Wacco Poll - Arizona's Tough New Immigration Law

[someguy]

I'm sure you've all heard of this new immigration law that Arizona will be enforcing this summer, being that it is all over the news lately. Some senators and government leaders are calling for a boycott of the state. Even some police officers in Arizona are claiming they won't enforce this law, while others are praising it in the hopes that it will stop some of the violence attributed to illegal immigrants. The part of the bill that is causing such division reads as follows:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of 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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. 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 valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

Many opponents of the new bill say the above language promotes and even legalizes racial profiling rendering it unconstitutional. While proponents vehemently deny these charges and claim this bill does not give authority to police officers to racially profile in any way.

My question to you all is: Do you believe that Arizona's new immigration law allows police to stop people solely based on the color of their skin?

[tomcat]

No.



My question to you all is: Do you believe that Arizona's new immigration law allows police to stop people solely based on the color of their skin?

[babaruss]

Of course the law is racial profiling ...how many Canadians live near Arizona
or have brown skin and speak Spanish ?
Anyone with brown skin or an accent or who dresses ala south of the border will be subjected to this law.
Not long ago a guy who produced a drivers license, social security card, and other i.d. was still jailed until his wife came with his Arizona birth certificate.
Baba

[battindown]

As far as I understand it, only after being stopped for breaking a law, can anyone be interrogated by the Arizona cops. But, at that point the person must show an ID. Just like the law is for everyone. If the person is found in violation of local or federal law her/she must be prosecuted according to the appropriate statute. In FACT, all persons living in the US without permission are felons. I don't know how they get away with it. But, Arizona is simply enforcing existing laws. BTW, there increasing numbers of illegals entering from China and Middle-Eastern countries, it's not just Hispanics. That makes profiling a pretty lame argument. The Constitution forbids "arbitrary and capricious" enforcement of laws. If our cops refuse to enforce laws uniformly, they do not deserve to enforce any of them.

[babaruss]

In theory your idea may hold water, but in fact people are being trated just as wrote earlier.
And as for 'lame arguments'... the amount of Chinese and middle Easterners coming to to Arizona is somewhere between zip and nada...so shove it with your lame response..and besides these are also people of color.
Baba


As far as I understand it, only after being stopped for breaking a law, can anyone be interrogated by the Arizona cops. But, at that point the person must show an ID. Just like the law is for everyone. If the person is found in violation of local or federal law her/she must be prosecuted according to the appropriate statute. In FACT, all persons living in the US without permission are felons. I don't know how they get away with it. But, Arizona is simply enforcing existing laws. BTW, there increasing numbers of illegals entering from China and Middle-Eastern countries, it's not just Hispanics. That makes profiling a pretty lame argument. The Constitution forbids "arbitrary and capricious" enforcement of laws. If our cops refuse to enforce laws uniformly, they do not deserve to enforce any of them.

[battindown]

My point exactly! Whatever one's color, law enforcement should be consistent for everyone and if laws are not all uniformly enforced, there is no rule of law.

Naturally, we each have laws that we don't like. Sometimes may chose to violate a law. That does not mean that if caught, we expect the offence to be ignored.

I have lived and worked in other countries. I had legal permission to do so and I learned their languages. Most other nations enforce their alien laws much more aggressively than the US.



In theory your idea may hold water, but in fact people are being trated just as wrote earlier.
And as for 'lame arguments'... the amount of Chinese and middle Easterners coming to to Arizona is somewhere between zip and nada...so shove it with your lame response..and besides these are also people of color.
Baba

[WeAreLove]

My question to you all is: Do you believe that Arizona's new immigration law allows police to stop people solely based on the color of their skin?

I don't understand what the problem is. We have 12 to 20 million illegal mexican immigrants in this country. If you want to catch illegal immigrants who are mexican, then questioning mexicans, or people who look mexican, seems far more productive than questioning all people out of some bizarre notion of fairness.

If a cop is looking for a rapist, should she stop and question women in equal numbers in order to be "fair" to men who are being questioned? Of course not.

It's a moot point anyway, if our corporate state really wanted to deal with illegal immigration they'd start jailing employers who illegally hire them. Very quickly the job market for illegal immigrants would evaporate and most would voluntarily go home.

If we don't want to enforce immigration laws, and we want to allow as many millions of mexicans to enter the US as can make it across the border, then we should just annex Mexico as our 51st state and start collecting taxes and applying all our other laws, which would level the playing field for all concerned.

[someguy]

Is there a reason why there are 82 views on this thread, yet only one other person has voted in the poll? Come on, people, what's stopping you? I want to know what you think!

[someguy]

Of course the law is racial profiling ...how many Canadians live near Arizona
or have brown skin and speak Spanish ?
Anyone with brown skin or an accent or who dresses ala south of the border will be subjected to this law.
Not long ago a guy who produced a drivers license, social security card, and other i.d. was still jailed until his wife came with his Arizona birth certificate.
Baba

The law doesn't allow cops to stop people because they have brown skin or speak Spanish. In order for a cop to stop anyone, they need probable cause to believe that person has committed a crime. Brown skin and speaking Spanish do not qualify as probable cause. There are plenty of citizens with brown skin who speak Spanish. To establish probable cause, the police need something objective that supports their hypothesis. Read the bill yourself if you doubt this.

Of course there will always be cops who break the law themselves and get away with it. The real problem there is that the courts don't hold the police accountable for their actions when they do something despicable. But that doesn't mean that this law makes racial profiling legal.

[babaruss]

<snip> It's a moot point anyway, if our corporate state really wanted to deal with illegal immigration they'd start jailing employers who illegally hire them. Very quickly the job market for illegal immigrants would evaporate and most would voluntarily go home.
<snip>
.
Bingo....there's the most practical and decent solution to the problem.
Personally I approve of employer profiling !!
Baba

[babaruss]

I've read the bill, and I also know the mentality of the police powers in Arizona. Laws are great on paper.
Traffic stops, halting people walking down the streets, etc. like what has been happening in Arizona since this law was passed, is hardly 'probable cause'.
'Probable cause' coupled with an immigrant status check, is reasonable in my eyes.
This simply has not been the case in Arizona.
The whole point her is the law is not only open to abuse it is abusive.
Baba

The law doesn't allow cops to stop people because they have brown skin or speak Spanish. In order for a cop to stop anyone, they need probable cause to believe that person has committed a crime. Brown skin and speaking Spanish do not qualify as probable cause. There are plenty of citizens with brown skin who speak Spanish. To establish probable cause, the police need something objective that supports their hypothesis. Read the bill yourself if you doubt this.

Of course there will always be cops who break the law themselves and get away with it. The real problem there is that the courts don't hold the police accountable for their actions when they do something despicable. But that doesn't mean that this law makes racial profiling legal.

[someguy]

I've read the bill, and I also know the mentality of the police powers in Arizona. Laws are great on paper.
Traffic stops, halting people walking down the streets, etc. like what has been happening in Arizona since this law was passed, is hardly 'probable cause'.
'Probable cause' coupled with an immigrant status check, is reasonable in my eyes.
This simply has not been the case in Arizona.
The whole point her is the law is not only open to abuse it is abusive.
Baba
Specifically, what part of the law is abusive?

[edie]

My question to you all is: Do you believe that Arizona's new immigration law allows police to stop people solely based on the color of their skin?

This is not about skin color- its about the law. I understand many LEGAL immigrants are for the new law out of many reasons... Europe has the same problems.

The following was written (condensed, simplified) on the backside of an LEGAL immigrants green card up to the early seventies: " ...you have to have the card with you at all times... have $20 on you at all times (to proof your able to take care of yourself at the moment)... you have no right to ever ask the United States for financial help... every January you have to fill out forms at the post- or immigration office to register yourself." Till early nineties it said: "... you have to register yourself at an post- or immigration office..."

[babaruss]

Stopping people under the 'suspicion' that they might be illegal immigrants.
That is abusive.
Checking on people who have broken the law, and then running a check on i.d. is normal police activity, an non abusive.
Baba


Specifically, what part of the law is abusive?

[someguy]

Stopping people under the 'suspicion' that they might be illegal immigrants.
That is abusive.
Checking on people who have broken the law, and then running a check on i.d. is normal police activity, an non abusive.
Baba

Sorry that language is not in the bill. The bill says a police officer needs probable cause, not "suspicion". That means the officer needs more information than color of skin.

What probable cause means is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

A prudent person would never say that the color of ones skin or the language a person is speaking warrants probable cause of a crime. No court could or would ever hold that up.

This word suspicion has been thrown around a lot in the mainstream media, but it is incorrect, and very misleading. I would recommend reading the entirety of the bill.

[babaruss]

All right let me simplify matter for you here.
Damn what the bill says...it's what the police are now doing regardless of what the bills says.
They are using the existence of the pending bill as reason for stopping and arresting people (or excuse me, 'detaining them') whether they have probable cause or not period !
You believe in the letter of the law, and I believe in what I know about what is happening to people of color by Police in Arizona.
It's really that simple.
No more arguing please.
My view.... your view...no way we will ever agree on anything o.k. ?
Baba



Sorry that language is not in the bill. The bill says a police officer needs probable cause, not "suspicion". That means the officer needs more information than color of skin.

What probable cause means is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

A prudent person would never say that the color of ones skin or the language a person is speaking warrants probable cause of a crime. No court could or would ever hold that up.

This word suspicion has been thrown around a lot in the mainstream media, but it is incorrect, and very misleading. I would recommend reading the entirety of the bill.

[someguy]

All right let me simplify matter for you here.
Damn what the bill says...it's what the police are now doing regardless of what the bills says.
They are using the existence of the pending bill as reason for stopping and arresting people (or excuse me, 'detaining them') whether they have probable cause or not period !
You believe in the letter of the law, and I believe in what I know about what is happening to people of color by Police in Arizona.
It's really that simple.
No more arguing please.
My view.... your view...no way we will ever agree on anything o.k. ?
Baba
No dude.... Im not arguing with you, just discussing...

You said that the bill was abusive, and that is what I addressed. Now you say its not the bill but the police. I agree with you that police corruption is a big problem, but we shouldn't say that the bill is abusive when its not. that is all Im trying to say to you. It really is that simple.

[babaruss]

Here's a bit more about non racial Arizona activity:
The Arizona Department of Education has already begun (https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html) "telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented, or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English."

Now they could be just getting rid of bad teachers right ?

I reread that new law yet again...no proof of citizenship equals arrest. No law needs be broken to be stopped, and arrested...only the officers 'suspicion' that you are an illegal is needed for the arrest. Failure to satisfy a given officers idea of what constitutes proper I.D. is cause for arrest under this bill
So maybe you are correct the law is not abusive...but it's potential for abuse is being substantiated daily in good old law abiding Arizona
Baba



No dude.... Im not arguing with you, just discussing...

You said that the bill was abusive, and that is what I addressed. Now you say its not the bill but the police. I agree with you that police corruption is a big problem, but we shouldn't say that the bill is abusive when its not. that is all Im trying to say to you. It really is that simple.

[someguy]

I reread that new law yet again...no proof of citizenship equals arrest. No law needs be broken to be stopped, and arrested...only the officers 'suspicion' that you are an illegal is needed for the arrest. Failure to satisfy a given officers idea of what constitutes proper I.D. is cause for arrest under this bill
So maybe you are correct the law is not abusive...but it's potential for abuse is being substantiated daily in good old law abiding Arizona
Baba

Please post the part of the bill that you are referring to.

[babaruss]

find it yourself...you are being very tiring.



Please post the part of the bill that you are referring to.

[someguy]

find it yourself...you are being very tiring.

Oh come on dude.... I re-read the bill again myself just to try and find the part you are referring to and I have yet to find it. So that is why I'm asking you to show me. I actually want to know what you are looking at because I am very concerned about this bill, and I would be double concerned if what you say is true. So stop being childish, again.....

[babaruss]

A. <snip>
...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. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
How will a person officer will determine who is suspicious of being unlawfully lawfully present in Arizona. Do people wear sign saying I'm an illegal alien ? So unreasonable detaining of people who might be suspicious throws a huge net doesn't it.

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
This is the real crock...you see it is now illegal to enter Arizona with out proper documentation. So suspicion of a crime being committed has been established hasn't it. It's simple."hey buddy show me your I.D...I have reasonable suspicion that you may have entered this state illegally.
Papers are not up to officers standards like the citizen who had three pieces of i.d...and he goes to jail until someone produces his birth certificate.
Baba




Oh come on dude.... I re-read the bill again myself just to try and find the part you are referring to and I have yet to find it. So that is why I'm asking you to show me. I actually want to know what you are looking at because I am very concerned about this bill, and I would be double concerned if what you say is true. So stop being childish, again.....

[Dark Shadows]

The ancestors of the people targeted by this law were here long before the borders or the United States of America was established. What right does the White Man have to keep people out of their homeland by constructing borders that were defined by bloodshed?



I'm sure you've all heard of this new immigration law that Arizona will be enforcing this summer, being that it is all over the news lately. Some senators and government leaders are calling for a boycott of the state. Even some police officers in Arizona are claiming they won't enforce this law, while others are praising it in the hopes that it will stop some of the violence attributed to illegal immigrants. The part of the bill that is causing such division reads as follows:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of 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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. 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 valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

Many opponents of the new bill say the above language promotes and even legalizes racial profiling rendering it unconstitutional. While proponents vehemently deny these charges and claim this bill does not give authority to police officers to racially profile in any way.

My question to you all is: Do you believe that Arizona's new immigration law allows police to stop people solely based on the color of their skin?

[LenInSebastopol]

The ancestors of the people targeted by this law were here long before the borders or the United States of America was established. What right does the White Man have to keep people out of their homeland by constructing borders that were defined by bloodshed?

You answered your own question.

[LenInSebastopol]

I don't understand what the problem is. We have 12 to 20 million illegal mexican immigrants in this country. If you want to catch illegal immigrants who are mexican, then questioning mexicans, or people who look mexican, seems far more productive than questioning all people out of some bizarre notion of fairness.
If we don't want to enforce immigration laws, and we want to allow as many millions of mexicans to enter the US as can make it across the border, then we should just annex Mexico as our 51st state and start collecting taxes and applying all our other laws, which would level the playing field for all concerned.

The word 'Mexican' is spelled with a capital M, as you spelled the country 'Mexico'. If you are going to dis a whole group call us 'spics, greasers, wets, beaners,' and a whole slew of other names that I am sure have been used by folks around here.
Otherwise your moniker should be typed WE....
I won't even finish your it!

[babaruss]

Nice to see you have a fire already going this morning Len !!
Welcome to a portion of my world....that place where people can just piss me off so badly that angry responses are what I come out with.
I try to remind my self that while ignorance should be classed as a crime it isn't, and I need be patient, kind, thoughtful, and all those other things which anger crowds out.
Every morning I start with the idea I'm not going to let fearful, ignorant people get under my skin...and somehow before the day is over, I find that I have let it happen again.
White fear is manifesting big time right now. It's hard for these people (nice generalization here) to accept the very real fact that they are fast becoming a minority, and are in essence being over run by 'invaders' just as their ancestors over ran those who inhabited this land before them.
Baba




The word 'Mexican' is spelled with a capital M, as you spelled the country 'Mexico'. If you are going to dis a whole group call us 'spics, greasers, wets, beaners,' and a whole slew of other names that I am sure have been used by folks around here.
Otherwise your moniker should be typed WE....
I won't even finish your it!

[LenInSebastopol]

Welcome to a portion of my world....that place where people can just piss me off so badly that angry responses are what I come out with.
I try to remind my self that while ignorance should be classed as a crime it isn't, and I need be patient, kind, thoughtful, and all those other things which anger crowds out. Every morning I start with the idea I'm not going to let fearful, ignorant people get under my skin...and somehow before the day is over, I find that I have let it happen again.

When they outlaw ignorance we will all be doing time. At my age I no longer need to practice patience, especially while waiting for the cure to hatred. But you make a fair point.



White fear is manifesting big time right now. It's hard for these people (nice generalization here) to accept the very real fact that they are fast becoming a minority, and are in essence being over run by 'invaders' just as their ancestors over ran those who inhabited this land before them. Baba

White folks have always been a minority when one looks at the planet; they simply have that attitude that it's their whole world and why can't others see it thus, so these progeny of colonialists have a racial memory that bumps others the wrong way and will do so until they learn. And with that attitude of superiority they need not learn anything anymore! It's a vicious cycle of ignorance that would boil anybody's blood. Even though some of my best friends are wh........
But thanks and on this Spring May Day the garden looks better than this screen. I appreciate your view.

