[Arizona] Immigration

I think the author confused a police state with a nanny state. No one is worried that obama is going to round people up in concentration camps. People are a bit worried that the new healthcare legislation (making health a financial incentive) will mean more legislation forbidding unhealthy, but perfectly legal, freedoms. (Smoking, Transfats, Guns etc.)

The "Amerika" crowd is on the left, moron.

Wikipedia said:
In the 1960s and early 1970s in the United States, leftists, particularly the Yippies, sometimes used Amerika rather than "America" in referring to the United States.[1] It is still used as a political statement today.[2] It is likely that this was originally an allusion to the German spelling of America, and intended to be suggestive of Nazism, a hypothesis that the Oxford English Dictionary supports.
Click to expand...

In other words, its hella amusing someone who doesn't understand that the whole "Amerika" thing originated from liberals is attributing that to the other side and then calling them hypocrites.

The right frets that Obama is turning America into a police state. So why are grass-roots conservatives silent when Arizona is doing just that?

Where are the tea partiers when we need them? For a year now, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and their minions have been warning that America is morphing into a police state. If government more heavily regulates insurance companies, they insist, or if it puts a price on carbon, personal freedom will soon be a distant memory. America will become Amerika, a totalitarian dystopia where citizens can’t even walk the streets without their government-issued identity papers, a place where police can detain people who have committed no crime just because they left their wallets at home. America will become, in other words, Arizona.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
l61SP.jpg
 
Does Arizona's Law Make Every Government Employee an Immigration Agent? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
Over at The Corner, Linda Chavez notes that Arizona's controversial new immigration law does not just instruct police officers to check the legal status of people they think might be unauthorized residents. That responsibility also applies to any "agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state." This language seems to mean that all government employees, including public school teachers, dog catchers, trash collectors, and meter readers for municipal utility companies, are expected to be on the lookout for aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States. Should anyone with whom they cross paths in the course of their work arouse "reasonable suspicion," they are expected to make "a reasonable attempt...when practicable...to determine the immigration status of the person."

Since the law apparently deputizes all manner of state and local government employees as immigration agents, the argument that suspected aliens will be investigated only when they've been detained for some other reason cannot be correct. And even if we focus just on law enforcement officials, all that is required is a "lawful contact" plus "reasonable suspicion." Police are free to approach people in public and strike up a conversation; that would be a "lawful contact." As Matt Welch noted yesterday, police can even stop someone and pat him down, ostensibly for their own protection, if they think he may be involved in criminal activity and may be armed; that would be a "lawful contact." And as Steve Chapman noted in his column this week, police can stop motorists for all manner of trivial offenses; that would be a "lawful contact."

As for "reasonable suspicion," the law does not spell out what that means, although it does say an immigration check should not be based "solely" on "race, color or national origin." Regarding the implications of that proviso, Chavez writes:

The whole defense of racial preferences in college admissions and employment rests on the notion that race is simply one of many factors taken into account. But as the Center for Equal Opportunity’s studies on racial preferences in college admissions have definitively shown, whenever race is taken into account—even as one of many factors—it always becomes the deciding factor. And it will here as well. We conservatives can’t have it both ways: either we’re for race-neutral justice or we’re not. We can’t be against using race when it helps minorities but for it when it harms them—at least not without legitimate criticism as to our motives.

As Chapman argues, it's hard to predict exactly what the law will mean in practice (assuming it is upheld by the courts). But its broad terms give police and other government agents a great deal of discretion in deciding whom to hassle, when, for what reason, and to what extent. "One of the bedrock principles of conservative jurisprudence," Chavez notes, is that "the words of a statute"—and "not simply the drafters' intentions"—"actually matter."
Click to expand...
 
More on the Arizona Law: Checking the Text - Linda Chavez - The Corner on National Review Online
More on the Arizona Law: Checking the Text [Linda Chavez]

My friend Andy McCarthy suggests that those of us raising concerns about the “papers please” section of the Arizona law are either demagogues or haven’t read the law. What he doesn’t do is actually quote the section in question. I think there’s good reason why he and others who defend this law don’t want to draw attention to its actual wording. The grammar and syntax of the section are so convoluted that it is nearly impossible to discern its clear meaning, but it’s worth trying to parse. One of the bedrock principles of conservative jurisprudence is that the words of a statute actually matter, not simply the drafters’ intentions:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 united states code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. A valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

“Lawful contact” does not apply solely to law enforcement but to any “agency” of “the state, or a county, city, town or other political subdivision,” as enumerated in the law. If the drafters had wanted the law to apply only when a police officer had already come into contact with an individual because of a separate and distinct civil or criminal violation, they could have said so. If that had been their intent, they would have had no reason to include a provision for lawful contact by officials of all agencies of the state, county, local, and other political subdivisions. The list is all-inclusive because the law envisions officials from all public agencies — schools, hospitals, social services, etc. — having the right to demand proof of legal residence any time the official has “reasonable suspicion” that the person is an illegal immigrant.

