New Arizona Immigration Law Poll

[Flameswroth]

The law requires that the standard of "reasonable suspicion" be applied. It's a defined legal standard. I've provided that definition. Now quote for me the part of the law that "compels LEOs to demand proof of citzenship from anyone they suspect of being illegal aliens".

The part I read that requires reasonable suspicion reads thus,

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

So we have two defined legal standards applied here, 1 it must be a lawful contact, and 2 reasonable suspicion must exist. That hardly allows a LEO to walk up to the fellow sitting in the park and ask for his papers.

Well, you quoted the part that compels LEOs to demand proof of citzenship from anyone they suspect of being illegal aliens. Thank you for providing my evidence for me.

Please note that it does not say that a crime must be committed in order for the LEO to demand proof of citizenship.

Well, the wiki tells does me that 'reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences.' But I suppose in this case the 'criminal activity' is being an unlawful alien in and of itself, isn't it?

Like, for instance, it cites the example of a man looking through car windows while holding a wire hanger as being grounds for 'reasonable suspicion' for breaking into cars. Similarly, reasonable suspicion for illegal immigration could be a Latino man walking sneakily along the inside of the US border at night. It's not that a crime other than the illegal immigration has to happen before they can ask, it's that with illegal immigration as a crime itself 'reasonable suspicion' of that unlawful citizenship is grounds to investigate.

So yeah, it appears the 'reasonable suspicion' doesn't involve someone having to, say, speed and be pulled over before being asked to prove legal presence. It's 'reasonable suspicion' of the crime of unlawful presence in the country.

[Whole Conviction]

This would have never been necessary if the Federal government had done its job to secure the borders. But they didn't and the people have to take some action to restrict illegal immigration. This is a little better than the volunteer militia that tried to enforce the borders a couple years back.

Of course the border is insecure. All borders, everywhere, will be insecure without a military presence costing far in excess of any benefit. Even then, it will probably remain somewhat porous. No nation anywhere in history has been able to secure its border against individuals crossing.

And what really is the issue? The American economy probably benefits from illegal immigration -- it's certainly more or less dependent on it. Illegals frequently pay more tax than citizens, while collecting fewer benefits. Frankly, the only reason no-one's passed legislation legalising the undocumented immigrants is because it's a hot-button issue essential to the modern Southern Strategy. A strategy which, fortunately, more and more Republicans are realising is political suicide (seriously; Latinos are pretty conservative, all things considered. They vote Democrat only because they get the impression that Republicans hate them).

The problem of drive-by kidnapping invasions? Not going to be helped by this bill. At all. Not one little bit.

So what exactly is the dire threat that this bill is combatting to justify the proto-fascist tactics of 'show me your papers'?

[Dyakovo]

We've about run the gamut here and I've said all that I can say. It's going to be decided in some court, without a doubt and will probably be tossed on account of border control being a federal responsibility. But it will not be toss on account of the language for stopping and questioning suspects.

How does a LEO determine if someone is a suspect?

If the person talks or looks "Mexican"....
Which of course is a very reliable test as I showed earlier in the thread...

When a third of the population is Hispanic, it's not about appearance. What do cops ask when they pull a car over? What do they ask at a DUI roadblock? Arizona doesn't issue drivers licenses to illegals. That's a start. How about registration? Proof of insurance? if these queries lead somewhere, great!

Despite the demagoguery, not every traffic stop is going to result in a call to ICE. No Hispanic looking or sounding person is going to be asked for papers just because they look Hispanic. With over 2,000,000 Hispanic citizens, the police in Arizona are just going to have better things to do.

Haven't even read the thread have you?

[Whole Conviction]

Well, the wiki tells does me that 'reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences.' But I suppose in this case the 'criminal activity' is being an unlawful alien in and of itself, isn't it?

Like, for instance, it cites the example of a man looking through car windows while holding a wire hanger as being grounds for 'reasonable suspicion' for breaking into cars. Similarly, reasonable suspicion for illegal immigration could be a Latino man walking sneakily along the inside of the US border at night. It's not that a crime other than the illegal immigration has to happen before they can ask, it's that with illegal immigration as a crime itself 'reasonable suspicion' of that unlawful citizenship is grounds to investigate.

So yeah, it appears the 'reasonable suspicion' doesn't involve someone having to, say, speed and be pulled over before being asked to prove legal presence. It's 'reasonable suspicion' of the crime of unlawful presence in the country.

Yah, largely, 'reasonable suspicion' is left intentional vague so that it can be interpreted in the field. It also varies from crime to crime. Reasonable suspicion for homicide is a bit harder to establish than reasonable suspicion for shoplifting. Reasonable suspicion for immigration offences has, in the past, been a very very very low standard.

[Riverica]

I think more people should do their homework and actually READ the law before casting judgment. Here is a direct quote from Article 8, Enforcement of Immigration Laws:

"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."

This law specifically stipulates that it is prohibited for law enforcement officers to engage in racial profiling, and this law supplements the federal law that the U.S. Government has failed to effectively enforce. The governer of Arizona ahs a right to uphold the rule of law and protect the sovereignty of her state when the feds drop the ball.

In my opinion, Americans at large should be more concerned with the fact that the elite media can distort facts enough to lead people to believe things that aren't true, and that more people don't educate themselves enough to read beyond the headlines.