[someguy]

A. <snip>
...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. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
How will a person officer will determine who is suspicious of being unlawfully lawfully present in Arizona. Do people wear sign saying I'm an illegal alien ? So unreasonable detaining of people who might be suspicious throws a huge net doesn't it.

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
This is the real crock...you see it is now illegal to enter Arizona with out proper documentation. So suspicion of a crime being committed has been established hasn't it. It's simple."hey buddy show me your I.D...I have reasonable suspicion that you may have entered this state illegally.
Papers are not up to officers standards like the citizen who had three pieces of i.d...and he goes to jail until someone produces his birth certificate.
Baba

Ok. The first section you posted begins with the words "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official....." In other words, the contact has to be lawful to begin with. It is not lawful to stop someone based on the color of their skin. This bill does not change that. Once the officer has made a lawful stop, then the officer can ask for I.D. (which again, is what usually happens when you get stopped by a police officer).

By the way, the bill never says anywhere that it is illegal to not carry your papers in Arizona. It says that when a lawful stop has been made, "A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON." There is no mention of a fine or imprisonment for not carrying your papers on your physical person.

The second section states that an officer can arrest someone without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that person has committed a crime. Again, this is no change from the way it is anywhere in the United States. An officer has always had to have probable cause in order to arrest someone without a warrant. Probable cause, as we discussed earlier, is very different from "reasonable suspicion" and requires a "prudent person" to believe a crime has been committed. In other words, some objective evidence has to exist (and skin color/accent is not evidence of a crime).

This bill simply does not allow for racial profiling. It does not allow an officer to stop a person only on the "suspicion" that they might be illegal. I'm sorry that you find this conversation tiring; I find the opposite. I care deeply about justice and equality, and I would be the first person to be outraged if this bill did indeed legalize racial profiling (although the Supreme Court would strike it down if it did, in a second). I also have a deep distrust for the law enforcement in our country, and I share your concerns about police (and court) corruption. But I also am deeply concerned when I hear people repeating things they heard in the media that I know are not true. When I first heard about this bill, my first thought was "racial profiling". Then I actually read the bill and realized that the media is misrepresenting it in a BIG way. A little critical thinking goes a long way.

[Thad]

The Only white people are albinos and they are in all races, Whites are light brown, Mexicans are darker brown, Africans /Indians are darkest,

The culture refereed to as White seem to be those cultures with emphasis on science and education and all that follows as they tend to have a more productive society that others wish to enjoy. As to the Latino tidal wave and exploding birth rate, I particularly don't like the Roman Catholic influence on our voting system.. Inundation of foreign influence in a time of crisis requires any measure to counter it.

Was China wrong to do what it did to counter the Opium trade that was destroying its society?

You mix the pot with the right balance of spices and you come with something worthwhile to set on the table.


Ok. The first section you posted begins with the words "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official....." In other words, the contact has to be lawful to begin with. It is not lawful to stop someone based on the color of their skin. This bill does not change that. Once the officer has made a lawful stop, then the officer can ask for I.D. (which again, is what usually happens when you get stopped by a police officer).

By the way, the bill never says anywhere that it is illegal to not carry your papers in Arizona. It says that when a lawful stop has been made, "A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON." There is no mention of a fine or imprisonment for not carrying your papers on your physical person.

The second section states that an officer can arrest someone without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that person has committed a crime. Again, this is no change from the way it is anywhere in the United States. An officer has always had to have probable cause in order to arrest someone without a warrant. Probable cause, as we discussed earlier, is very different from "reasonable suspicion" and requires a "prudent person" to believe a crime has been committed. In other words, some objective evidence has to exist (and skin color/accent is not evidence of a crime).

This bill simply does not allow for racial profiling. It does not allow an officer to stop a person only on the "suspicion" that they might be illegal. I'm sorry that you find this conversation tiring; I find the opposite. I care deeply about justice and equality, and I would be the first person to be outraged if this bill did indeed legalize racial profiling (although the Supreme Court would strike it down if it did, in a second). I also have a deep distrust for the law enforcement in our country, and I share your concerns about police (and court) corruption. But I also am deeply concerned when I hear people repeating things they heard in the media that I know are not true. When I first heard about this bill, my first thought was "racial profiling". Then I actually read the bill and realized that the media is misrepresenting it in a BIG way. A little critical thinking goes a long way.

[LenInSebastopol]

The Only white people are albinos and they are in all races, Whites are light brown, Mexicans are darker brown, Africans /Indians are darkest,

I too find denial to be a helpful crutch and rationalization for what goes on in the real world.



The culture refereed to as White seem to be those cultures with emphasis on science and education and all that follows as they tend to have a more productive society that others wish to enjoy.

Yes, the cool toys do a great thing in terms of clean water, sanitation producing longevity and 'the good life' for all participants. The truly great thing though was the promulgation and preservation of a tradition that was recently lost and now scorned in these parts, coupled with the "hope & change" for a monstrous way of life that would kill all those not with the program. Folks other than White can make those toys, but they've not the traditions that coupled it to "progress".



As to the Latino tidal wave and exploding birth rate, I particularly don't like the Roman Catholic influence on our voting system.. Inundation of foreign influence in a time of crisis requires any measure to counter it.

I agree with the last part of the above, but I don't see the influence you mentioned. I almost believe you can discern and if so, what is the danger of "the Catholic influence"? You have no problem with other modalities of thinking, so what is the deal with "that" way of thinking? Is it the abortion/birth control issue and nothing else? Please, let us not go into that on this thread, though it would be an interesting discussion in this venue, but something else as well? I recall after Kennedy was elected the Pope didn't set up stuff, nor does Pelosi follow that Catholic tradition. Just wondering.


Was China wrong to do what it did to counter the Opium trade that was destroying its society?

HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Well, according to some, yes, according to me, no!
Some wish to legalize all drugs here in America, but refuse to consider what you mention above, nor SEEMINGLY acknowledge the more difficult situation, with racial and cultural issues and all the pain that brings, than China possibly had. Such conditions would give rise to massive drug use here, and folks STILL want it legalized....but then maybe that's the idea....great 'rid' of the other races by gaining control and making them junkies, eh? OOPS, there goes my paranoid personality again......or.....



You mix the pot with the right balance of spices and you come with something worthwhile to set on the table.

A lot of folks can't deal with spice in their diet.
Except to have it in their back yards, hoeing and being hoed.

[babaruss]

I knew in my heart that responding to you was a huge mistake.
Your pig headed clinging to words rather than reality is amazing.
No matter what I would have shown you ...you would have come back with a response that 'proves' racial profiling to not exist under this law.
The fact is that people are being arrested, taken to jail in handcuffs until papers are produced.
Baba




Ok. The first section you posted begins with the words "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official....." In other words, the contact has to be lawful to begin with. It is not lawful to stop someone based on the color of their skin. This bill does not change that. Once the officer has made a lawful stop, then the officer can ask for I.D. (which again, is what usually happens when you get stopped by a police officer).

By the way, the bill never says anywhere that it is illegal to not carry your papers in Arizona. It says that when a lawful stop has been made, "A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON." There is no mention of a fine or imprisonment for not carrying your papers on your physical person.

The second section states that an officer can arrest someone without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that person has committed a crime. Again, this is no change from the way it is anywhere in the United States. An officer has always had to have probable cause in order to arrest someone without a warrant. Probable cause, as we discussed earlier, is very different from "reasonable suspicion" and requires a "prudent person" to believe a crime has been committed. In other words, some objective evidence has to exist (and skin color/accent is not evidence of a crime).

This bill simply does not allow for racial profiling. It does not allow an officer to stop a person only on the "suspicion" that they might be illegal. I'm sorry that you find this conversation tiring; I find the opposite. I care deeply about justice and equality, and I would be the first person to be outraged if this bill did indeed legalize racial profiling (although the Supreme Court would strike it down if it did, in a second). I also have a deep distrust for the law enforcement in our country, and I share your concerns about police (and court) corruption. But I also am deeply concerned when I hear people repeating things they heard in the media that I know are not true. When I first heard about this bill, my first thought was "racial profiling". Then I actually read the bill and realized that the media is misrepresenting it in a BIG way. A little critical thinking goes a long way.

[babaruss]

I was in my garden for a bit too this morning, and probably should have stayed there. Foolishly I another look at my screen, only to see the idiocy earlier offered was still there..
I need just remember who these people are, and ignore the bait they toss in the pond (under the guise of 'serious inquiry' and enlightened opinion).
Baba


I too find denial to be a helpful crutch and rationalization for what goes on in the real world.



Yes, the cool toys do a great thing in terms of clean water, sanitation producing longevity and 'the good life' for all participants. The truly great thing though was the promulgation and preservation of a tradition that was recently lost and now scorned in these parts, coupled with the "hope & change" for a monstrous way of life that would kill all those not with the program. Folks other than White can make those toys, but they've not the traditions that coupled it to "progress".



I agree with the last part of the above, but I don't see the influence you mentioned. I almost believe you can discern and if so, what is the danger of "the Catholic influence"? You have no problem with other modalities of thinking, so what is the deal with "that" way of thinking? Is it the abortion/birth control issue and nothing else? Please, let us not go into that on this thread, though it would be an interesting discussion in this venue, but something else as well? I recall after Kennedy was elected the Pope didn't set up stuff, nor does Pelosi follow that Catholic tradition. Just wondering.



HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Well, according to some, yes, according to me, no!
Some wish to legalize all drugs here in America, but refuse to consider what you mention above, nor SEEMINGLY acknowledge the more difficult situation, with racial and cultural issues and all the pain that brings, than China possibly had. Such conditions would give rise to massive drug use here, and folks STILL want it legalized....but then maybe that's the idea....great 'rid' of the other races by gaining control and making them junkies, eh? OOPS, there goes my paranoid personality again......or.....



A lot of folks can't deal with spice in their diet.
Except to have it in their back yards, hoeing and being hoed.

[someguy]

I knew in my heart that responding to you was a huge mistake.
Your pig headed clinging to words rather than reality is amazing.
No matter what I would have shown you ...you would have come back with a response that 'proves' racial profiling to not exist under this law.
The fact is that people are being arrested, taken to jail in handcuffs until papers are produced.
Baba

Baba,

I never said that police corruption is not a reality. In fact, I expressed my concern over it. However, police using racial profiling is NOT the same as the law allowing racial profiling. The reason I have continued this conversation with you is that you have consistently stated that the law itself is abusive and allows the police to stop people based on skin color. That is simply not true, so please stop saying it! This is an important distinction because currently people are calling for boycotts of the state of Arizona over this law! Problem is, the law does not allow for racial profiling, period. Officers who use racial profiling are breaking the law themselves and should be held accountable.

I resent that you imply above that I am denying that racial profiling exists in reality. Nowhere have I said or implied any such thing. The issue in this thread is whether or not the Arizona law legalizes racial profiling. You said that it does. I say it does not, and I maintain that position.

If your true concern is that police will break the law to enforce the law, then you should be talking about that issue instead. I am concerned about that as well. However, I think that police corruption and the use of racial profiling is a problem everywhere, not just in Arizona, and there is no reason to penalize the people of Arizona for something that occurs everywhere.

[someguy]

I was in my garden for a bit too this morning, and probably should have stayed there. Foolishly I another look at my screen, only to see the idiocy earlier offered was still there..
I need just remember who these people are, and ignore the bait they toss in the pond (under the guise of 'serious inquiry' and enlightened opinion).
Baba

You're really sinking to a new low here, Baba. Between telling people to "shove it", calling their opinions "lame", and calling them "idiots" and "pig-headed", you accuse me of trying to "bait" you and of not seriously caring about the issues at hand?!?!? How dare you say such a thing? I think that my genuine concern for these issues is abundantly obvious. Meanwhile, I have gone out of my way to be civil and polite to you in this conversation, despite my serious disagreement with what you are saying. I guess you're just too caught up in your own bullshit to return the favor.

[edie]

... here we go, back and forth, back and forth, million people- million thoughts; now I know why we need some laws...

an other thought: there are such many Mexicans in this country and I wonder why aren't a large smart group of them getting together, go home and fight for their own country? Make something out of it?

an other thought: why is America going over to Europe to make war instead of going into Mexico to help their people who are our neighbors?

an other thought: Mexicans say Americans took their Land away. (they didn't but that's an other...) ...so, if they wouldn't have whatever, America would be Mexico- where would Mexicans have immigrated to... then?

[LenInSebastopol]

Baba,
I never said that police corruption is not a reality. In fact, I expressed my concern over it. However, police using racial profiling is NOT the same as the law allowing racial profiling. This is an important distinction because currently people are calling for boycotts of the state of Arizona over this law! Problem is, the law does not allow for racial profiling, period. Officers who use racial profiling are breaking the law themselves and should be held accountable.
I see outside isn't the only hot place. I've not read the law but was listening to the guy who claims to have written it stating that there is specific language (it's ALL in the language) that states that profiling is illegal and it not be done by the cops. Blah, blah, but that is really a tool to find those cops that are using such and either fire them or bring them up on charges. If 98% of the cops are truly playing by the rules and two percent keep getting bogus arrests, etc. then this law is a means to address that and, as said, hay may be made (or some such trite expression.

I resent that you imply above that I am denying that racial profiling exists in reality. Nowhere have I said or implied any such thing. The issue in this thread is whether or not the Arizona law legalizes racial profiling. You said that it does. I say it does not, and I maintain that position.
If your true concern is that police will break the law to enforce the law, then you should be talking about that issue instead. I am concerned about that as well. However, I think that police corruption and the use of racial profiling is a problem everywhere, not just in Arizona, and there is no reason to penalize the people of Arizona for something that occurs everywhere.
You don't get it, do you. It will not matter with some folks if you use reasoning, language, and make rational sense, they have their own agenda and are not open to discourse or consideration of changing minds via sound discussion and discourse.
Racial profiling and cops breaking the law in so doing is covered by this law....most won't, a few will. This law will ID them.
There is a video here that has one guy who is an American citizen, sounds like a Mexican National, had no papers, and was arrested. Any REASONABLE person would come to the same conclusion, but around here that video became the 'go to' one for how evil exists in Arizona. The real evil is that an American citizen has been brought up in a politically correct system that does not allow him to do what everyone's ancestors did: assimilate. And that is bypassed and considered desirable and OK. He's a stranger in a large strange land and has people demanding he remain in that status.

[Icssoma]

a legal latino said: it's when a latino is dressed nicely, well kept car, & driving the speed limit.
karel was talking about letting mexico have arizona, i think we have to have humor, while realizing these guys are out of their f...ing minds!
i think anybody who can, support the dof am. governor's fund, & if you can't call on behalf of bill halter...(taking on the blue dog blanche lincoln). they are exhausting me. screw bi-partisanship. where is our rovian sales job. we need marketers.


A. <snip>
...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. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
How will a person officer will determine who is suspicious of being unlawfully lawfully present in Arizona. Do people wear sign saying I'm an illegal alien ? So unreasonable detaining of people who might be suspicious throws a huge net doesn't it.

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
This is the real crock...you see it is now illegal to enter Arizona with out proper documentation. So suspicion of a crime being committed has been established hasn't it. It's simple."hey buddy show me your I.D...I have reasonable suspicion that you may have entered this state illegally.
Papers are not up to officers standards like the citizen who had three pieces of i.d...and he goes to jail until someone produces his birth certificate.
Baba

</snip>

[Icssoma]

just read some of the unbelievable quotes.
this is such bs. if we wanted to do anything about immigration, we would just crack down on employers. done. i know people who have gone back to mexico, because the market sucks.

we want cheap labor. there's no way for the republicans to say that, except perhaps opposing raising the minimum wage.
very sick.
don't get sucked in.
it will never stand up in courts.
it's like meg whitman talking about welfare abuse, when the $ is in CORPORATE welfare abuse. these are lightening rods, & they need clear answers.
hard to stay up beat. we need to work hard. & garden, ride, swim, hang out laundry, "whatever" to ground.


a legal latino said: it's when a latino is dressed nicely, well kept car, & driving the speed limit.
karel was talking about letting mexico have arizona, i think we have to have humor, while realizing these guys are out of their f...ing minds!
i think anybody who can, support the dof am. governor's fund, & if you can't call on behalf of bill halter...(taking on the blue dog blanche lincoln). they are exhausting me. screw bi-partisanship. where is our rovian sales job. we need marketers.

