Do you support Arizona?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I've done nothing wrong, and have nothing to hide.

And we've seen how well THAT works.

yeah, I've never been arrested for something that I haven't done.

seems like it works pretty well.

Two things about that:

1) A lot of people HAVE been arrested for things they haven't done.

2) The fact that you or I may have nothing to hide, is not an excuse for our civil liberties to be violated. Would you consent to have your every move be monitored, on the pretext that you don't commit crimes and therefore have nothing to hide?

 

[JiNX-01]

Legal resident citizens are required to carry proof of their citizenship at all times.

Really? Where do you live?

If you don't have that when pulled over -- which it's very specifically written into the law you can't based on someone's ethnicity -- then there is reasonable suspicion. I'm sure any sensiable law enforcement officer will waive any elgal woes if you didn't have proof, but could provide it or prove it. Otherwise, you are here illegally.

I live in the U.S. and if I'm driving a vehicle, I have to show a driver's license. But if I'm a passenger (or a pedestrian), I don't have to be carrying any form of ID, much less proof of citizenship.

ETA: Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I would point out that the Bill of Rights makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

 

[Kail]

Hell no. It's completely discriminatory, and the idea of Hispanics being legally required to carry immigration papers at all times is taken straight from the playbook of the Soviet Union. Absolute fail, right there.

Did you know that it is Federal law that ALL immigrants to the US carry their green card AT ALL TIMES? Nothing discriminatory about Arizona's law. It's only enforcing what is already on the books.

I would like to add that I have no problem with legal immigration. I don't care what color you are, come here legally. If you give all the illegals a walk, or amnesty, it is a slap in the face to all who came here the right way.

 

[clint g]

Wow, there are just as many assumptions in this thread as there were in all the other immigration threads Yes, I support Arizona and it's immigration laws. Also, before I get called a racist (again) I will point out (again) that:

-I am "brown"
-I a direct decedent of immigrants, my father was born in Jamaica and my maternal grandparents were born in Irealand
-I have no issue at all with legal immigration

 

[gturner]

I'm still trying to figure out when "hispanic" became a race. I always thought it was an ethnicity, at best, and since Spain is a former European superpower, I'm pretty sure they're white.

 

[Gertch]

Wow, there are just as many assumptions in this thread as there were in all the other immigration threads Yes, I support Arizona and it's immigration laws. Also, before I get called a racist (again) I will point out (again) that:

I support Arizona and the law. I'd love to see it here in Mass and have let my reps know.

Screw the idea of racial profiling. If most of the illegal aliens are of a certain 'race' go ahead and target them. After they are all gone hold a parade for anyone that feels harassed as a big thank you. Or maybe give them 10% off at all stores for a month.

Citizens need to stop letting this PC tyranny keep us from being safe.

 

[Marten]

I'm still trying to figure out when "hispanic" became a race. I always thought it was an ethnicity, at best, and since Spain is a former European superpower, I'm pretty sure they're white.

The whithe ones would be "Spanish". I'd guess hispanic comes from latin, where Hispania at least is a word, unlike spanish, where nothing similar exists.

 

[Chaos Descending]

I'm still trying to figure out when "hispanic" became a race. I always thought it was an ethnicity, at best, and since Spain is a former European superpower, I'm pretty sure they're white.

The whithe ones would be "Spanish". I'd guess hispanic comes from latin, where Hispania at least is a word, unlike spanish, where nothing similar exists.

Ummm, how about "hispanico"?

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dict_en_es/spanish/hispánico

 

[Neeka Keet]

Hispanic isn't a race its an ethnicity. There are white, black, native, and mixed race hispanics (most of us are mixed). Hispanic as an identifier is due to our shared language and the fact that Spanish culture is the base our varied cultures across Spanish speaking American.

You can't be racist against Hispanics, but you can certainly be prejudiced against us. It's the same thing too, hating someone for what they are and where they came from.

 

[Kail]

I am only prejudiced against people who break the law. People who sneak into this country under a fence in the dead of night are criminals, and need to be rounded up and sent back to wherever they come from.

