Arizonans and The Nation Torn On Immigration Bill

[_Simpson_ 250]

Times change, but people don't. And saying it again isn't going to make it stick. I have no problem with the police performing their duty. I have a huge problem with arbitrary laws that get handed down by grandstanding politicians with no idea of the practicality and of the poor ####### on the street making it work.

This isn't a question of trust - it's a question of a policy that encourages discrimination because that is the only way this law can be applied in a practical and expedient way. I do not believe that the majority of police officers go out onto the streets with racism in their hearts, but if they are required to enforce this law in an efficient way (and are also under pressure to report statistics as to its effectiveness - as is the case with a lot of other political mandates that affect the way they do their job), it is going to encourage if not explicit discrimination, then certainly the perception of it.

People change, take a look at racism in America.

I see your position, I strongly disagree but nevertheless I see your position and I dont see it changing anytime soon. I tried to show you the light but no luck.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The way the law is written it appears that the police can make no decisions about someone's status unless there is a confession to being illegal. Otherwise, the police will detain the person in whatever location contact was made until they hear from Federal authorities or Federal authorities arrive at the scene.

Makes you wonder how much available cell space there is in AZ, and what the response time an incarcerated person can expect from Federal Authorities.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

People change, take a look at racism in America.

I see your position, I strongly disagree but nevertheless I see your position and I dont see it changing anytime soon. I tried to show you the light but no luck.

You disagree because you think that the experience of the UK police with similar laws in the 1980s and 1990s has zero application or relevance to this topic. That is naive.

[TBoneTX 45,304]

Those who are interested can see the active OT thread "Wording in Arizona Bill" for some responses from an attorney (that have been reproduced as accurately as possible) in post #8 there.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/253794-wording-in-arizona-bill/

[PhiLandShiR 18]

clearly you are not aware that USC's are not required to own a passport. All you need to travel internally within the US is a driver's license.

In the state of Iowa, I can't even get a driver's license until I prove my status... so the simple act of showing a driver's license proves I am here legally... if I am stopped by the police for a traffic violation they always check the license to see if its fake or not. No matter the skin color the license would get checked. If the license were to come back on the check as having problems I think that is excellent cause to make more inquiries...

[Heracles 417]

You disagree because you think that the experience of the UK police with similar laws in the 1980s and 1990s has zero application or relevance to this topic. That is naive.

Damn straight it does. UK has not had anywhere near the same problem. As also pointed out, it's almost impossible for anyone outside the EU to open any account or use anything there. Police also are able to enter businesses and issue $15k on the spot fines. ICE must have probable cause here. Therefore, they would have to setup some sort of stint to find out whether a company is employing illegals, to get a warrant, to investigate further. AKA smoke and mirrors. There are over 25,409,525 firms in America. As such, it's logistically not possible under the current laws to setup investigations into each firm.

The status-quo approach to crime and illegal aliens is why both them and organized crime still flourish in this country. Without a multiple approach strategy towards law enforcement, even $1 million dollar fines on employers will not work. The country is just too big and too easy to setup shop, move around and employ illegals here. Much like organized crime and gangs, the employers know they have legacy laws on their side. As such, it's worth the risk. As also pointed out earlier, in five years I have read about a handful of such raids in the entire US. Whereas, in three weeks of being in AUS, I read of two raids in one city.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Damn straight it does. UK has not had anywhere near the same problem. As also pointed out, it's almost impossible for anyone outside the EU to open any account or use anything there. Police also are able to enter businesses and issue $15k on the spot fines. ICE must have probable cause here. Therefore, they would have to setup some sort of stint to find out whether a company is employing illegals, to get a warrant, to investigate further. AKA smoke and mirrors. There are over 25,409,525 firms in America. As such, it's logistically not possible under the current laws to setup investigations into each firm.

The status-quo approach to crime and illegal aliens is why both them and organized crime still flourish in this country. Without a multiple approach strategy towards law enforcement, even $1 million dollar fines on employers will not work. The country is just too big and too easy to setup shop, move around and employ illegals here. Much like organized crime and gangs, the employers know they have legacy laws on their side. As such, it's worth the risk. As also pointed out earlier, in five years I have read about a handful of such raids in the entire US. Whereas, in three weeks of being in AUS, I read of two raids in one city.

So because similar laws were implemented in the UK with the result that it created a endemic climate of overt and covert racism within the Metropolitan police that was partially responsible for a series of notorious race riots, we can discount this entirely because the UK has not had "anywhere near the same problem".

Like for like, BY. I'm not talking about the problem but a solution that creates an inherent racial bias in the way the police operate.

[_Simpson_ 250]

You disagree because you think that the experience of the UK police with similar laws in the 1980s and 1990s has zero application or relevance to this topic. That is naive.

Regardless to what happened in the UK one should not be controlled by fear. If the law is just and a good solution to the problem one should not be controlled by the fear of race riots.

The bill does not discriminate and has the similar guidelines that officers must use to enforce the law. Whats naive is to blame the law for the abuse and not the officers when the law cleary does not discriminate.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Regardless to what happened in the UK one should not be controlled by fear. If the law is just and a good solution to the problem one should not be controlled by the fear of race riots.

The bill does not discriminate and has the similar guidelines that officers must use to enforce the law. Whats naive is to blame the law for the abuse and not the officers when the law cleary does not discriminate.

The UK laws didn't explicitly state that the police could actively discriminate or persecute racial minorities, what they did was create a series of conditions that resulted in that outcome.

It is not a question of fear, its whether the law is fair. I am not convinced that it is.