[Kaya]

Sorry to all who are treated wrong by ( "The Man" ).
On a different note : Mother Earth is suffering dearly as you worry about human suffering ? she has been ripped apart by another money hungry batch of scum..currently BP has created a problem that is seriously damaging our oceans ...it is unbelieveable to me that with this going on we still find time to worry about alot LESS on the table..last I heard the oil slick was the size of a country and growing larger by the second,it is landing on beachs now and will hit the gulf stream .... they cannot stop the oil from spewing out of Mother Earth .. she is pissing Crude into the oceans at an alarming rate.100000 GALLONS +++ PER DAY...there are innocent creatures being poisoned as I type this post...just something else to think about....:hmmm:...PEACE...to ALL beings

[kpage9]

The only good news here--and it might not be so small--is that some of the racism lurking under the surface in our culture is floating to the surface so we can see it and react to it. Positive reactions: the Sheriff in Tuscon who says his department will not enforce this law because it IS racial profiling, it will syphon off resources, it will cause great animosity to law enforcement, and it will immediately fill the jails.

Common sense does prevail, I tell myself in optimistic moments.

kp





You're really sinking to a new low here, Baba. Between telling people to "shove it", calling their opinions "lame", and calling them "idiots" and "pig-headed", you accuse me of trying to "bait" you and of not seriously caring about the issues at hand?!?!? How dare you say such a thing? I think that my genuine concern for these issues is abundantly obvious. Meanwhile, I have gone out of my way to be civil and polite to you in this conversation, despite my serious disagreement with what you are saying. I guess you're just too caught up in your own bullshit to return the favor.

[edie]

A dutch couple with visiting visa from Holland stayed on and bought a property in Pocket Canyon where they started a small business. Eventually they were closed down, lost lots of money and property and had to return to Holland. I am not sure how this ended and if they could sell the house on time or after they left the country- I still would like to find out about that...

A German Family in the South Bay with a permanent Green Card had to leave the country practically overnight when the police found a little bit of Marihuana in the teenage boys room. It was in the 1980'ties.

It's sad, but its the law.

As for Arizona- why should the taxpayers there or anywhere, pay something like $40.000 a year for an illegal criminal in jail? Some working families don't have that kind of income... and thats just one little problem...

[someguy]

The only good news here--and it might not be so small--is that some of the racism lurking under the surface in our culture is floating to the surface so we can see it and react to it. Positive reactions: the Sheriff in Tuscon who says his department will not enforce this law because it IS racial profiling, it will syphon off resources, it will cause great animosity to law enforcement, and it will immediately fill the jails.

Common sense does prevail, I tell myself in optimistic moments.

kp

I wonder if you are asserting that I am being racist since you quoted me and made your above post? I sure hope not.

[Icssoma]

every study done shows across the board that we save more $ than they latino illegals cost. many work under false social security #'s have $ taken out of their pay checks,& never get benefits.
do they show up in clinics & emergency rooms, yes, disproportionally to the population, don't know.
if this country didn't want cheap labor, the problem could be addressed easily. do you remember that wal mart set up an entire corp. so they could hire illegals to do janitorial work for less than minimum wage?
when the economy tumbled, the amount going back to mexico dropped dramatically, as people who couldn't find work returned home.
their are crime issues. i haven't seen any info to show that ill legals have a higher level of incarceration.
we could reduce the problem by 90% but show me how many republican senators want to crack down on employers?
fences are absurd.
their is a large population of chinese relatives in the sf bay area that are on assistance programs. their families have $, they have figured out how to work the system. there are ads in chinese language newspapers.
haven't heard that mentioned.
i'm not doubting that their are problems in Arizona, i'm questioning the methods to address it.
it's like china. we need them to carry our debt. we like their cheap goods. we look the other way for civil rights issues.
is there a reason we are not opening up trade w. cuba? they want our exports.
the consistency seems to be that our policies are based on what corporate america wants, & what politicians wanting to stay in office need. best government $ can buy.


A dutch couple with visiting visa from Holland stayed on and bought a property in Pocket Canyon where they started a small business. Eventually they were closed down, lost lots of money and property and had to return to Holland. I am not sure how this ended and if they could sell the house on time or after they left the country- I still would like to find out about that...

A German Family in the South Bay with a permanent Green Card had to leave the country practically overnight when the police found a little bit of Marihuana in the teenage boys room. It was in the 1980'ties.

It's sad, but its the law.

As for Arizona- why should the taxpayers there or anywhere, pay something like $40.000 a year for an illegal criminal in jail? Some working families don't have that kind of income... and thats just one little problem...

[Icssoma]

hadn't seen that. the sheriff in Pima is taking a similar stand. spoke out on thursday.


I wonder if you are asserting that I am being racist since you quoted me and made your above post? I sure hope not.

[LenInSebastopol]

I wonder if you are asserting that I am being racist since you quoted me and made your above post? I sure hope not.

Around here being called a racist is akin to being called.....well, there's none that produces the knee jerk response that so many display and hope to create in others. I suppose the "N" word is close, but....don't know.
But it could be said that being a racist is not necessarily a bad thing. Just because I find the human race the greatest and worst thing on the planet doesn't make me a bad guy, or does it? Simply being ethnic is not all that bad either. So if one is calling another a racist, you could agree simply to make a better point. Won't hurt, and if you are the bad kind you will know it when expressed. What I find that we have so much of around here are real racists posing as progressives and liberal, with a sprinkling of those that actually believe they are not racists because some of their best ...and the food is not too bad......or they once knew....etc.

[podfish]

Ok. The first section you posted begins with the words "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official....." In other words, the contact has to be lawful to begin with. It is not lawful to stop someone based on the color of their skin. This bill does not change that.

the quotes given from the law say nothing about arrest or detaining of any sort being a prerequisite. It says 'lawful contact'. The police come in contact with people a lot. I suppose the person being 'contacted' could refuse to interact with the officer unless he's being officially detained.
Really, I don't see how this train of thought does more than nibble around the edges. I don't think this is an issue where there are huge variations in the way people approach it, so it should be reasonably easy to see both sides - NOT that I'm saying both sides are equally valid, by the way. One side is willing to see some liberties infringed on in order to have laws that preserve either their economic status (immigration laws) or safety (anti-terrorism screening and surveillance) enforced. The other side is more concerned with the impact on those being scrutinized - and in some cases they may feel the law itself isn't worth enforcing.
It's truly foolish to claim that the Arizona law won't cause 'Mexican-looking' people to be given more scrutiny than 'white-looking' people. (Debating those terms is silly, too...) There's plenty of history in this country that shows racial profiling is difficult to stop and I can't see how you could claim that somehow it won't surface in this situation. I think that the proponents of this - and similar - laws feel that really, it's pretty reasonable to treat individuals differently based on how they look. Those who feel that way may hate the implications raised by that phrasing, but I can't believe them if they protest that it's in no way true. Frankly,no matter how you feel on this issue, I doubt that you would disagree that police stopping people fitting whatever stereotype is in question will overall find more 'offenders' than if they stop only those who do NOT fit the stereotype.
I think that the question that separates the sides here is do we find this kind of profiling so offensive that we refuse to legitimize it? There's pretty much evidence that the powers that make laws in this country lean that way. Whether the masses agree, I can't say. But with our history, and with our professed national values, it seems impossible to defend laws like Arizona's without tacitly agreeing that you are willing to accept the impact this will have on lives of other citizens - and in most cases, you probably aren't one who will ever be impacted by that extra scrutiny. I'm sure there are some who are so affected but still defend the Arizona law, and those are the ones whose views I find the most interesting.

[LenInSebastopol]

The only good news here--and it might not be so small--is that some of the racism lurking under the surface in our culture is floating to the surface so we can see it and react to it. Positive reactions: the Sheriff in Tuscon who says his department will not enforce this law because it IS racial profiling, it will syphon off resources, it will cause great animosity to law enforcement, and it will immediately fill the jails.
Common sense does prevail, I tell myself in optimistic moments.kp

The Tuscon sheriff knows that the feds will not assist in this endeavor. So all the jails will fill in about 20 minutes or so. The former governor has stated that Homeland will not assist in this and you know that BO is behind it, though she wrote letters to the feds about the same issues when she was governor! SO the issue has uncovered more than "racism" (which it has not) it also has uncovered the hypocrisy and double-duck-talk that so many follow blindly. What is amazing is that, among other things, is not promulgated via the main stream media.

[decterlove]

I like the below quotes. I asked myself the other night if the non-legal immigrants were French Canadian would I feel any different? (My maternal grandfather's name was Dauphin so I obviously have some French in my background). If anything, I would be much more outraged and angry at how out of hand the situation has become.

I have a soft spot in my heart for Mexican immigrants. I have lived in neighborhoods with Hispanic people for a good portion of my adult life
and I can only think of one or two that I've interacted with that I didn't like. Many Hispanic people have very good values; work, family and spiritual. They may indeed provide a "spiritual center" to this country in the coming decades. And I believe the U.S. has a karmic debt after decades of exploiting Latinos in California for cheap farm labor.

I am very concerned about trying to deport millions of people back to Mexico where political and economic conditions are apparently degrading rapidly. I do feel that any felons can be deported without hesitation and I think one key element is changing the naturalization amendment to require at least one parent to already be a citizen before U.S. citizenship is granted to their offspring. And I think equal pressure needs to be applied to the thousands of companies that hire non-legal immigrants to provide a cheaper labor force. As to what percentage of those hard working Latinos that are already here should be allowed amnesty and a path to citizenship, I haven't really made up my mind.

Action must be taken however. I think we are in the precarious situation of having a somewhat progressive President at the helm for three more years and if effective changes aren't made that take in the needs of all U.S. citizens, we could easily see a serious reactionary swing back to the far right. Hitler came to power after a weak German liberal Democracy failed and America is not immune whatsoever in my opinion, to such a grave turn of political destiny.



I don't understand what the problem is. We have 12 to 20 million illegal mexican immigrants in this country. If you want to catch illegal immigrants who are mexican, then questioning mexicans, or people who look mexican, seems far more productive than questioning all people out of some bizarre notion of fairness.

If a cop is looking for a rapist, should she stop and question women in equal numbers in order to be "fair" to men who are being questioned

[someguy]

the quotes given from the law say nothing about arrest or detaining of any sort being a prerequisite. It says 'lawful contact'. The police come in contact with people a lot. I suppose the person being 'contacted' could refuse to interact with the officer unless he's being officially detained.
Really, I don't see how this train of thought does more than nibble around the edges. I don't think this is an issue where there are huge variations in the way people approach it, so it should be reasonably easy to see both sides - NOT that I'm saying both sides are equally valid, by the way. One side is willing to see some liberties infringed on in order to have laws that preserve either their economic status (immigration laws) or safety (anti-terrorism screening and surveillance) enforced. The other side is more concerned with the impact on those being scrutinized - and in some cases they may feel the law itself isn't worth enforcing.
It's truly foolish to claim that the Arizona law won't cause 'Mexican-looking' people to be given more scrutiny than 'white-looking' people. (Debating those terms is silly, too...) There's plenty of history in this country that shows racial profiling is difficult to stop and I can't see how you could claim that somehow it won't surface in this situation. I think that the proponents of this - and similar - laws feel that really, it's pretty reasonable to treat individuals differently based on how they look. Those who feel that way may hate the implications raised by that phrasing, but I can't believe them if they protest that it's in no way true. Frankly,no matter how you feel on this issue, I doubt that you would disagree that police stopping people fitting whatever stereotype is in question will overall find more 'offenders' than if they stop only those who do NOT fit the stereotype.
I think that the question that separates the sides here is do we find this kind of profiling so offensive that we refuse to legitimize it? There's pretty much evidence that the powers that make laws in this country lean that way. Whether the masses agree, I can't say. But with our history, and with our professed national values, it seems impossible to defend laws like Arizona's without tacitly agreeing that you are willing to accept the impact this will have on lives of other citizens - and in most cases, you probably aren't one who will ever be impacted by that extra scrutiny. I'm sure there are some who are so affected but still defend the Arizona law, and those are the ones whose views I find the most interesting.

We can agree that cops do profile based on race SOMETIMES. That is absolutely undeniable fact. And it sucks big time! But that is already going on... Right? Does this law legitimize racial profiling? No. And if it happens, it would have happened before. Don't give this law a bad rap just because some cops are corrupt.

This is very important: Lawful contact means just that. It is not lawful to stop someone based on race. Simple as that. There are strict, clear laws against racial profiling. Does it happen? Yes. Will we ever get rid of it? Probably not entirely, since cops have a way of being exempt from the law they are supposed to enforce. This is a big problem. But again, this bill does not legalize racial profiling. So stop giving it grief as though it does.

It doesn't matter how many times people in the media say it legalizes racial profiling. Common sense and a good thorough reading of the actual bill will show you clearly that it does not. Again, for the record, I despise racial profiling and would have a big problem with this bill if I felt that it in any way legitimized racial profiling, but it doesn't. And no sane, reasonable person could possibly say otherwise after reading the bill.

How would you go about enforcing immigration laws? Furthermore, what language in this bill do you think legalizes racial profiling?

[lynn]

Dark Shadows..."The ancestors of the people targeted by this law were here long before the borders or the United States of America was established. What right does the White Man have to keep people out of their homeland by constructing borders that were defined by bloodshed?"...

Ah brother...with disgusting prejudiced/racist attitudes like that...Almost everybody in the world should just pack up and cram themselves back into Africa...

I am a citizen...And I certainly wish my federal gov't would enforce our laws to make sure our borders are as secure as possible, as much as possible...

Too bad even that is somehow not okay for some...Hey, just keep letting all those wonderful rapists, murderers and other criminals across our borders - who cares...As long as they are 'Brown People' they are a-okay!!...

[Tars]

Does this law legitimize racial profiling? No.

You read it different than I do. As the bill is currently written "reasonable suspicion" can establish probable cause. As written, "Reasonable suspicion" can include anything from racial profiling to just not likng Mexicans; it's up to the cop.

[someguy]

You read it different than I do. As the bill is currently written "reasonable suspicion" can establish probable cause. As written, "Reasonable suspicion" can include anything from racial profiling to just not likng Mexicans; it's up to the cop.

Racial profiling is illegal. Reasonable suspicion can never ever be based on race. If racial profiling was allowed that would be unreasonable, would it not? Are you seriously saying that it would be reasonable for an officer to suspect someone as being illegal based on their race? No court would ever hold to that. And fortunately the bill explicitly states, race and ethnicity or national origin are not basis for suspicion.

A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

[Hotspring 44]

Racial profiling is illegal. Reasonable suspicion can never ever be based on race. If racial profiling was allowed that would be unreasonable, would it not? Are you seriously saying that it would be reasonable for an officer to suspect someone as being illegal based on their race? No court would ever hold to that. And fortunately the bill explicitly states, race and ethnicity or national origin are not basis for suspicion.

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->Yes in theory, yes in law, but not necessarily in actual practice.There are many ways to get around the law/s. It is particularly easy for law enforcement officials to tiptoe around (racial profiling) laws and get away with it.
One example would be that an officer that happens to be racial profiling and pulls over a person [I]solely because of their skin color that is actually not legal , would in effect get away with it, because that person (whom was profiled) would get sent back to their country of origin. After all is said and done.
Do you really think the officer would face any civil rights violation charges or lose job?... …Not very likely.
What is [I]more likely is that that officer would get a pat on the back for doing so, than to be (truthfully) reprimanded.

That being said, I believe that the Arizona law is a [I]Jim Crow law (https://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/lessonplans/hs_es_jim_crow_laws.htm) hybrid.

I think that the federal government should do more law enforcement in the direction of the employer side of the equation as far as enforcement is concerned, because that would be a major deterrent for a good many of the so-called illegal aliens; particularly the ones that Arizona is so concerned about.

Apparently those employers that get away with this cheap labor from the foreigners, whether they are legal or not, probably have to do with certain States getting tax revenues and campaign contributions and other political support from those (employer and business) entities.