 

[greenguy]

Why are people blaming PC? It's called the Constitution. Don't blame the vague PC movement for your racism and bigotry when really you should be blaming the Constitution for your fucked-up beliefs and logical fallacies. What's really un-American is walking around and making grand proclamations like "round 'em up, they've got nothing to hide" when it goes against the most sacred and relevant document in American history. If you actually bothered to read it and follow up on precedents set by relevant cases, you wouldn't be spawning such pedestrian hatred.

It's incredibly unconstitutional and the problem has nothing to do with the illegal immigrants. The main problem is focusing on Hispanic citizens of the United States who will have their Fourth Amendment (and probably Fourteenth) rights violated the instant any douchebag, racist cop pulls them over without any reasonable suspicion being present despite the fact that they are Hispanic. Race does not constitute reasonable suspicion and this has been articulated in multiple Supreme Court cases (Terry v. Ohio); to quote Terry v. Ohio and part of Commonwealth v. Cabrera, "reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable, and individualized suspicion that crime is afoot[...]a mere guess or 'hunch' is not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion."

Anyone using the "well, you have nothing to hide" card obviously knows nothing about constitutional law and their position on this matter would change about two weeks into any intro-level course on the topic. And in response to the "it's only enforcing a law that is already in place"---please show me the particular piece of legislation that gives state and local authorities the power to act as federal marshals.

 

[Paulcpick]

and who does the Constitution protect exactly?
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.




now, last time I checked, Illegal Immigrants are not legally recognized as Americans, and guess what, they are breaking the law. Where is the Justice in letting people who are breaking the law continue to do so?
No solution will be perfect, but something has to be done, doing nothing is no longer an option.

 

[Chaos Descending]

The main problem is focusing on Hispanic citizens of the United States who will have their Fourth Amendment (and probably Fourteenth) rights violated the instant any douchebag, racist cop pulls them over without any reasonable suspicion being present despite the fact that they are Hispanic.

Do you believe that this bill will suddenly cause this to happen where it has never happened before?

Do you think that a racist cop would need THIS bill to stop a Hispanic that's driving with one headlight out but let a white guy with no plates drive on by?

Remember also, that a VERY large number of law enforcement agents in Arizona are themselves Hispanic. In fact, I cannot recall the last time I saw a white cop.

Race does not constitute reasonable suspicion and this has been articulated in multiple Supreme Court cases (Terry v. Ohio); to quote Terry v. Ohio and part of Commonwealth v. Cabrera, "reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable, and individualized suspicion that crime is afoot[...]a mere guess or 'hunch' is not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion."

From the actual bill in question:

" Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution."

 

[clint g]

racism and bigotry

I should really keep a tally of every time someone tries to play the race card on this issue

No, I do not hate Hispanics. You should really read up on the law before spouting off half-truths and assumptions.

 

[Cornholio]

Would you consent to have your every move be monitored, on the pretext that you don't commit crimes and therefore have nothing to hide?

good question. I think it would make a great topic for a separate thread.

you should be blaming the Constitution for your fucked-up beliefs and logical fallacies.

?????????????

What's really un-American is blah, blah, blah...

it's un-American to break the laws of this country.

the problem has nothing to do with the illegal immigrants.

WTF!

The main problem is focusing on Hispanic citizens of the United States

seems to me, the only people focusing on Hispanics are the ones who are opposed to Arizona's SB1070

And in response to the "it's only enforcing a law that is already in place"---please show me the particular piece of legislation that gives state and local authorities the power to act as federal marshals.

you might be interested in this:

Subsection 1324(c) of Title 8 specifically authorizes state and local officers "whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. There is also a general federal statute which authorizes certain local officials to make arrests for violations of federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 3041. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 18 U.S.C. § 3041 authorizes those local officials to issue process for the arrest, to be executed by law enforcement officers. See United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977).

and this:

Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an arrest warrant "shall be executed by a marshal or by some other officer authorized by law." The phrase, "some other officer," includes state and local officers. Bowdach, supra.

 

[doubleohfive]

 

[Chaos Descending]

Yeah, but no.

 

[scotpens]

Cheap but effective propaganda. Of course, any resemblance to fact is purely coincidental.

 

[gturner]

How about this for propaganda?

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s[/yt]

 

[drychlick]

i think after a year most people will will like the law and forget all the fuss! and more state will have more law like it ! love dr