Arizona Bill Cracks Down on Illegal Immigration

[Fandango 1,439]

I like the concept, hate the execution. *sigh*

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Ali,

I don't think they understand what probable cause is or how its applied...

In all of your Scenario's posted, only #5 lacks probable cause....

In a country where illegal aliens are a huge problem, you disagree with individuals stopped during routine police work, like when an individual is arrested for a DUI, having their status questioned because it 'may discriminate'. However, you also disagree with mandating everyone's status be checked during the normal course of police work; something that would eliminate the paranoia of discrimination.

Much like Pike, you guys use straw man arguments such as falsely claiming we advocate police randomly pull people over and check their status, particularly anyone of brown skin. Unfortunately you are wrong on all counts.

[Ali G. 37]

Scenarios 1-3,5 sound like discrimination to me....and besides they are going to make their decision based on skin color and you know it. Scenario 4 should already be taken care of. In my community an ICE official checks the county jail almost daily to verify resident statuses of those arrested.

The police have better things to do than target people because of their skin color. Such BS paranoia is left over from the segregation days. Someone breaking immigration laws is the least of their concerns.

The point of scenario 1 to 4 is that these people were being spoken to regardless of their race, skin color, demographic and so on. As such, the police should be able to ask for a simple ID card. If this individual is a LPR or has a visa, nothing more of it.

[Peikko 1,575]

That doesn't answer my question. You said you thought it was right and proper that a police person should further question someone who 'looks and sounds foreign' in order to establish if they are legally present in the US and I asked you how does looking and sounding foreign equate to being illegal.

[Ali G. 37]

Ali, I don't think they understand what probable cause is or how its applied... In all of your Scenario's posted, only #5 lacks probable cause....

Might not have used the right term. I basically meant in the normal course of police work.

That doesn't answer my question. You said you thought it was right and proper that a police person should further question someone who 'looks and sounds foreign' in order to establish if they are legally present in the US and I asked you how does looking and sounding foreign equate to being illegal.

Yes Cleo, not speaking English or having an accent is usually an indication that someone was not born in the United States. Before you open you mouth, not once did I advocate the police target someone simply because of these traits.

[Peikko 1,575]

Might not have used the right term. I basically meant in the normal course of police work.

Yes Cleo, not speaking English or having an accent is usually an indication that someone was not born in the United States. Before you open you mouth, not once did I advocate the police target someone simply because of these traits.

Yes you did. You asked, is it unreasonable for a police man in the course of his duties in arresting criminals to further demand those who 'sound and look foreign' to produce proof of legal status. I have suggested that 'looking and sounding' foreign is absolutely no indicator of legal status which makes such a course of action completely and utterly unreasonable. Lots of legally present aliens 'look and sound' foreign.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Might not have used the right term. I basically meant in the normal course of police work.

By probable cause I was also meaning in normal course of police work.

Its kinda like the cops stopping someone on the streets, when looking for a witness, after being told about a beating that happened on the other side of the block.

If they should notice that this person is covered blood it might behoove them to ask about the blood as well as if they had seen anything...

Edited April 21, 2010 by PhiLandShiR

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Yes you did. You asked, is it unreasonable for a police man in the course of his duties in arresting criminals to further demand those who 'sound and look foreign' to produce proof of legal status. I have suggested that 'looking and sounding' foreign is absolutely no indicator of legal status which makes such a course of action completely and utterly unreasonable. Lots of legally present aliens 'look and sound' foreign.

You are correct and I would agree that IN AND OF ITSELF,'looking and sounding' foreign is absolutely no indicator of legal status.

However, that was not, and is not, what was being suggested. As you well know if you actually read the post...

[Ali G. 37]

Yes you did. You asked, is it unreasonable for a police man in the course of his duties in arresting criminals to further demand those who 'sound and look foreign' to produce proof of legal status. I have suggested that 'looking and sounding' foreign is absolutely no indicator of legal status which makes such a course of action completely and utterly unreasonable. Lots of legally present aliens 'look and sound' foreign.

Yes Cleo, thanks for pointing out that lots of foreign looking and sounding people, including myself, have legal status. If I am pulled over for speeding, the police should reserve the right to be able to ask me for something verifying my status. While you may prefer to have bamboo splinters placed under your nails than comply, I am more than happy to show my LPR card and be on with it.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Ali G.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes Cleo, thanks for pointing out that lots of foreign looking and sounding people, including myself, have legal status. However, if I am pulled over for speeding, the police should reserve the right to be able to ask me for something verifying my status. While you may prefer to have bamboo splinters placed under your nails than comply, I am more than happy to show my LPR card and be on with it.