There is another factor here that may have been mentioned (I did not read all of the 50+ posts yet); there are children that are legally and technically American Citizens that have parents whom are raising them that are not legally or technically American citizens. I believe these children have the constitutional (or at least human) right to be raised by their parents.

I believe there is a conundrum, because everything is so politicized that the politicians would rather ignore it (a reasonable bipartisan solution to the problem) then to do something constructive and helpful, because they don't think they can win an election if they did or tried to do something humane about it.

It also seems to me that the ones (politically speaking) mostly responsible for the economy taking a dump are the ones that are pointing fingers at the illegals so as to manipulatively draw attention away from their own (economic) shenanigans and oversight responsibilities.

One side believes that what the other side calls “Amnesty” is a non-starter and instead they insists on sending them all back but what about the (constitutional) American children? Those American born children have civil (constitutional) rights; both they and their parents have Human Rights.

If the government, be it state or federal or both only concentrate on the illegal aliens and not the employers that are underpaying for jobs that should go to legitimate Americans (that's why Americans don't do that kind of labor, not because they can't because it doesn't pay enough) and other legitimate workers a living wage, then it simply won't work; and it just ends up being a form of virtual slave labor. (That's why I've mentioned Jim Crow laws (https://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/lessonplans/hs_es_jim_crow_laws.htm)because the people that did not like the African-Americans having freedom never did want to give up slavery in the first place). (I think today, since the people that owned slaves are all dead now; their heirs, (or at least their heirs in common thought) want (insist on) their form of reparations and the cheap labor from foreigners has been one of their ways of doing that.). Now that they have the prison industrial complex in place, they are sending the foreigners away and will replace their labor with prison labor, if they have their way.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

[babaruss]

Quote} snipped.....Hey, just keep letting all those wonderful rapists, murderers and other criminals across our borders - who cares...As long as they are 'Brown People' they are a-okay!!...[quote]


Nice to see real racial profiling ( not to mention stereotyping) in action......you're a real pro !!
Baba

[someguy]

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->Yes in theory, yes in law, but not necessarily in actual practice.There are many ways to get around the law/s. It is particularly easy for law enforcement officials to tiptoe around (racial profiling) laws and get away with it.
One example would be that an officer that happens to be racial profiling and pulls over a person [I]solely because of their skin color [FONT=Arial]that is actually not legal , would in effect get away with it, because that person (whom was profiled) would get sent back to their country of origin. After all is said and done.
Do you really think the officer would face any civil rights violation charges or lose job?... …Not very likely.
What is [I]more likely is that that officer would get a pat on the back for doing so, than to be (truthfully) reprimanded.

That being said, I believe that the Arizona law is a Jim Crow law (https://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/lessonplans/hs_es_jim_crow_laws.htm) hybrid.


I really have a hard time understanding how this law is a "Jim Crow Law Hybrid" when the law explicitly states that racial profiling is not allowed in the enforcement of the law. It simply gives the state of Arizona the right to enforce existing federal laws. Are our existing federal immigration laws Jim Crow Hybrids? Citing the fact that cops can racially profile, and sometimes do, does not mean that this law allows for it. This country has always had a problem with racial profiling by enforcement officers. With that said, this law does not give any leeway for cops to racially profile.

Do you really expect that if you entered another country illegally that the cops wouldn't ask you for your ID if they stopped you? That is the risk that people who enter a country illegally obviously have decided to take. And what do you think would happen to you if you were found by the authorities to be breaking their immigration laws in their country? Who knows. I guess it depends on the country. But the US is at least kind enough to send them back home for free. I don't think many other countries would be so generous with their citizens tax dollars. Let's all take a step back and realize this law isn't about racial profiling, and it doesn't have anything to do with race at all. If there were white Canadians crossing our border illegally in huge numbers, causing violence, property destruction, and smuggling tons of drugs daily, while sucking up tax dollars, we would be just as pissed. I'm sure Washington, Minnesota, and other northern border states would be considering bills similar to Arizona's recently implemented legislation.

[lynn]

..."Nice to see real racial profiling ( not to mention stereotyping) in action......you're a real pro !!"...
Baba

Hey Baba...I'm not racial profiling or stereotyping at all...Ya' wanna' go hike over to some prisons, and check out our tax payer dollars at work?...You mean you don't know we've got thousands of illegals in our prisons?...There are many illegals here that have raped, murdered, and committed other crimes...I hope you are not ignorant enough to not know this...

And it is still a crime to come into this country illegally too ya' know...That's just a fact...And I do think it should stay that way...

[Tars]

It simply gives the state of Arizona the right to enforce existing federal laws.

Wrong-o. What does federal law say about "reasonable suspicion"?


Do you really expect that if you entered another country illegally that the cops wouldn't ask you for your ID if they stopped you?

Hence the Nazi "show me your papers" rants. First, we aren't other countries; we try to be more humanitarian than other countries. So our laws involving stop and search by police.

Intentionally or not, the AZ law circumvents federal law by inclusion of "reasonable suspicion" in the law. If AZ doesn't have an unwritten racial profiling law, why don't they just take the "reasonable suspicion" statement out?

[fafner]

Dark Shadows..."The ancestors of the people targeted by this law were here long before the borders or the United States of America was established. What right does the White Man have to keep people out of their homeland by constructing borders that were defined by bloodshed?"...

Ah brother...with disgusting prejudiced/racist attitudes like that...Almost everybody in the world should just pack up and cram themselves back into Africa...

I am a citizen...And I certainly wish my federal gov't would enforce our laws to make sure our borders are as secure as possible, as much as possible...

Too bad even that is somehow not okay for some...Hey, just keep letting all those wonderful rapists, murderers and other criminals across our borders - who cares...As long as they are 'Brown People' they are a-okay!!...


Just wanted to make sure I understand

Date: 2010-05-12, 7:40PM
LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.
*
*IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.
*
*IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.
*
*IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.
*IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU *MAY* NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.
*IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.**
*
*IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.*
*
*
*IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET** *
* *A JOB,
* *A DRIVERS LICENSE,
* *SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
* *WELFARE,
* *FOOD STAMPS,
* *CREDIT CARDS,
* *SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
* *FREE EDUCATION,
* *FREE HEALTH CARE,
* *A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
* *BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR
LANGUAGE
*THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU
DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.

*I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION*
<!-- START CLTAGS -->

[Hotspring 44]

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->I really have a hard time understanding how this law is a "Jim Crow Law Hybrid"
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->It probably is a bit of a stretch to state that it is a hybrid of Jim Crow law, [I]so I admit the major exaggeration (and literal incorrectness)on my part and apologize for that.
But it is appears to me that the Arizona law is aimed at Hispanics mostly Mexicans but also others that are of Hispanic descent that come from south of the border. Arizona’s primary concerns are not about Canadian, European, Haitian or Chinese from what I can tell.

My thinking was that it is obvious (to me), even though the Arizona law states in essence, not to do racial profiling yet it is (as far as I can tell) definitely aimed primarily at a generalized racial group.

Although I do have to state here that, it does not seem to do so much with white supremacy as the Jim Crow laws were it has to do more for economic reasons. Of course, the drug trafficking is also a major contributing factor particularly in Arizona, but that is an economic situation as much as anything.

I still think it is essentially discriminatory because there is no emphasis on going after the employers (whom are definitely the other half of the equation) in which those illegal aliens are seeking employment, and are apparently getting it in many cases.
Although honestly I can't blame Arizona for that because it really is the federal governments responsibility to do that, but it's also other states responsibilities too, because a lot of those people are traveling through the state of Arizona and going to other states for their employment.

Anyway I did answer a basic [I]No to the poll question, but with the caveat that it won't specifically be skin color but in large part will be (skin color per se) because that is an identifier for the major number of individuals whom are crossing or whom have already crossed the border illegally there.


<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->Let's all take a step back and realize this law isn't about racial profiling, and [I]it doesn't have anything to do with race at all.
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->I disagree with that.
Not because of what the law says; I do agree with the premise of what you're saying about what the law literally says, however it is only fair to say that the nature of the situation has to do with race simply because of the circumstances on the ground; not because the law and the way it's written. Instead it will be because of the way that it will inevitably be enforced.

There is no way around using race as one of the primary factors just not the[I] sole factor (reason) for questioning a person about their immigration status unless they question everybody (I literally mean [I]everybody) they come in contact with about their immigration/Citizenship, the color of a person's skin, and/or ethnicity will be a factor that is inevitable. (The Arizona law does not specifically require them to question everybody it only mentions people that are suspected within reason by the officer of being illegally in the United States {reasonable suspicion, lawful contact,whatever that means is arbitrary and that's where the (flaw), potential problems with the law lay}).
So to say that [I]it doesn't have anything to do with race is just as incorrect as (my statement) stating that it's a hybrid of a Jim Crow law.


<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->If there were white Canadians crossing our border illegally in huge numbers, causing violence, property destruction, and smuggling tons of drugs daily,...
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->That kind of statement is presumptuous and stereotypes millions of people; there might be a few thousand whom are actually doing the property destroying, drug smuggling and violence out of the estimated 12 million that are here.
That tone of rhetoric causes reactions with undesirable consequences like that Arizona law will inevitably have.


...<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->I'm sure Washington, Minnesota, and other northern border states would be considering bills similar to Arizona's recently implemented legislation.
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->I'm sure they would too.
Those states have more influence in Washington DC.
They would probably get more federal funding to do it also.
As a matter of fact, they would probably just get the federal government to foot the whole bill and to do all the hard work, because it's so close to more major moneymaking population centers.
There are more electoral votes there than there is in Arizona. Of course it would! But it would be in the form of more federal action.
Those states themselves wouldn't even have to legislate like Arizona. I am sure that the federal government would step in and be more effective than they have been along the US Mexican border.
There are not as many people in Canada to keep out as there is at the border of Mexico. The terrain is different, but the statistics wouldn't be the same because there isn't as many people there in Canada in the first place.

[babaruss]

In Arizona, just say no to Latino heritage

By Eugene Robinson (https://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/eugene+robinson/)
Friday, May 14, 2010
"At least we don't have to pretend anymore. Arizona's passing of that mean-spirited immigration law (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042602595.html) wasn't about high-minded principle or the need to maintain public order. Apparently, it was all about putting Latinos in their place.
It's hard to reach any other conclusion given the state's latest swipe at Latinos. On Tuesday, Gov. Jan Brewer signed a measure (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051200329.html) making it illegal for any course in the public schools to "advocate ethnic solidarity." Arizona's top education official, Tom Horne, fought for the new law as a weapon against a program in Tucson that teaches Mexican American students about their history and culture.
Horne claims the Tucson classes teach "ethnic chauvinism." He has complained that young Mexican Americans are falsely being led to believe that they belong to an oppressed minority. The way to dispel that notion, it seems, is to pass oppressive new legislation aimed squarely at Mexican Americans. That'll teach the kids a lesson, all right: We have power. You don't.
Arizona is already facing criticism and boycotts (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051203317.html) over its "breathing while Latino" law, which in essence requires police to identify and jail undocumented immigrants. Now the state adds insult to that injury.
The education bill begins with a bizarre piece of nonsense, making it illegal for public or charter schools to offer courses that "promote the overthrow of the United States government." Then it shifts from weird to offensive, prohibiting classes that "promote resentment toward a race or class of people," that "are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group," and that "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." When you try to parse those words, the effect is chilling.
Is it permissible, under the new law, to teach basic history? More than half the students in the Tucson Unified School District are Latino, the great majority of them Mexican American. The land that is now Arizona once belonged to Mexico. Might teaching that fact "promote resentment" among students of Mexican descent? What about a class that taught students how activists fought to end discrimination against Latinos in Arizona and other Western states? Would that illegally encourage students to resent the way their parents and grandparents were treated?
The legislation has an answer: Mexican American students, it seems, should not be taught to be proud of their heritage.
This angry anti-Latino spasm in Arizona is only partly about illegal immigration, which has fallen substantially in the past few years. It's really about fear and denial.
About 30 percent of the state's population is Latino, and that number continues to rise. This demographic shift has induced culture shock among some Arizonans who see the old Anglo power structure losing control. It is evidently threatening, to some people, that Mexican Americans would see themselves as a group with common interests and grievances -- and even more threatening that they might see themselves as distant heirs to the men and women who lived in Arizona long before the first Anglos arrived.
To counter the threat, solidarity among Mexican Americans has to be delegitimized. The group itself has to be atomized -- has to be taught to see itself as a population of unaffiliated individuals. The social, cultural and historical ties that have united people across the border since long before there was a border must be denied.
Every minority group's struggle for acceptance is distinctive, but I can't avoid hearing echoes of the Jim Crow era in the South. Whites went to great lengths to try to keep "agitators" from awakening African Americans' sense of pride and injustice. They failed, just as the new Arizona law will fail.
It's important to distinguish between Arizona officials' legitimate concerns and their illegitimate ones. The state does have a real problem with illegal immigration, and the federal government has ignored its responsibility to enact comprehensive reform that would make the border more secure. But Arizona is lashing out with measures that will not just punish the undocumented but also negatively affect Mexican American citizens whose local roots are generations deep.
The new education law is gratuitous and absurd. Arizona can't be picked up and moved to the Midwest; it's next to Mexico. There have always been families and traditions that straddle the two societies, and there always will be. Mexican Americans are inevitably going to feel proud of who they are and where they came from -- even if acknowledging and encouraging such pride in the classroom are against the law.
You know kids. They'll just learn it in the street."

It is indeed a crime to come into this country illegally.. This is your only valid comment. The rest is stereotyped, racially charged, garbage.
Baba




..."Nice to see real racial profiling ( not to mention stereotyping) in action......you're a real pro !!"...
Baba

Hey Baba...I'm not racial profiling or stereotyping at all...Ya' wanna' go hike over to some prisons, and check out our tax payer dollars at work?...You mean you don't know we've got thousands of illegals in our prisons?...There are many illegals here that have raped, murdered, and committed other crimes...I hope you are not ignorant enough to not know this...

And it is still a crime to come into this country illegally too ya' know...That's just a fact...And I do think it should stay that way...

[edie]

*IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET** *
* *A JOB,
* *A DRIVERS LICENSE,
* *SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
* *WELFARE,
* *FOOD STAMPS,
* *CREDIT CARDS,
* *SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
* *FREE EDUCATION,
* *FREE HEALTH CARE,
* *A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
* *BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR
LANGUAGE
*THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU
DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.

*I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION*
<!-- START CLTAGS -->[/QUOTE]

You forgot one out of three jail-mates $40.000 a year (up or down)

I think its easy to take care off: The ones FOR IT PAY for all that and the others don't...

I have a question: I understand Mexico has still an old law that allows Mexico if need to or want to, to have all Americans who are living in Mexico "go back home", leave the country- and confiscate their property and money. This happened around the fifties? Any one please know about that law?

[Kaya]

hey Eddie I think you missed the rest of your copy and pasted post....?

What has this country come to . . .





LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT.
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.
IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.
IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.
IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.
IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.
IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET







<LI class=ecxMsoNormal style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,153)">A JOB, <LI class=ecxMsoNormal style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,153)">A DRIVERS LICENSE, <LI class=ecxMsoNormal style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,153)">SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, <LI class=ecxMsoNormal style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,153)">WELFARE, <LI class=ecxMsoNormal style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,153)">FOOD STAMPS, <LI class=ecxMsoNormal style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,153)">CREDIT CARDS, <LI class=ecxMsoNormal style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,153)">SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE, <LI class=ecxMsoNormal style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,153)">FREE EDUCATION, <LI class=ecxMsoNormal style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,153)">FREE HEALTH CARE, <LI class=ecxMsoNormal style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,153)">A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON <LI class=ecxMsoNormal style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,153)">BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE <LI class=ecxMsoNormal style="COLOR: rgb(102,102,153)">THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR Country's FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT
AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION.

[someguy]

Wrong-o. What does federal law say about "reasonable suspicion"?

Hence the Nazi "show me your papers" rants. First, we aren't other countries; we try to be more humanitarian than other countries. So our laws involving stop and search by police.

Intentionally or not, the AZ law circumvents federal law by inclusion of "reasonable suspicion" in the law. If AZ doesn't have an unwritten racial profiling law, why don't they just take the "reasonable suspicion" statement out?

