them to show their ID, not because they were speeding, but because they were brown. That's harassment.
It's a nuance you people just don't seem to understand. Perhaps if it became illegal to have whatever national orgin you have, then you would be a little more up in arms.
You have not read the bill. Please go read the bill and point out where AZ "bypasses" laws on the books.
I want someone to please define how someone can "look illegal"? Hm, let's see. Do they wear Tejano wear, have a heavy Spanish accent, dark, or whatever the stereotype is? Because there are many MEXICAN-AMERICANS who have thick accents because they are bilingual, who wear the country and western garb, and overall mirror so-called "illegal" Mexicans. In addition, there are many MEXICAN AMERICANS who speak mostly Spanish. To just ask for proof of citizenship based on ethnicity is just wrong. My fifth generation Hispanic husband is irate about this, and little irritates him. I don't blame him - to have someone question my citizenship based on my ethnicity and "looking" like a certain ethnicity is bull. You don't like "illegals"? Then spend more dollars for border patrols, take the fight to Mexico and get that government cleaned up, and be willing to work long hours at half the price. If you work hard, then I have no problemo with you.
But to be honest, I am pleased that Arizona did this. Because Republicans DEPEND on the Hispanic vote to stay in power in the south. And by telling every person with brown skin "we are watching you!", then they are just further pushing the party to the brink of collapse. And frankly, that can only be good for our country.
Republicans will win sweeping victories if they embrace crackdown against illegal immigration. You are very obviously not watching any of the polls and are living in a liberal la la land. Most of the country has wanted this for a long long time but the Republicans took the white vote for granted and played unnecessary games trying to tease the Hispanic vote. But once blacks realize that Democrats are sandwiching them with minority-oriented abortion, mediocrity-sustaining dependence on welfare, and illegal immigration support pushing them out of the workforce, it's OVER: the next century will be the Republicans undoing everything the Democrats spent the last century doing.
An illegal resident of the United States is an illegal resident of Arizona.
Austin City Council just wants to be noticed; a hundred miles out they aren't worth a damn and nobody cares what they think. They obviously aren't good at giving their constituents what they want, otherwise they'd be running businesses doing that instead of doubletalking their way into office and running the city into the ground.
You have not read the bill. Please go read the bill and point out where AZ "bypasses" laws on the books.
Laws applying to unwarranted searches and seizures.
Amendment 4 of the constitution.
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
Blanket Searches.
Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.
Laws establishing that the federal government has dominion over state government
United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Laws protecting citizens that are naturalized.
14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-----------------------------
There's all the proof you requested. The rest is my explanation of my opinions.
To begin, I want to make sure we are on the same page. I have no problem with a cop checking a persons citizenship status when they pull them over for speeding. Or if they go to a house on a domestic 911 call. That makes sense to me and does not overstep federal law. It is also reasonable; which is my hallmark of whether a law is good or not.
The Arizona bill SAYS that is all they want to do.
However, the problem I have is that the Arizona bill horribly overreaches its authority, while providing absolutely no solvency to the problem of Illegal immigration. You can see above to see why I feel this way. Or read my other posts. Laws limit freedom, therefore all laws have to AT LEAST provide solvency and protect the general good.
Regardless of what the INTENDED use of this law is there is no way that you can say it does these two things.
Everyone is so racist and angry at illegal immigrants, that they just can't wait to round them all up and ship them back to Mexico. As such, they have a "kill them all and let god sort it out" mentality. What I mean by this is, the Arizonan government is so eager to attack illegal immigrants that they dont' care about the hardships they are not placing upon LEGAL immigrants, or CITIZENS who happen to be hispanic. In all legal proceedings, the burden relies on the state. Period. Now, due to SB1070 the burden of proof belongs to citizens. This is a reversal of one of the foundations of our society. And we happily give it away because we would rather not have to actually solve the problem.
I have explained this in great detail in my previous posts. I am too tired to go into all again and again and again. Just actually read what I wrote. Feel free to disagree with me, but how about reading it first before you state with certainty "You didn't read the bill" as if you actually know me.
Republicans will win sweeping victories if they embrace crackdown against illegal immigration. You are very obviously not watching any of the polls and are living in a liberal la la land.
An illegal resident of the United States is an illegal resident of Arizona.
Austin City Council just wants to be noticed; a hundred miles out they aren't worth a damn and nobody cares what they think. They obviously aren't good at giving their constituents what they want, otherwise they'd be running businesses doing that instead of doubletalking their way into office and running the city into the ground.
Perhaps I am in a la la land. I don't know for sure, b/c I couldn't understand half your post. It's called punctuation.
I think it'd be cool in the future if our Hispanic overlords pass a law requiring all potential European illegal immigrants to carry proof of citizenship. Karma is a *****.
We all benefit from illegals. there's not a house in Austin that's not being built by illegals. Pretty much every hotel room is cleaned by them too. Even in fancy restaurants, prep cooks down to dishwashers tend to be illegals. There's probably very, very few citizens that don't benefit or directly financially support illegal immigrant labor on a daily basis.
That sounds like crazy talk to me!You are not even considering the impact so many illegal immigrants have on tax paying citizens like going to Brackenridge for minor injuries or work related injuries (just to name one).The jobs you mention can be done by people here legally. Emplyors often take advantage of illegals and pay them low wages (below min) and work them long hours. Sometimes they do not pay them at all. You are not seeing the big picture.
Laws establishing that the federal government has dominion over state government
United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
You are obviously not a constitutional scholar. The federal government only has supremacy in its laws when those laws abide by the Constitution. Otherwise they are worth crap. What you really should have cited was the power of the federal government to establish a "uniform rule of naturalization" (because that is the federal viewpoint on this issue), but you couldn't defend that either because it did not remove the basic police power of the states. As I said a post ago, an illegal resident of the United States is also an illegal resident of any of the several states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBrown80
Everyone is so racist and angry at illegal immigrants, that they just can't wait to round them all up and ship them back to Mexico.
They do not want a balkanized society divided by language and they do not want to see illegals flying Mexican flags on American soil because that is tantamount to conquest. They have every right to be angry about that. They are not racist the way you bait them to be. Do you know why you race bait? Because your arguments are mostly bunk. You're flailing your arms with retard strength but they aren't hitting anything.
Countless legal immigrants are pissed at the illegals as well for treating this country so lightly. That's the dirty little secret about this whole thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBrown80
Perhaps I am in a la la land. I don't know for sure, b/c I couldn't understand half your post. It's called punctuation.
If you couldn't understand half my post it's because you couldn't understand semicolons. Please correct my punctuation with boldface and repost it, so other people can laugh at you.
<If you work hard, then I have no problemo with you>
Cool... so then you have no problemo with them being given your job, for half your wage, then......?
My job is fairly specialized, so i'm afraid that doesn't apply. In any event, illegals have filled in voids that Americans have largely let them fill for many years. They aren't afraid to do labor that at one time people felt below them. They aren't afraid to start their own businesses. They aren't afraid to work long hours. The pay might be low, but anything beats the hell where they came from. I have a lot of respect for the immigrants who try to be upstanding members of society, even if their immigration status may or may not be legal. For a good while, many Americans would not think of busing a table, and it takes a recession for many of us to appreciate that a job is a job.
You seem adamant in your belief, yet haven't bothered to vote in the poll...interesting.
Curious. You monitoring who voted for what, or something? Not particularly interesting. I'm too lazy to throw in my vote. There is no option called "The Arizona Law(s) Suck but the Austin Boycott really isn't going to change it, so I'll just let the pols slog it out".
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.