But even in the law enforcement context, “lawful contact” gives wide berth to police officers to approach individuals on the street, the so-called Terry standard. And in this instance, the law specifically permits that contact to occur solely on the basis of “reasonable suspicion” that the person is an illegal immigrant. The drafters could have insisted on a higher standard, such as “probable cause,” but chose the lower threshold to cast a wider net.

So what constitutes “reasonable suspicion?” The original draft of the legislation did not include any restrictions on using race or national origin in determining “reasonable suspicion,” but the final bill signed by the governor did add the caveat that law enforcement or other government officials “may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.” Again, words matter, and the inclusion of “solely” in this provision is no accident.

Andy surely knows that the whole defense of racial preferences in college admissions and employment rests on the notion that race is simply one of many factors taken into account. But as the Center for Equal Opportunity’s studies on racial preferences in college admissions have definitively shown, whenever race is taken into account — even as one of many factors — it always becomes the deciding factor. And it will here as well. We conservatives can’t have it both ways: either we’re for race-neutral justice or we’re not. We can’t be against using race when it helps minorities but for it when it harms them — at least not without legitimate criticism as to our motives.

This law does nothing to secure the border. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, illegal immigration is down significantly. It peaked in 2000 and is down both nationally and in Arizona. From 2008–09, 1.2 million illegal immigrants left the U.S., including more than 100,000 in Arizona alone. The number of aliens caught trying to cross the border last year reached a 35-year low, according to DHS figures. The decline is partly the result of better enforcement, but the poor economy is probably a bigger factor. (Crime is also down across the country, and in Arizona it’s gone down more than it has nationally — at the very time that illegal immigration was increasing.) If conservatives really want to stop illegal immigration, we’re going to have to figure out a way either to shrink our economy on a permanent basis so that we don’t need manual laborers and service workers — something I’m convinced groups like FAIR and Numbers USA would have no trouble accepting in return for a smaller U.S. population — or we’re going to have to come up with a reasonable, market-based immigration system to allow more people to come here legally to work. Harassing illegal immigrants — as wells as U.S. citizens or legal residents who some government bureaucrat or bad-apple cop decides look like they might be illegal aliens — isn’t going to solve the immigration problem
Click to expand...
 
The whole defense of racial preferences in college admissions and employment rests on the notion that race is simply one of many factors taken into account. But as the Center for Equal Opportunity’s studies on racial preferences in college admissions have definitively shown, whenever race is taken into account—even as one of many factors—it always becomes the deciding factor. And it will here as well. We conservatives can’t have it both ways: either we’re for race-neutral justice or we’re not. We can’t be against using race when it helps minorities but for it when it harms them—at least not without legitimate criticism as to our motives.
Click to expand...

ROFL!!!!

YOU NEOCONS CANT USE RACE AS A CLUE TO COUNTRY OF ORIGIN!!!!

race should have nothing to do with college admissions, race is pretty relevant when it comes to country of origin though, its not rocket science (unless you a moronic bleeding heart ginger)
 
AZ Deputy shot in the stomach by illegal - on drudge

fuckers...

I also liked the reports that say some illegals are going to move out of AZ because of the law. The liberal fucktard reporter wrote it like "lets feel sorry for the poor lil mexican illegal". I was like "bye!"
 
Illegals have already been moving out faster they've been entering since the recession.

Just establishing this, since I know someone's going to pull out the "look! now that we've passed the bill, immigrants are finally leaving!" argument eventually.
 
I give it another week and it will be some worthless watered down bill that means nothing

Ariz. gov signs bill revising new immigration law

The follow-on bill signed by Brewer makes a number of changes that she said should lay to rest concerns of opponents.

"These new statements make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona," she said in a statement.

The changes include one strengthening restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning by police and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police.