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that is defined as "an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time".

Its a step down from probable cause. But it still requires that a reasonable person would believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed. The Supreme Court has defined "reasonable suspicion" as requiring more than an "unarticulated hunch". In other words, there must be facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonably objective person or officer to conclude that a crime has been or will be committed.

Maybe that's why they didn't take it out of the bill. Actually, they went a step further and specifically wrote into the bill that race or national origin cannot be the sole reason for the reasonable suspicion. Obviously, a person's skin color can never be the basis for a reasonable suspicion, because no reasonable person would ever think that a person's skin color would predispose them to a particular crime. That would be absurd.

[LenInSebastopol]

Glad we were told we have no power in Arizona. We didn't know that! Oh, wait.....been there, done that, now tell me something new!
Read on: you did this to Africans living in America long before most current Americans were living here. That migration took place in a major way prior to 1820 and most other Americans came over after. And look at what those classes did. We have a majority of Black folks with negative thoughts in their heads, hearts & souls, negative words, giving rise to negative emotions, behaviors, and all that goes along with it. It is a cybernetic phenomena that a human being listening to that crap sold for the last 40 years in the media, schools, and promulgated by the likes of those that gain power and money from it will only produce negative people. All in the name of "race" and some notions that are only ideal and yet the pounding away where none can bring down to earth. None. And look at the outcome!
Now that WE have a chance to unite, not as a separate ethnic group or race, teaching us how "oppressed" and losers we are in every possible venue, but as a people belonging to one nation, there are those fighting to keep all that crap going on so that real chances will be lost in the negative material promulgated by the likes of those that keep, what is characterized by hatred, going.
No, we really don't....but most here have the other agenda.....
We don't need Mr. Robinson or you to tell us we are down, oppressed, denied, passed over. And we have pride, not the kind you can teach in a class room, as that is not pride, but what gives rise to anger.....hatred and division among all peoples of this nation.


In Arizona, just say no to Latino heritage By Eugene Robinson (https://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/eugene+robinson/)
Friday, May 14, 2010
"At least we don't have to pretend anymore. Arizona's passing of that mean-spirited immigration law (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042602595.html) wasn't about high-minded principle or the need to maintain public order. Apparently, it was all about putting Latinos in their place.
It's hard to reach any other conclusion given the state's latest swipe at Latinos. On Tuesday, Gov. Jan Brewer signed a measure (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051200329.html) making it illegal for any course in the public schools to "advocate ethnic solidarity." Arizona's top education official, Tom Horne, fought for the new law as a weapon against a program in Tucson that teaches Mexican American students about their history and culture.
Horne claims the Tucson classes teach "ethnic chauvinism." He has complained that young Mexican Americans are falsely being led to believe that they belong to an oppressed minority. The way to dispel that notion, it seems, is to pass oppressive new legislation aimed squarely at Mexican Americans. That'll teach the kids a lesson, all right: We have power. You don't.
Arizona is already facing criticism and boycotts (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051203317.html) over its "breathing while Latino" law, which in essence requires police to identify and jail undocumented immigrants. Now the state adds insult to that injury.
The education bill begins with a bizarre piece of nonsense, making it illegal for public or charter schools to offer courses that "promote the overthrow of the United States government." Then it shifts from weird to offensive, prohibiting classes that "promote resentment toward a race or class of people," that "are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group," and that "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." When you try to parse those words, the effect is chilling.
Is it permissible, under the new law, to teach basic history? More than half the students in the Tucson Unified School District are Latino, the great majority of them Mexican American. The land that is now Arizona once belonged to Mexico. Might teaching that fact "promote resentment" among students of Mexican descent? What about a class that taught students how activists fought to end discrimination against Latinos in Arizona and other Western states? Would that illegally encourage students to resent the way their parents and grandparents were treated?
The legislation has an answer: Mexican American students, it seems, should not be taught to be proud of their heritage.
This angry anti-Latino spasm in Arizona is only partly about illegal immigration, which has fallen substantially in the past few years. It's really about fear and denial.
About 30 percent of the state's population is Latino, and that number continues to rise. This demographic shift has induced culture shock among some Arizonans who see the old Anglo power structure losing control. It is evidently threatening, to some people, that Mexican Americans would see themselves as a group with common interests and grievances -- and even more threatening that they might see themselves as distant heirs to the men and women who lived in Arizona long before the first Anglos arrived.
To counter the threat, solidarity among Mexican Americans has to be delegitimized. The group itself has to be atomized -- has to be taught to see itself as a population of unaffiliated individuals. The social, cultural and historical ties that have united people across the border since long before there was a border must be denied.
Every minority group's struggle for acceptance is distinctive, but I can't avoid hearing echoes of the Jim Crow era in the South. Whites went to great lengths to try to keep "agitators" from awakening African Americans' sense of pride and injustice. They failed, just as the new Arizona law will fail.
It's important to distinguish between Arizona officials' legitimate concerns and their illegitimate ones. The state does have a real problem with illegal immigration, and the federal government has ignored its responsibility to enact comprehensive reform that would make the border more secure. But Arizona is lashing out with measures that will not just punish the undocumented but also negatively affect Mexican American citizens whose local roots are generations deep.
The new education law is gratuitous and absurd. Arizona can't be picked up and moved to the Midwest; it's next to Mexico. There have always been families and traditions that straddle the two societies, and there always will be. Mexican Americans are inevitably going to feel proud of who they are and where they came from -- even if acknowledging and encouraging such pride in the classroom are against the law.
You know kids. They'll just learn it in the street."

It is indeed a crime to come into this country illegally.. This is your only valid comment. The rest is stereotyped, racially charged, garbage.
Baba

[someguy]

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->It probably is a bit of a stretch to state that it is a hybrid of Jim Crow law, [I]so I admit the major exaggeration (and literal incorrectness)on my part and apologize for that.
But it is appears to me that the Arizona law is aimed at Hispanics mostly Mexicans but also others that are of Hispanic descent that come from south of the border. Arizona’s primary concerns are not about Canadian, European, Haitian or Chinese from what I can tell.

My thinking was that it is obvious (to me), even though the Arizona law states in essence, not to do racial profiling yet it is (as far as I can tell) definitely aimed primarily at a generalized racial group.

Although I do have to state here that, it does not seem to do so much with white supremacy as the Jim Crow laws were it has to do more for economic reasons. Of course, the drug trafficking is also a major contributing factor particularly in Arizona, but that is an economic situation as much as anything.

I still think it is essentially discriminatory because there is no emphasis on going after the employers (whom are definitely the other half of the equation) in which those illegal aliens are seeking employment, and are apparently getting it in many cases.
Although honestly I can't blame Arizona for that because it really is the federal governments responsibility to do that, but it's also other states responsibilities too, because a lot of those people are traveling through the state of Arizona and going to other states for their employment.

Anyway I did answer a basic [I]No to the poll question, but with the caveat that it won't specifically be skin color but in large part will be (skin color per se) because that is an identifier for the major number of individuals whom are crossing or whom have already crossed the border illegally there.


<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->I disagree with that.
Not because of what the law says; I do agree with the premise of what you're saying about what the law literally says, however it is only fair to say that the nature of the situation has to do with race simply because of the circumstances on the ground; not because the law and the way it's written. Instead it will be because of the way that it will inevitably be enforced.

There is no way around using race as one of the primary factors just not the[I] sole factor (reason) for questioning a person about their immigration status unless they question everybody (I literally mean [I]everybody) they come in contact with about their immigration/Citizenship, the color of a person's skin, and/or ethnicity will be a factor that is inevitable. (The Arizona law does not specifically require them to question everybody it only mentions people that are suspected within reason by the officer of being illegally in the United States {reasonable suspicion, lawful contact,whatever that means is arbitrary and that's where the (flaw), potential problems with the law lay}).
So to say that [I]it doesn't have anything to do with race is just as incorrect as (my statement) stating that it's a hybrid of a Jim Crow law.


<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->That kind of statement is presumptuous and stereotypes millions of people; there might be a few thousand whom are actually doing the property destroying, drug smuggling and violence out of the estimated 12 million that are here.
That tone of rhetoric causes reactions with undesirable consequences like that Arizona law will inevitably have.

[/FONT]

No worries man, we all get carried away sometimes! I applaud your willingness to correct yourself.

But I disagree that the legislation is aimed primarily at a particular racial group. The legislation is aimed at people who break the law by entering our country illegally. The race of those people should not matter. The federal immigration laws are the way they are, and the fact that Mexicans make up the majority of the people crossing the border in Arizona illegally is purely coincidental. With my Canadian example, I was trying to give a hypothetical to make a point. Here, I'll try a different one: Imagine, if you will, that all of the illegal aliens from Mexico were white. Would you have a problem with this law the way it is written? I'd like to know.

By the way, the law states that a driver's license or state issued ID is perfectly acceptable to convince an officer that a person is not an illegal alien. The law does not require people to carry their immigration papers on them. And I already discussed the reasonable suspicion thing in my last response to Tars. It requires the officer to have objective facts or circumstances that lead them to believe that a person has committed a crime. If an officer has objective facts or circumstances that lead them to believe that a person has entered the country illegally, do you see anything wrong with that officer asking the person for their ID? I mean, thats what officers have always done when they have reason to believe that a person has committed a crime. This doesn't change that in any way.

I don't think it is stereotyping to say that there is a lot of crime and violence that is happening near the border that is due to illegal aliens. I am not talking about Mexicans or people of Hispanic heritage, I am talking about people who cross the border illegally. This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with behavior. After all, any illegal alien has already demonstrated a disrespect for the immigration laws of our country, and a willingness to cut in front, so to speak, of all the people who choose to go the legal route. Not very good character traits, in my opinion.

If I said that Mexicans are lazy (I dont actually think this), that would be stereotyping. But if I say that illegal aliens are criminals, that is a fact, because they have broken the law. Obviously the great majority of illegal aliens are not violent drug smugglers, and I apologize if my statement came off that way, but all of them have broken at least one law willingly. You left out the part of my sentence where I mentioned sucking up tax dollars, something that a great many illegal aliens do. Our state is bankrupt, after all.

[Tars]

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that is defined as "an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time".

Hmmm...did it also happen to define "objectively justifiable", and "specific facts or circumstances"? Which specific facts or circumstances are objectively justifiable? Bunch of buzzwords...

The law is intended to reduce illegal immigration. What specific facts or circumstances would be applicable in this context? It should define those, or remove reasonable suspicion wording. If it is used the same way as probable cause, then it should just say "probable cause". The vagueness of how this law uses "reasonable suspicion" is the main factor that makes it a poorly-written piece of legislative slop.


But it still requires that a reasonable person would believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed. The Supreme Court has defined "reasonable suspicion" as requiring more than an "unarticulated hunch". In other words, there must be facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonably objective person or officer to conclude that a crime has been or will be committed.Also known as probable cause.


Actually, they went a step further and specifically wrote into the bill that race or national origin cannot be the sole reason for the reasonable suspicion.The law would've been a much better one if it just addressed that factor. But again, it's buzz. The bill claims to follow federal immigration laws. Then why does AZ need to make a law, if they're just going to follow federal policy anyway?

Dumb law!

[babaruss]

So Len...as a non Hispanic person, I should mind my own business where the subject of this Arizona law is concerned (or does that apply to all things Hispanic) ? That attitude sure puts a huge crimp in the word 'solidarity' don't you think ?
Baba


Glad we were told we have no power in Arizona. We didn't know that! Oh, wait.....been there, done that, now tell me something new!
Read on: you did this to Africans living in America long before most current Americans were living here. That migration took place in a major way prior to 1820 and most other Americans came over after. And look at what those classes did. We have a majority of Black folks with negative thoughts in their heads, hearts & souls, negative words, giving rise to negative emotions, behaviors, and all that goes along with it. It is a cybernetic phenomena that a human being listening to that crap sold for the last 40 years in the media, schools, and promulgated by the likes of those that gain power and money from it will only produce negative people. All in the name of "race" and some notions that are only ideal and yet the pounding away where none can bring down to earth. None. And look at the outcome!
Now that WE have a chance to unite, not as a separate ethnic group or race, teaching us how "oppressed" and losers we are in every possible venue, but as a people belonging to one nation, there are those fighting to keep all that crap going on so that real chances will be lost in the negative material promulgated by the likes of those that keep, what is characterized by hatred, going.
No, we really don't....but most here have the other agenda.....
We don't need Mr. Robinson or you to tell us we are down, oppressed, denied, passed over. And we have pride, not the kind you can teach in a class room, as that is not pride, but what gives rise to anger.....hatred and division among all peoples of this nation.

[LenInSebastopol]

I find the evidence that the last 40 years of teaching "ethnic studies" does not bring solidarity but division. But then I gather you think the word "solidarity" as in race or ethnicity, not in union with other countrymen.
As for minding any business, go ahead, mind what you find are capable of handling, but if it is to continue to promulgate division, separation, and negativity in other folks, then we will cross again and again.......
I simply stated that we do not need some writer telling us what is going on and is obvious to us. It is clear to me that his market is not Brown people, so I suppose it is your business since you did not know that many are kept in serf status by gov't institutions. Or that the folks in Arizona want to free many of us of the burden so many here find what should be "mandated", which is negativity by way of school regulations for young people.


So Len...as a non Hispanic person, I should mind my own business where the subject of this Arizona law is concerned (or does that apply to all things Hispanic) ? That attitude sure puts a huge crimp in the word 'solidarity' don't you think ?
Baba

[Zeno Swijtink]

I find the evidence that the last 40 years of teaching "ethnic studies" does not bring solidarity but division. But then I gather you think the word "solidarity" as in race or ethnicity, not in union with other countrymen.

I think many people consider meeting in union, or in community, with other countrymen an ultimate goal. But you can't start out like that.

You have to meet somewhere, and that place where you meet in union does not yet exists. It has to be created through everybody participating.

If you are exhorted to meet in union with other countrymen from the get-go, many people would find themselves forced to meet at another party's place.

Teaching "ethnic studies" seems a useful thing to explore the map. Knowing the map is a good thing to know for meeting in unison.

[babaruss]

I guess what I'll have to do is keep stating my views..especially if the next group of people to be shit on may be my mutt breed.
I believe all people have the right to know their roots.
I needed to know where I came from, and was o.k. with the surprises that search unfolded for me.
I think I''ll just leave you alone, as your anger at everyone who offers an opinion just confuses me.
baba



I find the evidence that the last 40 years of teaching "ethnic studies" does not bring solidarity but division. But then I gather you think the word "solidarity" as in race or ethnicity, not in union with other countrymen.
As for minding any business, go ahead, mind what you find are capable of handling, but if it is to continue to promulgate division, separation, and negativity in other folks, then we will cross again and again.......
I simply stated that we do not need some writer telling us what is going on and is obvious to us. It is clear to me that his market is not Brown people, so I suppose it is your business since you did not know that many are kept in serf status by gov't institutions. Or that the folks in Arizona want to free many of us of the burden so many here find what should be "mandated", which is negativity by way of school regulations for young people.

[Hotspring 44]

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="Edit-Time-Data" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_editdata.mso"><!--> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]--><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} table.MsoTableGrid {mso-style-name:"Table Grid"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

Okay you've made some reasonably intelligent points but I think you missed at least one major aspect of the situation I mentioned. That aspect is the other half of the equation of the reason why so many illegal immigrants have gotten away with it in the first place; which is, the employer's that employ them. What about law enforcement regarding that?
It seems to me to be a chicken before the egg situation, of course eggs existed before chickens, but they did not have chickens hatching out of them; {dinosaur eggs}.

Metaphorically speaking my point is; the unwanted, underpaying, grueling jobs are the proverbial egg, and illegal immigration is the proverbial chickens that hatch out of that.

So as long as the law enforcement aspect is lopsided; regardless of whether we agree with certain aspects of it or not simply won't work effectively. It will be inefficient, and it is discriminatory by the nature of it being that way. Not necessarily racist, but is discriminatory.


No worries man, we all get carried away sometimes! I applaud your willingness to correct yourself.

thanks, I appreciate the recognition.