[Heracles 417]

The race / discrimination card has now become a get-out-of-jail free card here. Even Europeans of all people are waking up and smelling the coffee that you cannot just let anyone willy-nilly to enter your country and do as they please, without consequences. Like ignoring the background of the FBI's most wanted list of murderers in my signature.

The country was once a nations of diverse immigrants. One group alone dominating 80% of US immigration, while the other 92% of the world gets to trickle in is not diversity.

Might as well just come out and have a new slogan. America the land of the free and the haven for Latin Americans. Latin Americans need not apply for a Visa. Just walk in, use as many services as you can and wait a good 15 years.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Booyah!

[Peikko 1,575]

I think what offends people about the protection of rights, and it is understandable if misguided, is that there is a belief that simply by crossing a border without authorization or stay in the US beyond ones authorized date for departure one immediately forfeits the right to be treated with the basic respect that the US mandates everyone who is in the US is constitutionally afforded. It does not help when there are radical voices on both ends of the political spectrum that radicalise and sensationalise what this means in day to day terms. It does not mean these people should be given a free pass to do anything and everything but equally it does not mean that one should treat everyone who 'appears to be foreign' as a suspected illegal alien.

This is further complicated by the reality that people are suffering economically and a perception among not a few that crime is predominantly perpetrated by certain ethnic groups which co incidentally or not are predominately associated with illegal aliens. The radicalization of these issues creates a climate where people are easily persuaded that they would be massively better off if only illegal aliens could be eliminated. I believe that's a very naive view.

Take for example agriculture. I am sure we are all aware that certain crops are highly labour intensive and it is likely that these crops are predominantly tended by illegal aliens at a cost that is less for the employer than a legal resident with the result that these crops are available at a price that the consumer is prepared to pay as it is comparable price wise to the same produce being brought in from abroad where labour costs are generally extremely low which offset the cost of transportation.

The question, that is quite difficult to answer is how does one move from this position to one where these crops are produced by legal residents/USC's or indeed if one should simply not produce these crops and all the problems that that creates in terms of dependency on foreign resources. If the crops are only being produced at a price that a consumer will pay because the cost of labour is below a certain level (which is not a ridiculous assumption) is it better for the area economically for these crops not to be produced at all (does this increase or decrease the wealth of the local economy?), or is it better to find a way to legally produce the crops at this price? I don't have the answers, but what I do know is that simply assuming that there are no negative impacts to the elimination of a labour force that is currently (obviously) widely used.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I think what offends people about the protection of rights, and it is understandable if misguided, is that there is a belief that simply by crossing a border without authorization or stay in the US beyond ones authorized date for departure one immediately forfeits the right to be treated with the basic respect that the US mandates everyone who is in the US is constitutionally afforded. It does not help when there are radical voices on both ends of the political spectrum that radicalise and sensationalise what this means in day to day terms. It does not mean these people should be given a free pass to do anything and everything but equally it does not mean that one should treat everyone who 'appears to be foreign' as a suspected illegal alien.

This is further complicated by the reality that people are suffering economically and a perception among not a few that crime is predominantly perpetrated by certain ethnic groups which co incidentally or not are predominately associated with illegal aliens. The radicalization of these issues creates a climate where people are easily persuaded that they would be massively better off if only illegal aliens could be eliminated. I believe that's a very naive view.

Take for example agriculture. I am sure we are all aware that certain crops are highly labour intensive and it is likely that these crops are predominantly tended by illegal aliens at a cost that is less for the employer than a legal resident with the result that these crops are available at a price that the consumer is prepared to pay as it is comparable price wise to the same produce being brought in from abroad where labour costs are generally extremely low which offset the cost of transportation.

The question, that is quite difficult to answer is how does one move from this position to one where these crops are produced by legal residents/USC's or indeed if one should simply not produce these crops and all the problems that that creates in terms of dependency on foreign resources. If the crops are only being produced at a price that a consumer will pay because the cost of labour is below a certain level (which is not a ridiculous assumption) is it better for the area economically for these crops not to be produced at all (does this increase or decrease the wealth of the local economy?), or is it better to find a way to legally produce the crops at this price? I don't have the answers, but what I do know is that simply assuming that there are no negative impacts to the elimination of a labour force that is currently (obviously) widely used.

The law is not intended to treat one as a illegal alien. It is intended to find out if you are a illegal alien. When you get pulled over do you tend to think the cop is treating you like a criminal because he asks for you license? He wants to know if your legal to drive.

As far as the second paragraph goes I dont know where you get the idea that most people think if only illegal immigrants would leave America we would be somewhat of a paradise, most people aren't that naive.

Edited April 27, 2010 by _Simpson_

[_Simpson_ 250]

The UK laws didn't explicitly state that the police could actively discriminate or persecute racial minorities, what they did was create a series of conditions that resulted in that outcome.

It is not a question of fear, its whether the law is fair. I am not convinced that it is.

The law if fair, it does not discriminate.

I dont know how the laws in the UK were written but if they were written as this law was then I would place the blame with the law enforcement.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Makes you wonder how much available cell space there is in AZ, and what the response time an incarcerated person can expect from Federal Authorities.

don't worry. sheriff joe has a sh!tload of tents.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The law if fair, it does not discriminate.

I dont know how the laws in the UK were written but if they were written as this law was then I would place the blame with the law enforcement.

No. That's the point - a law can be well-intentioned but have unintended consequences. If the politicians, driven by the need for their policies to be seen to be effective and to demonstrate that crime is falling put an inordinate pressure on the police to deliver results. That pressure also has unintended consequences and compromises the ability of the cops to do their job effectively.