Another change specifies that possible violations of local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.

Stephen Montoya, a Phoenix lawyer representing a police officer whose lawsuit was one of three filed Thursday to challenge the law, said the changes wouldn't derail the lawsuit because the state is still unconstitutionally trying to regulate immigration, a federal responsibility.
Click to expand...

My Way News - Ariz. gov signs bill revising new immigration law
 
Who Posted?
Total Posts: 890
User Name Posts
ptavv 156
Ezlpo 120
FngrBANG 47
Swensonator 45
Automatic Jack 39
TF_Grungir 33
Vanster 31
triple 31
Gandalf 30
absent 30
Dweasel 29
TonyElTigre 26
Detox.enD 22
Wowbagger 22
link_ 18
Nevearion 13
Shiloh 12
ICFire 11
MaxxCarnage 11
oDDable 10
jayvee 6
Grief 6
SirLaggalot 6
MasterGnr 5
KnightMare 5
Stilgar 5
Mantua 5
Mjolnir 5
confidential 5
Ksera 5
SniperWhôre 5
Obibun 4
Goshin 4
def 4
McLovin 4
whoever 3
Noshbomb 3
ScooBySnaCk 3
boston 3
OppsIdidItAgain 3
Dangerdoggie 3
Rampancy 3
Travace 2
RF Tesla 2
Snaps 2
TooSmoothe 2
{FSC}Godfather 2
Cat Eater 2
fartiusstinkius 2
Mute 2
Wyrm 2
Commando321 2
Bitchin_Camaro 2
Breyer 2
blink 2
Aronaxx 1
SuperTrap 1
DocHolliday 1
Kingky 1
Serle 1
SkivviS 1
SINep 1
The-ill-man 1
PaYbAcK 1
Hazee Daze 1
SecretSquirrel 1
Reggs 1
solokatz 1
XTasy 1
SirBatesAlot 1
|R|u|s|t|y| 1
Punisher 1
HomeSlice 1
Ender 1
Faze 1
Nessal 1
Respice 1
Tappy 1
bEbOp 1
BrothaLynch 1
[N]PRIME189 1
Monkey_b 1
Defiant10k 1
Wiggle! 1
Lemon 1
JoMo 1
Validuz 1
Rayn 1
Show Thread & Close Window
 
triple said:
In other words, its hella amusing someone who doesn't understand that the whole "Amerika" thing originated from liberals is attributing that to the other side and then calling them hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Agree.

To you it's amusing, to me being on the left it makes me mad. Those fuckups you described have no idea how stupid they make us all look, and have no idea that they're being laughed at. I want to poke them in the eye with a sharp stick.
 
TonyElTigre said:
ROFL!!!!

YOU NEOCONS CANT USE RACE AS A CLUE TO COUNTRY OF ORIGIN!!!!

race should have nothing to do with college admissions, race is pretty relevant when it comes to country of origin though, its not rocket science (unless you a moronic bleeding heart ginger)
Click to expand...


Sigh.......tonio, tonio,
There is only one human race!

Human physical features have been the result
of people adapting to their enviornment!


Oh, btw...the last pic you posted
......offa dee "asian/hispanic looking chick...
well.....I was perusing redtube....anna dare on the side ads....

There she was!
featured as a "hottie to fuck" in San Antonio....
listed her by name as...."I Luv House Music"....what gives?:drool:
 
The revisions can be found here:
Format Document

This bill effectively neuters entire previous one except that it will remain a (new) state crime to be illegally on public property in AZ. It prevents officers from considering race AT ALL in determining reasonable suspicion. Which means every legal resident who is subject to an information request can sue the PD by claiming that the officer allowed race to influence his reasonable suspicion.
 
The new version of the bill is amusing. Now illegal immigrants would be able to defend against the original charge to avoid being convicted. If the original charge was BS then no illegal immigration charge. There would be a much higher burden at establishing a cause to investigate someone. In short that could make it harder than it is now to convict someone for being an illegal alien. The second issue is that this would lead to police persecution of minorities if police intentionally sought to identify illegal immigrants through minor offenses. The bill will either do nothing to help immigration or it will be unconstitutional. Targeting employers is probably the best route to go (as the bill does), if you kill the incentives for people to hire illegal immigrants, people won't hire them and they won't come.

Regardless, the bill still alienates minorities and is still unfunded, if not as blatantly unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top