But I disagree that the legislation is aimed primarily at a particular racial group. The legislation is aimed at people who break the law by entering our country illegally. The race of those people should not matter. The federal immigration laws are the way they are, and the fact that Mexicans make up the majority of the people crossing the border in Arizona illegally is purely coincidental. With my Canadian example, I was trying to give a hypothetical to make a point. Here, I'll try a different one: Imagine, if you will, that all of the illegal aliens from Mexico were white. Would you have a problem with this law the way it is written? I'd like to know.
I already answered that question as a basic No with the [I]caveat that the practicability of enforcing it is by the nature of the situation discriminatory.
What I said, also, is that unless law enforcement in Arizona [I]always asks everybody they come in contact with, regardless of color, their immigration/citizenship status because of the real actual situation in Arizona with so many Hispanic people legitimately living there that regardless of whom likes it or not it becomes discriminatory by way of (practicability) practice. In other words, to implement that law, law enforcement and other officials would inevitably consider race more frequently than not as at least one of the primary considerations. That's just the nature of the real on the ground situation there.


The law does not require people to carry their immigration papers on them. And I already discussed the reasonable suspicion thing in my last response to Tars. It requires the officer to have objective facts or circumstances that lead them to believe that a person has committed a crime.

Such as for example; talking in Spanish? Words such as looks like a particular type of person that would illegally cross the border directly into Arizona? Fits a particular description; Hispanic male 180 pounds dark hair; Etc. etc.?
In other words; objective could and inevitably would become subjective in certain circumstances.

I remember I used to get pulled over by the police when I was young. They didn't tell me it was because I was young. They told me it was some mechanical violation that didn't actually exist. So whatever you say about how the law is written may be true. But the practice of it leaves a legal gap big enough for the Exxon Valdez to go through those loopholes sideways. That's why I put the caveat in.

No; the wording of the law is not discriminatory like Jim Crow laws were. But yes, the practice of making those arbitrary decisions (reasonable suspicion to name one) are just that; arbitrary because the fact of the matter is that in practice it is arbitrary because it is up to the officer on the scene to personally make that judgment and therefore, not so absolutely definite as some may assume.
In other words, the action of the individual officer would have to be extreme and egregious to even come close to being actionable against the officer for civil rights violations.

Unfortunately that form of concealable prejudice<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> is one of the ways that discrimination and racism creeps and lurches into the laws of our society and unfortunately sometimes grows like a stealthy virus.


If an officer has objective facts or circumstances that lead them to believe that a person has entered the country illegally, do you see anything wrong with that officer asking the person for their ID?
What would those objective facts and/or circumstances be in Arizona? Could it be the circumstance that a person would become a suspect if they were Hispanic and speaking Spanish with someone?
What do you think they would be doing besides looking the part (like somebody that came from south of the border) and talking the part as far as the language they're speaking with each other is concerned that could give the officer [I]reasonable cause?
Could you give me a realistic hypothetical situation that does not involve skin color, ethnicity and or spoken language that may be hundreds of miles away from the border area?

I remember getting stopped on a recent road trip, like everybody else going down the same road, I was questioned at the same checkpoint that everybody else was.
They did ask me if I was an American citizen. My point is that they asked everybody that went through that checkpoint. in my opinion, that is legitimate , because of the close proximity to the Mexican US border in California. so just by being there. Everybody that goes through there is questioned about their citizenship and destination. but I would like to point out that that is not the whole state of California.
They're talking about the whole state of Arizona, not just the border area. What exactly do you think they're going to end up doing to satisfy the reasonably suspect clause?


I mean, thats what officers have always done when they have reason to believe that a person has committed a crime. This doesn't change that in any way.

it is not the same as far as immigration is concerned. it is not so obvious like somebody hiding a big gun under their belt or fitting the description of a bank robber are, for example.
What do you specifically mean by "have reason to believe that a person has committed a crime"? We're talking about immigration here, so it all comes back to: the person looks like a Mexican, Cuban, Haitian, Chinese, (or whatever); that person (those persons in that group) just may be here illegally. So therefore, I am saying that race and/or ethnicity, with any single other thing imaginable, could be viewed in a court of law as reasonable cause.


I don't think it is stereotyping to say that there is a lot of crime and violence that is happening near the border that is due to illegal aliens.
I'm sure that the violence you are referring to specifically has more to do with drug smuggling than anything else.
The vast majority of the violence that is happening near the border fortunately for us is on the other side.
In other words, statistically speaking the violence is not done by people whom are illegal aliens because they're on the other side of the border!:Yinyangv:


I am not talking about Mexicans or people of Hispanic heritage, I am talking about people who cross the border illegally. This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with behavior.

Specifically; once a person is on this side of the border and not in the process of running away from the fence or something like that, what behavior by your definition , without race or ethnicity as a consideration would cause a person to be reasonably considered a suspect?:hmmm:


After all, any illegal alien has already demonstrated a disrespect for the immigration laws of our country, and a willingness to cut in front, so to speak, of all the people who choose to go the legal route. Not very good character traits, in my opinion.
So specifically; what is a law enforcement officer in Arizona to do in order to reasonably suspect?... ... someone's bad character?:hmmm:


If I said that Mexicans are lazy (I dont actually think this), that would be stereotyping. But if I say that illegal aliens are criminals, that is a fact, because they have broken the law.

That is factually true, I do agree with that, but there's more to it.
What about the (criminal) employers of illegal aliens making the big bucks and leaving the rest of us unemployed and legitimate American citizens and legal immigrants out of it?
Why are some people taking it out on the poor people that don't have much support from their country South of the border and are so desperate?
Could it be mean-spiritedness? racism?,or frustration?, All or some combination of the above?
I don't necessarily think that all those people complaining about illegal immigration are using a philosophy of strict adherence to the law because I rarely if ever, hear those same people complaining about the (criminal) employers that hire the illegal immigrants!


Obviously the great majority of illegal aliens are not violent drug smugglers, and I apologize if my statement came off that way, but all of them have broken at least one law willingly. You left out the part of my sentence where I mentioned sucking up tax dollars, something that a great many illegal aliens do. Our state is bankrupt, after all.
Please don't forget about the (criminal) employers that cheat on their taxes because of the way they can conceal what's going on in regards to hiring illegal immigrants in the first place. The revenue and benefit loss from that is rather incalculable. I suspect that represents a significant amount of money drain too.

We Californians got ourselves into this by electing the wrong people both in the federal and state government.
I am not so much referring to the progressive liberals I'm referring to the stalwart Republicans that refused to make reasonable and fair tax adjustments.
They just want to complain about how much Tax money we're spending, and they have no real solutions other than to cut all the poor people out; except of course, their personal friends and/or political donors that get away with hiring disadvantaged and sometimes illegal (poor) immigrants to work their farm fields and meat packing plants for in many cases less than minimum wage and/or of course without the benefits but charging for the benefits anyway and pocketing the money as well as writing it off on their taxes; thanks to loopholes their buddies in political office, give them.
That may look good on the governor's budget spreadsheet, but it does not look good to me to see children and old people suffering freezing, starving and dying here in the good ole USA.
<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/> </v:formulas> <v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='width:11.25pt; height:24pt'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\SH\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif" o:href="https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/NewSmilies/idea.gif"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->:idea:That reminds me exactly of why many family-oriented people are leaving Mexico in great numbers!<o:p></o:p>

[LenInSebastopol]

I have no idea what the below means.
Walking down S.F. Mission Street in the 50's with my family was like walking in a village. Every few feet we would meet, stop, talk, blah, blah with everyone else that we knew. A new horizon was met when the Giants came and other ethnics, even white folks, would show up and we became a larger community. Public swimming pools made it age appropriate. And we were aware of it all. Horace Mann Junior High had White Day wherein if you were White and came to school, usually in June, you got the hell beat out of you; and all in good fun, for the most part! Yes, we grew aware of "community" and "who ruled" and "justice".
If White folks have to meet us in an ethnic studies class, then their fear is not our problem. I get sick when I look around at all the talk about 'community' and such, when you look all over the county and the most of the interaction with our large "ethnic" population is a truck, a day contract and a small wage at the end of that day's labor.
Yeah, right on, bro.


I think many people consider meeting in union, or in community, with other countrymen an ultimate goal. But you can't start out like that.
You have to meet somewhere, and that place where you meet in union does not yet exists. It has to be created through everybody participating.
If you are exhorted to meet in union with other countrymen from the get-go, many people would find themselves forced to meet at another party's place.
Teaching "ethnic studies" seems a useful thing to explore the map. Knowing the map is a good thing to know for meeting in unison.

[LenInSebastopol]

You know, I've gotten a lot of that "mutt breed" stuff over the years. It goes something like, "Yeah, I am Scotch, Irish, French, German, and Danish" or some such narrative. Real breed! Then somewhere in the 70's it became, "Yeah, my Grandmother was 1/4 Cherokee" as if there was an attempt at pride in the woodpile (I believe most of you youngsters don't know from where that is derived). ( I also believe most of you youngsters haven't read this boring crap this far)
Again, I've no idea what that means that you believe folks have a "right to know their roots". Most often it means listening to some boring ass go on about his genealogy, a whole lot of dead people you've no idea who they are, and often the mix is so sanitized as to make saccharine ferment.
Yeah, anger and race....what a mix....and yet folks keep wanting to bring one of them to the fore, but will not deal with the t'other. Go ahead, have it your way, as it is clear you never went to Horace Mann Junior High on White Day and had to deal it. Those Irish and Italian kids (are you White?) that did can step forward and we can have a good laugh.


I guess what I'll have to do is keep stating my views..especially if the next group of people to be shit on may be my mutt breed. I believe all people have the right to know their roots.
I needed to know where I came from, and was o.k. with the surprises that search unfolded for me. I think I''ll just leave you alone, as your anger at everyone who offers an opinion just confuses me.
baba

[LenInSebastopol]

What I fear is the beginning of a 'final solution' which is national ID cards.
We already have driver's licenses, but does not have origin of birth on it, so the feds will come up with such a law.
A cop stops for what a judge/jury may consider "reasonable" cause. But at that moment of encounter, that cop stands in front of a law breaking Canadian (not Inuit or Athabaskan) or a Hmong derived American born person. I suppose that cop must ask for proof of citizenship for every person stopped?
The answer: national I.D.
Crap! Another sticky wicket!

[someguy]

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="Edit-Time-Data" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_editdata.mso"><!--[if !mso]> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} table.MsoTableGrid {mso-style-name:"Table Grid"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

Okay you've made some reasonably intelligent points but I think you missed at least one major aspect of the situation I mentioned. That aspect is the other half of the equation of the reason why so many illegal immigrants have gotten away with it in the first place; which is, the employer's that employ them. What about law enforcement regarding that?
It seems to me to be a chicken before the egg situation, of course eggs existed before chickens, but they did not have chickens hatching out of them; {dinosaur eggs}.


I actually meant to put something in my last post about the employer issue.....must have slipped my mind. But you're right, it is unfair for authorities to only go after the individual people and not the corporations who profit off of them. Its similar to the situation with the drug war, where the government puts people in prison for possession, but lets the dealers go free (or even sells them the drugs).

Like I've said before, this bill actually does cover the employer side of the issue. Of course, the enforcement of that part will no doubt be pretty lacking.

As long as we're talking about the reasons for so many illegal aliens crossing the border in the first place........I think there's an important factor that very few have considered, and that is our country's subsidies on corn, coupled with NAFTA. Because of the billions of dollars we dump into corn subsidies (at a tremendous cost to the environment), Mexican farmers are no longer able to make a living. They simply can't compete with the artificially low prices. The same thing is happening to our small farmers, although here it has just as much to do with excessive regulations that small farmers can't comply with (but it's no problem for the huge agribusiness corporations).

If we would just stop flooding the market with cheap corn and soy (GMO, of course), Mexican farm workers would be able to make a decent living in their own country. And if we would just legalize drugs (we are supposed to be a free country, after all), the drug cartels would have no reason to come to the US, putting an end to the violence. To me, these are the real 'chicken before the egg' issues, and until we start attacking the root of the problem, none of the measures that we take to combat illegal immigration will have the desired effect. Honestly, that is my biggest concern about this particular piece of legislation.....that it is ignoring the true cause of the problem and instead trying to suppress the symptoms (much like our allopathic medical system).

All that said, I still see no problem with the legislation the way it is written. Arizona doesn't have any influence over federal subsidies or drug laws, and they have a right to take care of the problem with the resources available to them if the federal government refuses to do its job. The fact that the law will undoubtedly be abused in some cases does not mean that the law itself is bad. If we have laws against murder, but the cops enforce the law unfairly (using racial profiling, for instance), that doesn't mean that the law is unfair. It means that the cops are corrupt, and that is the real problem.

Similarly, it bugs me to see so many people freaking out over this law, saying that it legalizes racial profiling when it clearly does not, when the real problem is that the cops are corrupt and disregard the laws themselves. People are boycotting the state of Arizona because they believe the law itself is racist, and that is going to seriously hurt the people of Arizona, including their large Hispanic population. The law states that they cannot stop people or even question them on their immigration status based on race. They have to have another reason.

You asked for an example of something that would constitute reasonable suspicion that someone was illegal. An informant could give the police information, or the cops could observe that a particular person seemed excessively nervous in the presence of law enforcement, or they could know a particular person to work for an employer that has been known to hire illegals. Or they could see a group of people traveling out in the middle of the desert (not many other reasons people would be walking out there).

[someguy]

Hmmm...did it also happen to define "objectively justifiable", and "specific facts or circumstances"? Which specific facts or circumstances are objectively justifiable? Bunch of buzzwords...

The law is intended to reduce illegal immigration. What specific facts or circumstances would be applicable in this context? It should define those, or remove reasonable suspicion wording. If it is used the same way as probable cause, then it should just say "probable cause". The vagueness of how this law uses "reasonable suspicion" is the main factor that makes it a poorly-written piece of legislative slop.

Also known as probable cause.

The law would've been a much better one if it just addressed that factor. But again, it's buzz. The bill claims to follow federal immigration laws. Then why does AZ need to make a law, if they're just going to follow federal policy anyway?

Dumb law!

I think that the definition of reasonable suspicion is pretty clear. It is very similar to probable cause, however probable cause is a little more strict because it usually is required to justify an arrest or a search.

As an example, if someone told the police two months ago that they had knowledge of someone else using drugs, that does not give the police probable cause to search that person. It might give them a reasonable suspicion to detain them briefly, however. Likewise, an informant could provide information about a person they know who is illegal. Thats a risk that illegal aliens are apparently willing to take.

The reason to make a new law is that Arizona doesn't automatically have jurisdiction over federal laws. The feds didn't do their job, so Arizona decided to do it for them.

[babaruss]

I never experienced 'white' day at school.
I experienced getting beat up, or running from beatings, because my dad was Indian and my mother white.
In the 40's that wasn't acceptable....o.k. ?
We always lived in areas where we never fit in.
Mexican's beat us up, Indians, beat us up, whites beat us up, short stint in Sacramento, and I learned blacks did the same. The upshot of those experience besides learning to know when to fight and when to run, was that I seemed not to fit in anywhere.
When I left home at 13, and encountered the same stuff in the streets I began to grasp that everyone had to deal with that kind of crap, and that it wasn't personal.
I also learned that there are wonderful, kind, generous people in this world. Most of those people I met many years ago while working in the fields, or crossing the country by thumb, or by freight train.
I think I'm going to give these 'forums' a rest....I can see there are clear bright minds out there to discuss this stuff and they don't need my limit little contribution.
Baba





You know, I've gotten a lot of that "mutt breed" stuff over the years. It goes something like, "Yeah, I am Scotch, Irish, French, German, and Danish" or some such narrative. Real breed! Then somewhere in the 70's it became, "Yeah, my Grandmother was 1/4 Cherokee" as if there was an attempt at pride in the woodpile (I believe most of you youngsters don't know from where that is derived). ( I also believe most of you youngsters haven't read this boring crap this far)
Again, I've no idea what that means that you believe folks have a "right to know their roots". Most often it means listening to some boring ass go on about his genealogy, a whole lot of dead people you've no idea who they are, and often the mix is so sanitized as to make saccharine ferment.
Yeah, anger and race....what a mix....and yet folks keep wanting to bring one of them to the fore, but will not deal with the t'other. Go ahead, have it your way, as it is clear you never went to Horace Mann Junior High on White Day and had to deal it. Those Irish and Italian kids (are you White?) that did can step forward and we can have a good laugh.