Why? You could not be arrested and incarcerated for speeding, but you theoretically could be for 'forgetting' to bring your id card with you. That's my problem, the notion that one can be incarcerated for not being able to identify oneself immediately, not that one should not be required to identify oneself within a given time span.

It doesn't take a genius to work out who would be arrested and incarcerated for failure to produce identity most often. I am fairly sure that I could get away with it because I don't 'fit' the profile but those that do...

it would be absolutely hilarious to have to bail oneself out every five minutes, I can't wait.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

You are not correct!

You can, in fact, be arrested and incarcerated for speeding.

If you can't produce a valid drivers license, that very probability goes up markedly.

Why? You could not be arrested and incarcerated for speeding, but you theoretically could be for 'forgetting' to bring your id card with you. That's my problem, the notion that one can be incarcerated for not being able to identify oneself immediately, not that one should not be required to identify oneself within a given time span.

It doesn't take a genius to work out who would be arrested and incarcerated for failure to produce identity most often. I am fairly sure that I could get away with it because I don't 'fit' the profile but those that do...

it would be absolutely hilarious to have to bail oneself out every five minutes, I can't wait.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

I am more than happy to show my LPR card and be on with it.

I believe that the LPR card clearly states that it must be carried with you and provided on demand...

[Ali G. 37]

Why? You could not be arrested and incarcerated for speeding, but you theoretically could be for 'forgetting' to bring your id card with you. That's my problem, the notion that one can be incarcerated for not being able to identify oneself immediately, not that one should not be required to identify oneself within a given time span.

As per usual with this topic, you or Pike will dance around the point. You assume the worst case and stick to it. Actually, it's no different from Paul assuming regulating salt will result in the FDA telling him what to eat.

Police in various counties already have technology at their disposal to check someones status. The use of a ID card simply fast-tracks this process. Considering the magnitude of illegal aliens in America, then yes the police should proactively check the status of anyone they deal with in the normal course of police work. As rightfully should any government agency providing a service funded by the taxpayer.

Then again, this is not really about police paranoia is it. Over the past few years you guys have clearly demonstrated that you do not have an issue with illegal aliens. As such, any and every proactive measure will be rebutted. Even something as simply as checking a person's eligibility to work has been fought with laughable rebuttals like 'the system could be wrong'; therefore, should not be used under any circumstances. We have A.J here who blames senior unionized teachers yet totally ignores and downplays the millions of dollars that illegal aliens and anchor-babies cost his state.

The second someone starts arguing along ideological lines, any attempt in a discussion is a waste of time. We see it in gun debates, see it in Constitutional debates and obviously see it in any discussion involving illegal aliens.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Ali G.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In a country where illegal aliens are a huge problem, you disagree with individuals stopped during routine police work, like when an individual is arrested for a DUI, having their status questioned because it 'may discriminate'. However, you also disagree with mandating everyone's status be checked during the normal course of police work; something that would eliminate the paranoia of discrimination.

Much like Pike, you guys use straw man arguments such as falsely claiming we advocate police randomly pull people over and check their status, particularly anyone of brown skin. Unfortunately you are wrong on all counts.

Straw Man arguments!? - its what YOU said, you stupid #######! Jesus Christ - you would spend a whole day arguing that the sky isn't blue, if someone pinned you down on it and you didn't want to admit being wrong.

You stated, quite clearly that if a police officer overhears someone "sounding foreign" or not "speaking English" that this (and this alone) amounts to probable cause for the police to stop them and demand that they produce ID.

[Ali G. 37]

Straw Man arguments!? - its what YOU said, you stupid #######! Jesus Christ - you would spend a whole day arguing that the sky isn't blue, if someone pinned you down on it and you didn't want to admit being wrong.

You stated, quite clearly that if a police officer overhears someone "sounding foreign" or not "speaking English" that this (and this alone) amounts to probable cause for the police to stop them and demand that they produce ID.

No fuckwit, it's you that assumed I said it. For a good five posts now I have clearly explained what I did say and meant.

What's one to expect from you anyway. You claim to be an English scholar yet cannot even interpret a supreme court ruling.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Ali G.