[Hotspring 44]

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} table.MsoTableGrid {mso-style-name:"Table Grid"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->
Like I've said before, this bill actually does cover the employer side of the issue. Of course, the enforcement of that part will no doubt be pretty lacking.

like I was trying to say, Arizona's state law does not have the power to enforce a state law, or even federal law in other states.
No, instead they are going to use forced prison labor from people, some of which got busted for possession of small amounts of marijuana.


As long as we're talking about the reasons for so many illegal aliens crossing the border in the first place........I think there's an important factor that very few have considered, and that is our country's subsidies on corn, coupled with NAFTA. Because of the billions of dollars we dump into corn subsidies (at a tremendous cost to the environment), Mexican farmers are no longer able to make a living. They simply can't compete with the artificially low prices. The same thing is happening to our small farmers, although here it has just as much to do with excessive regulations that small farmers can't comply with (but it's no problem for the huge agribusiness corporations).

Yes, I basically agree with that and also I might add (my:2cents: worth) that Monsanto and its genetically engineered corn definitely do take a toll in more ways than just financially. The many different types of corn crops in Mexico have the potential of being destroyed from the cross-pollination of Monsanto corn with the potential of destroying their way of feeding themselves as well, very horrible!


If we would just stop flooding the market with cheap corn and soy (GMO, of course), Mexican farm workers would be able to make a decent living in their own country. And if we would just legalize drugs (we are supposed to be a free country, after all), the drug cartels would have no reason to come to the US, putting an end to the violence. To me, these are the real 'chicken before the egg' issues, and until we start attacking the root of the problem, none of the measures that we take to combat illegal immigration will have the desired effect. Honestly, that is my biggest concern about this particular piece of legislation.....that it is ignoring the true cause of the problem and instead trying to suppress the symptoms (much like our allopathic medical system).

Yes I agree and I believe that the (actual) root (deep hidden roots) of the problem is a cocktail of prejudice, racism, classicism, and the myriad of discrimination that exists in our fellow countrymen.:2cents:


All that said, I still see no problem with the legislation the way it is written...

That's where we disagree. You yourself mentioned before it does not get at the root of the problem.
In fact, (I am saying) it effectually enhances what I believe is the root of the problem that I mentioned, the <o:p></o:p>'cocktail of prejudice, racism, classicism, and the myriad of discrimination that exists in our fellow countrymen<o:p></o:p>'.

At this point I will mention the<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> Maricopa County sheriff (https://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/09/nation/la-na-arpaio9-2010jan09)in Arizona that loves to do virtual torture of people he believes are illegal aliens, forcing them to sit in the hot Arizona sun and jamming them into overcrowded cells that are extremely hot and difficult to breathe in to the point where they have a high risk of getting heat strokes and suffer from a lack of oxygen because of overcrowding and stuff like that.<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} table.MsoTableGrid {mso-style-name:"Table Grid"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> [I]Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County (https://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/18/arizona_sherriff_faces_civil_rights_probe)[I] has forced prisoners to march through the streets of Phoenix dressed in just pink underwear, housed prisoners in tents in the searing heat, and appears on a Fox reality-TV show. Now he could be facing a federal investigation for civil rights abuses and a trial on charges of racially profiling Latinos. He’s also been accused of focusing on immigration enforcement at the expense of other law enforcement duties.<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

I believe that that law just encourages that kind of mistreatment of people without any safeguards whatsoever; (even though they are illegal migrants, they still have internationally recognized human rights)


…Arizona doesn't have any influence over federal subsidies or drug laws, and they have a right to take care of the problem with the resources available to them if the federal government refuses to do its job.

I don't believe that the federal government is actually[I] refusing to do its job it just hasn't been as effective as Arizona would like to be.


…The fact that the law will undoubtedly be abused in some cases…
I'm thinking in many cases and in more ways than one.


…does not mean that the law itself is bad.

I believe that any law that is made, where it is known that abuses will occur as a result because of the law, then it is questionable whether or not the law is actually good or bad.


If we have laws against murder, but the cops enforce the law unfairly (using racial profiling, for instance), that doesn't mean that the law is unfair. It means that the cops are corrupt, and that is the real problem.

There are many cases where corruption is not necessarily equated with abuse.
Corruption means one thing, abuse means another. There are times when the two go together hand in hand, but not necessarily all the time.
I am saying that I believe that the Arizona law is already flawed because there already is corruption and abuse. What that law does is helps legitimize it in shield abusers and corrupt ones that are on one side.

That being said, at the risk of repeating myself, I believe that the federal government and other states need to step up far more than they have so far and more vigorously, go after the employers also.


Similarly, it bugs me to see so many people freaking out over this law, saying that it legalizes racial profiling when it clearly does not,…

We've been here before, I still say that it does not specifically legalize racial profiling. But what it does is it puts a foot in the door to use anything imaginable as an excuse alongside with, what would be considered by many as racial profiling. So in that sense, it is legitimizing racial profiling in a very sneaky (and I believe calculated) way by saying that that is not allowed, but by virtue of actual practice; it is actually virtually required. <link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} table.MsoTableGrid {mso-style-name:"Table Grid"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> that same [I]sheriff (https://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/09/nation/la-na-arpaio9-2010jan09) mentioned previously has used …”his deputies to enforce federal immigration law and is known for sending hundreds of officers into heavily Latino neighborhoods to ask anyone who commits violations as minor as jaywalking about their immigration status.” Grand jury investigating Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona - Los Angeles Times (https://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/09/nation/la-na-arpaio9-2010jan09) <o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>


…when the real problem is that the cops are corrupt and disregard the laws themselves.

I think you may be overlooking something, that is easy to overlook, so I'm not pointing my finger I am just making an observational statement here; sometimes laws are not what they appear to be to the layperson. Those laws may look innocent, and may even appear to have something specified that is not supposed to be done. But when out in the real world of circumstances that surround the issues on the street where certain predictable circumstances arise, those laws can be interpreted in a manner of which there are many loopholes, where at least one or two very specific ones end up in a place where as that part of the law becomes moot and it actually becomes unenforceable. That's what I believe the Arizona law has accomplished; it actually incorporated racial profiling by saying that it's not allowed!


People are boycotting the state of Arizona because they believe the law itself is racist, and that is going to seriously hurt the people of Arizona, including their large Hispanic population. The law states that they cannot stop people or even question them on their immigration status based on race. They have to have another reason.

Actually the mayor in Los Angeles County, and other elected officials of Los Angeles County, decided to boycott Arizona. Not just because of that law, but there is another law that they also signed in. It has been discussed here, that makes it unlawful for any school including [I]private universities to teach ethnic,and or social studies of any specific race or culture! That is why Arizona has been labeled as racist and being boycotted.


You asked for an example of something that would constitute reasonable suspicion that someone was illegal. An informant could give the police information,...

Okay that's one but the vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't being snitched on. So that leads to the next three:

1-
...or the cops could observe that a particular person seemed excessively nervous in the presence of law enforcement,...

That is somewhat subjective.

2-
...or they could know a particular person to work for an employer that has been known to hire illegals.

I am really not sure what you mean about that. Do you mean that the law enforcement personnel that make the observation already know that that certain person is an illegal immigrant?!:hmmm: If that's the case well, of course they’ve already made the legitimate observation leading to the next step which would lead to the inevitable incarceration of that person!:wink:

3-
Or they could see a group of people traveling out in the middle of the desert (not many other reasons people would be walking out there).

That is also at least somewhat subjective, because there are a lot of Native Americans that live in the middle of the desert and they walk around there all the time!
Of course one would hope that the tribal authorities would have it together not to harass their own. But that <link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->Maricopa County sheriff (https://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/09/nation/la-na-arpaio9-2010jan09) that loves to make people miserable. I'm not so sure about him or people like him to actually follow the spirit of what that part of the law is supposedly intended to prevent.:hmmm:

[someguy]

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} table.MsoTableGrid {mso-style-name:"Table Grid"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

like I was trying to say, Arizona's state law does not have the power to enforce a state law, or even federal law in other states.
No, instead they are going to use forced prison labor from people, some of which got busted for possession of small amounts of marijuana.


I agree about the Monsanto thing. Monsanto is f*cked up.

I think Sheriff Arpaio is an humongous jerk. I do not necessarily believe his problem is racism, but rather a lack of empathy for other human beings in general. Do you have any evidence to back up your statement that Arpaio "loves to do virtual torture of people he believes are illegal aliens, forcing them to sit in the hot Arizona sun....."?

First of all, I don't think anyone can really say for sure if he "loves" it. Maybe he does. Or maybe he just, in his twisted logic, believes it is ok. But more importantly, I can't find any evidence to support the idea that the people who live in this "tent city" are people that Arpaio "believes are illegal aliens." The tent city is an extension of the jail. Wouldn't anyone who goes to jail have an equal chance of ending up in one? At any rate, he is being investigated so we will soon find out, won't we?

I disagree with your statement that the bill somehow encourages human rights violations. I think that this particular bill is very explicit, and that any truly impartial judge would have no problem interpreting it. Again, if the judges are allowing loopholes where there are none, they need to be voted out of office! But whatever. We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on some things.

As far as the examples of reasonable suspicion, I suppose you're right that nervousness is somewhat subjective. For the employer one, I did not mean that the police already would know that the person was illegal. I meant that they did not know the person's immigration status, but that they were employed with someone who had been known to hire illegals in the past. For the desert one, I should have specified near the border or trespassing on private property (something Native Americans are unlikely to be doing).

I also think it could be argued that the federal government in fact is refusing to do its duty when it comes to immigration. This is an actual national security threat. There are at least 12 million people here and we don't know who they are! Our economy is collapsing, in part because of war, and also in large part because of excessive government spending, much of which goes to welfare and other social programs that many illegal aliens take advantage of. So why doesn't the federal government do something about it? Why don't they pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan already, and secure the border, or at least put the national guard down there?

Now, with all that out of the way, what I really want to talk about now is the other law you mentioned, the one about ethnic studies......but maybe that's a topic for another thread. Maybe I'll start one later on.....

Thanks for the discussion!

[LenInSebastopol]

I never experienced 'white' day at school. I experienced getting beat up, or running from beatings, because my dad was Indian and my mother white. In the 40's that wasn't acceptable....o.k. ?


Back in those days it was illegal, at least until 1948!
Goes to show that the gov't is always behind the real people!


We always lived in areas where we never fit in. Mexican's beat us up, Indians, beat us up, whites beat us up, short stint in Sacramento, and I learned blacks did the same. The upshot of those experience besides learning to know when to fight and when to run, was that I seemed not to fit in anywhere.
When I left home at 13, and encountered the same stuff in the streets I began to grasp that everyone had to deal with that kind of crap, and that it wasn't personal.
I also learned that there are wonderful, kind, generous people in this world. Most of those people I met many years ago while working in the fields, or crossing the country by thumb, or by freight train.
I think I'm going to give these 'forums' a rest....I can see there are clear bright minds out there to discuss this stuff and they don't need my limit little contribution.
Baba

Sorry about that. Real pissy mood this morning. To many mornings; don't sleep long at night and my motor oil is cold in the morning. On a day like today, go out, listen to the bees, look for feathers, follow the wind. These electrons are for squat.

[Kaya]

The End

[justme]

You remember the guy's name? Just curious and would like to get more details...


Of course the law is racial profiling ...how many Canadians live near Arizona
or have brown skin and speak Spanish ?
Anyone with brown skin or an accent or who dresses ala south of the border will be subjected to this law.
Not long ago a guy who produced a drivers license, social security card, and other i.d. was still jailed until his wife came with his Arizona birth certificate.
Baba

[justme]

Canadians are being questioned in AZ too because of some of them hanging out in bank parking lots trying to get investors in Canadian securities and investments....


As far as I understand it, only after being stopped for breaking a law, can anyone be interrogated by the Arizona cops. But, at that point the person must show an ID. Just like the law is for everyone. If the person is found in violation of local or federal law her/she must be prosecuted according to the appropriate statute. In FACT, all persons living in the US without permission are felons. I don't know how they get away with it. But, Arizona is simply enforcing existing laws. BTW, there increasing numbers of illegals entering from China and Middle-Eastern countries, it's not just Hispanics. That makes profiling a pretty lame argument. The Constitution forbids "arbitrary and capricious" enforcement of laws. If our cops refuse to enforce laws uniformly, they do not deserve to enforce any of them.

[babaruss]

I just quit Waccobb.com and am waiting for plug to be pulled.
You'll have to stay curious...guys like you are why I'm leaving
Baba


You remember the guy's name? Just curious and would like to get more details...

[justme]

Wow Baba, I was just asking a question... Why not stay on and just let everyone ask questions and share their views? We may not always agree but at least we have a place to compare views.

Pull the plug because of "guys like me"? What did I do or say that offended you?


I just quit Waccobb.com and am waiting for plug to be pulled.
You'll have to stay curious...guys like you are why I'm leaving
Baba

[Hotspring 44]

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSH%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} table.MsoTableGrid {mso-style-name:"Table Grid"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->


I agree about the Monsanto thing. Monsanto is f*cked up.

I think Sheriff Arpaio is an humongous jerk. I do not necessarily believe his problem is racism, but rather a lack of empathy for other human beings in general. Do you have any evidence to back up your statement that Arpaio "loves to do virtual torture of people he believes are illegal aliens, forcing them to sit in the hot Arizona sun....."?

I was going on memory on that. I was mistaken about the Illegal alien aspect of it. Also I was incorrect in implying direct sunlight.

Here is a recent article that mentions what I believe I was remembering in regards to having detainees being forced to “sit” in the hot Arizona sun … (I was mistaken the detainees {so called} are actual inmates and the tents that they are housed in are in the hot Arizona sun.)…. In the article it states: <o:p></o:p>
<table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> "It can be really hot here, down the tents, yes. About over 110, 120 degrees Fahrenheit," Rene Ansley, a detention officer, said without blinking an eye. 120 degrees Fahrenheit is over 48 degrees Celsius.<o:p></o:p>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> A link to that article in its entirety is here: France24 - Arizona sheriff campaigns agaist illegal immigration (https://www.france24.com/en/20100504-arizona-sheriff-campaigns-agaist-illegal-immigration)


First of all, I don't think anyone can really say for sure if he "loves" it.

I think it would be both fair and accurate to say that he loves his job. And that is what he does on his job.


Maybe he does. Or maybe he just, in his twisted logic, believes it is ok. But more importantly, I can't find any evidence to support the idea that the people who live in this "tent city" are people that Arpaio "believes are illegal aliens."

Okay you got me on that. Now just imagine that when he treats American citizens like that; how much worse that that illegal aliens are likely to get treated by him and his department.


The tent city is an extension of the jail. Wouldn't anyone who goes to jail have an equal chance of ending up in one? At any rate, he is being investigated so we will soon find out, won't we?

I think what we will find out is that he is a very popular individual in his area of Arizona, and that he will be treated with more kids love type handling than anything else.

like I said before, he has been applauded for what some of us would consider mistreatment by a lot of his local people.

Remember racism in the Deep South had a lot of support by the local people and the local government too, but it was still wrong the way they were practicing it; (the Jim Crow laws, I mentioned before).


I disagree with your statement that the bill somehow encourages human rights violations. I think that this particular bill is very explicit, and that any truly impartial judge would have no problem interpreting it.

The point I was attempting to make and I probably didn't do too well is that the burden of proof is such a high bar that no illegal alien will be able to prove anything whatsoever. Even if they did get to go to an American court of law in the first place, I am rather certain that they would not get the chance to mention anything about how they were asked because it would already be by that time known that they were an illegal immigrant.

Also many people in America including jurors and officials believe that because illegal immigrants are non-citizens that they don't have any civil rights that we American citizens enjoy.

Human rights violations are a very hard thing to prove in the circumstances that surround illegal border crossings.


Again, if the judges are allowing loopholes where there are none, they need to be voted out of office! But whatever. We'll probably never see eye-to-eye on some things.

Please excuse my crudeness, but here's your “[I]whatever “: it is very similar to historical past in the Deep South. Just like when racism was rampant there; the people that vote in Arizona like that sheriff. So they're not going to vote him out or any judges that rule in his favor out of office.


As far as the examples of reasonable suspicion, I suppose you're right that nervousness is somewhat subjective. For the employer one, I did not mean that the police already would know that the person was illegal. I meant that they did not know the person's immigration status, but that they were employed with someone who had been known to hire illegals in the past.

Okay but what about the follow-up when they do discover that that person was being hired by the (suspected) employer, shouldn't the employer also be investigated or arrested?

Do you honestly think that if a white person were to go to the same employer that they would be treated the same way as a Hispanic?


For the desert one, I should have specified near the border or trespassing on private property (something Native Americans are unlikely to be doing).

There is a rather large reservation in the Sonoran Desert in southern Arizona that does go along the Mexican-US border where a lot of unlawful border crossings occur.
Some of the Native American population has been said to take kickbacks from some of the coyotes as they're called; (the smugglers of people) but I think it is up to the tribal police to deal with that which is inside of the reservation. And oh yes, I really meant to mention that the tribal people walk on their land in the middle of the desert near the border all of the time.

I will concur, one thing, regardless of race, suspected trespassers that are seen should be investigated, and those who violate the trespassing laws in the area should be cited for trespassing. Also, If in that investigation they are discovered to be illegal immigrants than, of course they should be detained.
That would be basic rudimentary police work that does not have anything to do with racism or discrimination.:thumbsup:


I also think it could be argued that the federal government in fact is refusing to do its duty when it comes to immigration.

It could be, but that argument lacks the acknowledgment of the large amount of money that the federal government has already spent on the fence, personnel, or the patrols, aircraft, infrared and motion sensors.
I think that argument does not hold water in this case.
Like I said previously, some people in Arizona believe that the federal government has not done; or in your choice of words; have [I]refused [I]to do anything. But that is quite literally incorrect to say it that way.

I think what they really mean is that the federal government has not done enough there to satisfy them.
There is a big difference between what the meaning of enough and the meaning of refuse is in this case.


... So why doesn't the federal government do something about it? Why don't they pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan already, and secure the border, or at least put the national guard down there?

:2cents: I think you should ask Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and your local Congressional and house representatives that question.
I don't think I am literally qualified to answer that question in any official way. But I will answer it rhetorically as a citizen: politics! :pullshair:


Now, with all that out of the way, what I really want to talk about now is the other law you mentioned, the one about ethnic studies......but maybe that's a topic for another thread. Maybe I'll start one later on.....

I agree, that is a topic for another thread.:thumbsupwink:


Thanks for the discussion!

Thank you and everybody else for the discussion even though I may have disagreements. I also thank everybody from wackobb.:):<o:p></o:p>

[Kaya]

A very small collection of Mexican DRUG profits....American should probably loosen up the borders a little and forget about rules to try and get visitors to comply.
https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_01.jpg
https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_02.jpg
https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_03.jpg



https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_09.jpg
https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_10.jpg
https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_11.jpg
https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_13.jpg
https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_16.jpg



https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_21.jpg

https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_24.jpg


https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_27.jpg

https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_29.jpg

https://acidcow.com/pics/20091020/mexico_drug_lords_31.jpg

[lynn]

Baba...Don’t know why you posted that article in reference to my previous post...
"It is indeed a crime to come into this country illegally.. This is your only valid comment. The rest is stereotyped, racially charged, garbage."
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
I originally responded to a statement that was 'racially charged' garbage…and seems you missed my point in the first place.
<o:p></o:p>
Ya’ wanna’ keep harpin’ on this and keep cryin’, ’Stereotypes, stereotypes’?
I wonder if you’ve cared about the victims of criminals who are here illegally…Or, is it more important for you to keep harpin’ on someone for bringing up the reality of the criminal element? (oh, horrors!)…If someone wants to fault me for not ignoring that – then I certainly won’t have any trouble sleeping at night…If stating a simple fact, and wanting illegal criminal elements to be kept out of our country is ‘racially-charged garbage’ to you, then, so be it…

…”“Those short prison stints are not punishment enough for these repeat offenders, yet they cost California millions every year to recycle them through our parole process, exacerbating the crowded positions in our prisons,” Cate, secretary of the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said in his letter to Napolitano. “California can no longer afford this practice.”<o:p></o:p>
Out of 12,000 undocumented immigrants released to federal authorities for deportation in 2007, nearly 1,600 returned illegally and were sent to prison, which cost the state up to $10 million a year, corrections officials said.”…<o:p></o:p>
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/california-corr.html (https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/california-corr.html)<o:p></o:p>

[justme]

:kneel:


:dancingleprechaun:


Baba...Don’t know why you posted that article in reference to my previous post...
"It is indeed a crime to come into this country illegally.. This is your only valid comment. The rest is stereotyped, racially charged, garbage."
<o:p></o:p>
I originally responded to a statement that was 'racially charged' garbage…and seems you missed my point in the first place.
<o:p></o:p>
Ya’ wanna’ keep harpin’ on this and keep cryin’, ’Stereotypes, stereotypes’?
I wonder if you’ve cared about the victims of criminals who are here illegally…Or, is it more important for you to keep harpin’ on someone for bringing up the reality of the criminal element? (oh, horrors!)…If someone wants to fault me for not ignoring that – then I certainly won’t have any trouble sleeping at night…If stating a simple fact, and wanting illegal criminal elements to be kept out of our country is ‘racially-charged garbage’ to you, then, so be it…

…”“Those short prison stints are not punishment enough for these repeat offenders, yet they cost California millions every year to recycle them through our parole process, exacerbating the crowded positions in our prisons,” Cate, secretary of the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said in his letter to Napolitano. “California can no longer afford this practice.”<o:p></o:p>
Out of 12,000 undocumented immigrants released to federal authorities for deportation in 2007, nearly 1,600 returned illegally and were sent to prison, which cost the state up to $10 million a year, corrections officials said.”…<o:p></o:p>
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/california-corr.html (https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/california-corr.html)<o:p></o:p>

[Icssoma]

i;'ve tried to stay out of this dialog. what does it take to realize corporate america (yes those in charge, check out the # & amount spend on lobbyists on most given issues), is invested in cheap labor & labor that is "at risk to threats", manipulation etc.
on the prison note, have you noticed that prisons are moving up close to our # 1 industry in this country.
who is invested in prevention? who cares about education, vocational programs, places for people/kids to hang out.
when are we going to use bracelets & other alternative methods for non-violent offenders?
when will we see a flourishing of half-way houses so people can re-adjust.
convince me that those that run this country, & this state are not invested in these concepts.
legalizing drugs will hit a major road block with police, people who are major growers, those who want to maintain the status quo.
have you ever tried to get a friend into rehab--w.out $, the "wait" is unrealistic for someone looking for help.
those of us who are invested in social change are going to have to work very hard to make things different, we are indeed slogging our way upstream.
these issues are about scapegoating (always popular in bad economic times), and not looking for REAL solutions.
how much did wal mart just pay for underpaying, overworking, & breaking the law from every angle?
what happened to the 'false corporations' they set up so they could hire/ employ a janitorial company that was latino & would work for less than minimum wage.
it works. they make more money paying off lawsuits & running their corporations this way. you think they are the only one?
buying local, supporting small businesses, not banking w. any of the large banks (...last quarter, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, B of A and Citi reported a positive trading day, every day... most days were over $100 million in profit... have any idea how hard it is to profit every day trading?) staying or moving to credit unions, local/regional banks, & for those who need credit cards, when possible, they have screwed most of us, but when possible switching those cards to the same local/regional banks &/or credit unions.
this issue is very liquid, you can not look at one piece, it is intrinsically tied to fear mongering for the off term elections, and the way gov't has been run for the last 8 years, & in most cases much longer. (do you know how many corporations do not pay taxes, do you know what the corporate tax rate was in the 50's, 60;s & 70's).
prisons are big business. why did our current gov. have so much trouble making a deal w. the powerful prison guards.
are we naive?

:kneel:


:dancingleprechaun:

[Kaya]

MOVING TO MEXICO ? :):
Dear Mr. President:
I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.
We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico , and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.
I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over?
Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico but I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put U. S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico . I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help. You're the man!

[kpage9]

You left out a couple:

19. I am here to work extremely hard.

20. You need me to keep your service industries and agriculture going, as your own people will not take these jobs.

21. My own family is starving, and with the little money I earn I wll help them.

22. Although I will pay payroll tax, I know I am not eligible for Social Security or most other government benefits.

23. I am happy to do the work to become a citizen, but you make it almost impossible.

24. Speaking of aliens, in 1846 you lost a huge chunk of your country to us when we took it in a violent invasion, just because we wanted it. So I've really been living on stolen property...and considering it mine all mine.





MOVING TO MEXICO ? :):
Dear Mr. President:
I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.
We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico , and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.
I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over?
Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico but I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put U. S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico . I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help. You're the man!

[Kaya]

You left out a couple:

19. I am here to work extremely hard.

You mean you are here to work extremely hard at not paying taxs and working off the books and sending the money to Mexico.


20. You need me to keep your service industries and agriculture going, as your own people will not take these jobs.

Very untrue statement also, our people were doing these jobs before you took them and worked for peanuts. "The Man" took an interest in using cheap labor NOT the people of America WRONG AGAIN...

21. My own family is starving, and with the little money I earn I wll help them.
This one deserves no response .

22. Although I will pay payroll tax, I know I am not eligible for Social Security or most other government benefits.
You will not pay taxs unless you are forced, you mean to say you will pay if caught .

23. I am happy to do the work to become a citizen, but you make it almost impossible.
Then PLEASE go home to your owned land. Why would you want to be a citizen in America ? mexico is so wonderful ?

24. Speaking of aliens, in 1846 you lost a huge chunk of your country to us when we took it in a violent invasion, just because we wanted it. So I've really been living on stolen property...and considering it mine all mine.
Thats right and you will NEVER get it back. You cant even manage what you have now....

[Dark Shadows]

Dear Kaya,

Are you a product of the Arizona or California State school system? Your spelling is a dead giveaway. Perhaps you might remember from history class that the southern part of Arizona was inhabited by Yacqui people hundreds of years before white men came and enslaved our men, women and children to build missions and churches to honor your Christian god. Are we asking you to pay taxes to us for the land you are occupying that "belonged" to us before you came to kill us with your filthy diseases and weapons of destruction? No. Should we? The truth is that Yacquis are now living on land that we were told we could keep by white men who killed the game that we needed to survive and polluted our rivers and streams so that the fish that were once so plentiful no longer exist. How do you think I feel about your statements about going back to one's "owned land"? Do me a favor and repeat the second grade so you can spell. Thanks!


You left out a couple:

19. I am here to work extremely hard.

You mean you are here to work extremely hard at not paying taxs and working off the books and sending the money to Mexico.


20. You need me to keep your service industries and agriculture going, as your own people will not take these jobs.

Very untrue statement also, our people were doing these jobs before you took them and worked for peanuts. "The Man" took an interest in using cheap labor NOT the people of America WRONG AGAIN...

21. My own family is starving, and with the little money I earn I wll help them.
This one deserves no response .

22. Although I will pay payroll tax, I know I am not eligible for Social Security or most other government benefits.
You will not pay taxs unless you are forced, you mean to say you will pay if caught .

23. I am happy to do the work to become a citizen, but you make it almost impossible.
Then PLEASE go home to your owned land. Why would you want to be a citizen in America ? mexico is so wonderful ?

24. Speaking of aliens, in 1846 you lost a huge chunk of your country to us when we took it in a violent invasion, just because we wanted it. So I've really been living on stolen property...and considering it mine all mine.
Thats right and you will NEVER get it back. You cant even manage what you have now....

[Kaya]

Dear Kaya,

Are you a product of the Arizona or California State school system? Your spelling is a dead giveaway. Perhaps you might remember from history class that the southern part of Arizona was inhabited by Yacqui people hundreds of years before white men came and enslaved our men, women and children to build missions and churches to honor your Christian god. Are we asking you to pay taxes to us for the land you are occupying that "belonged" to us before you came to kill us with your filthy diseases and weapons of destruction? No. Should we? The truth is that Yacquis are now living on land that we were told we could keep by white men who killed the game that we needed to survive and polluted our rivers and streams so that the fish that were once so plentiful no longer exist. How do you think I feel about your statements about going back to one's "owned land"? Do me a favor and repeat the second grade so you can spell. Thanks!

Thank you for your insults on education and spelling.
Also thank you for insulting Christians.
Thank you also for your lack of respect for America.

... BLUE EYED WHITE CHRISTIAN AMERICAN MAN...

[Kaya]

Dear Kaya,

Are you a product of the Arizona or California State school system? Your spelling is a dead giveaway. Perhaps you might remember from history class that the southern part of Arizona was inhabited by Yacqui people hundreds of years before white men came and enslaved our men, women and children to build missions and churches to honor your Christian god. Are we asking you to pay taxes to us for the land you are occupying that "belonged" to us before you came to kill us with your filthy diseases and weapons of destruction? No. Should we? The truth is that Yacquis are now living on land that we were told we could keep by white men who killed the game that we needed to survive and polluted our rivers and streams so that the fish that were once so plentiful no longer exist. How do you think I feel about your statements about going back to one's "owned land"? Do me a favor and repeat the second grade so you can spell. Thanks!

Hey Tonto I want to let you know I pulled the kids out of bed while they were sleeping scared the shit out of them and told them they needed to feel horrible for what they were responsible for YOU KNOW killing your food supply and anscestors off and stealing your land....they didnt get it so I scalped them ....would that make you feel better fucking cry baby GET OVER IT!!!!! and have some PRIDE...your embarsing to your own kind .

[Hotspring 44]

Kaya, Your attitude is :lightening: tremendous, your opinion is yours and yours only.
:hmmm:Do I hear flaming?:burningmad::tantrum::burningmad:


Hey Tonto I want to let you know I pulled the kids out of bed while they were sleeping scared the shit out of them and told them they needed to feel horrible for what they were responsible for YOU KNOW killing your food supply and anscestors off and stealing your land....they didnt get it so I scalped them ....would that make you feel better fucking cry baby GET OVER IT!!!!! and have some PRIDE...your embarsing to your own kind .

[Barry]

I have discontinued Kaya's membership.

[Karen the KAT]

I have discontinued Kaya's membership.

Why, because she disagreed with you, and pointed out some inconvenient truths? I've been called far worse than that by several of your members, and you didn't think to censor them.

Barry, for a man who preaches tolerance and patience, you don't seem to have much when somebody disagrees with you.

Again I say: The most closed minds I have ever encountered have been on the extreme right, and the extreme Left. They speak of patience, tolerance, and understanding, and are complete hypocrites.

If you as moderator didn't have the wisdom to put such a volatile subject as illegal immigration in the free-for-all category, then you only have yourself to blame when anyone steps out of line. I read the thread through and it's clear that both sides were heating up. Again, it falls on you as moderator to either anticipate these things, or to let it run it's course.

Again I ask: If you are going to kick people off for calling one another "an effing crybaby", then why have you not "protected" me when I have been verbally assaulted?

Your motto is "Connecting Conscious Community" and you use the word "Progressive", but these are simply catch-all phrases adopted by the Left more than the Right, but actually used by both as a way of saying: "Look, I'm more forward thinking and aware of my actions than you are", thus they don't actually describe only Liberals as some would think. Therefore you open yourself to people of all different ideals.

If you want to have a site where dissenting opinions are strongly discouraged, by selectively removing anybody you don't agree with, then call yourself Pravda, and change your motto to: "Connecting Intolerant Community". From the attitudes I often get here, it would sometimes seem more appropriate.

However, don't be surprised if the people you remove go to your advertisers and explain why they are boycotting them for supporting you.

I'm sure your job isn't easy, but you did choose it. May I suggest that you practice some of that tolerance, patience and understanding you talk about,. The fact that you saw it as necessary to inform the other members that you have kicked Kaya off, especially without an explanation, comes across as gloating, and that's not a pretty thing.

It's too bad, because Kaya had some very good things to say, and if you read her posts through, you find more love than anger when she disagreed with someone, and again, I can't say this about all of your members.

It's your site, just my suggestions and opinions...


Best regards, KAT

[Barry]

Why, because she disagreed with you, and pointed out some inconvenient truths? ...

I have replied to your post on a new thread:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccotalk/67867-waccobb-libertarianism-censorship.html