Mexico's immigration laws, in some instances, are even tougher than laws in the U.S. Under Mexico's immigration laws, Mexicans have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. Foreigners can serve in their military only during wartime. Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Re-entry, after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Law enforcement officials at all levels, by national mandate, must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. In cases of flagrante delicto (i.e., people who are caught red-handed), any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities (Article 16 of the constitution of Mexico, also known as a "citizens arrest"). Where is all the public outcry?

At the end of the day, when it comes right down to it, what is so immoral about enforcing a law that makes it illegal for people to do something that's...well...illegal?

[Dyakovo]

I think more people should do their homework and actually READ the law before casting judgment. Here is a direct quote from Article 8, Enforcement of Immigration Laws:

"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."

This law specifically stipulates that it is prohibited for law enforcement officers to engage in racial profiling, and this law supplements the federal law that the U.S. Government has failed to effectively enforce. The governer of Arizona ahs a right to uphold the rule of law and protect the sovereignty of her state when the feds drop the ball.

The problem comes from the fact that racial profiling is the only method available for them to find illegals.

[Muravyets]

Well, the wiki tells does me that 'reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences.' But I suppose in this case the 'criminal activity' is being an unlawful alien in and of itself, isn't it?

Like, for instance, it cites the example of a man looking through car windows while holding a wire hanger as being grounds for 'reasonable suspicion' for breaking into cars. Similarly, reasonable suspicion for illegal immigration could be a Latino man walking sneakily along the inside of the US border at night. It's not that a crime other than the illegal immigration has to happen before they can ask, it's that with illegal immigration as a crime itself 'reasonable suspicion' of that unlawful citizenship is grounds to investigate.

So yeah, it appears the 'reasonable suspicion' doesn't involve someone having to, say, speed and be pulled over before being asked to prove legal presence. It's 'reasonable suspicion' of the crime of unlawful presence in the country.

And if the illegal immigrant is not caught sneaking along the border at night? If the illegal immigrant is standing on a street corner, waiting for a bus? If the illegal immigrant is driving to the supermarket? If the illegal immigrant is showing up for work, cleaning hotels or putting on roofs or landscaping? If the illegal immigrant is showing up for medical care at an emergency room? Or sitting in a bar, drinking a beer?

Do all these normal activities suddenly become suspicious if they are being done by an illegal immigrant, as opposed to when a citizen or legal resident does them?

At what point are we just going to admit that there is no way for this law to "catch" illegal immigrants except by harassing and violating the rights of everyone -- or at least everyone who some random cop on the street might personally think is a likely target by whatever criterion he feels like applying?

[Muravyets]

I think more people should do their homework and actually READ the law before casting judgment. Here is a direct quote from Article 8, Enforcement of Immigration Laws:

"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."

This law specifically stipulates that it is prohibited for law enforcement officers to engage in racial profiling, and this law supplements the federal law that the U.S. Government has failed to effectively enforce. The governer of Arizona ahs a right to uphold the rule of law and protect the sovereignty of her state when the feds drop the ball.

The problem comes from the fact that racial profiling is the only method available for them to find illegals.

MSNBC interviewed an Arizona sheriff last night -- I don't remember which one, but he's in charge of the county that includes Tuscon -- and he pointed to this problem of the law being unenforceable and unavoidable at the same time. He pointed out that the language of the bill gives lip service against racial profiling, but leaves no way for officers to enforce it except by racial profiling. And at the same time, it provides for any citizen of Arizona to sue the police if they (the private citizen) thinks they're not enforcing the law enough. The sheriff called it a "damned if we do and damned if we don't" scenario and stated outright that he will refuse to enforce this law if it is implemented on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, unenforceable, will harm law enforcement, and, in his opinion, is racist.

[Flameswroth]

At what point are we just going to admit that there is no way for this law to "catch" illegal immigrants except by harassing and violating the rights of everyone -- or at least everyone who some random cop on the street might personally think is a likely target by whatever criterion he feels like applying?

I'm not sure how many people are asserting that the law doesn't harass people. I know I'll come out and say that openly. The reason I still support it personally is because I see no problem with that harassment. That said, I don't really know when such an admission will happen. I was just commenting on how 'reasonable suspicion' of a crime being required doesn't mean that a crime other than being there illegally has to be committed first.

Ultimately, though, even if the courts strike this down with a vengeance or the voice of the 'people' rises up in anger such that the law is repealed...what do we do instead? Nothing? I mean, just because this law doesn't work doesn't mean that SOME law wouldn't work. But are those who oppose this law really interested in ANY legislation prosecuting illegal immigration in Arizona? Do they just want Arizona to roll over and take it, lest they be deemed racist? I don't know that either...

The sheriff called it a "damned if we do and damned if we don't" scenario and stated outright that he will refuse to enforce this law if it is implemented on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, unenforceable, will harm law enforcement, and, in his opinion, is racist.

Well I hope he gets removed from office, then. It's his job to enforce the law, it's a big part of what a sheriff's elected for.

[Farnhamia]

I think more people should do their homework and actually READ the law before casting judgment. Here is a direct quote from Article 8, Enforcement of Immigration Laws:

"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."

This law specifically stipulates that it is prohibited for law enforcement officers to engage in racial profiling, and this law supplements the federal law that the U.S. Government has failed to effectively enforce. The governer of Arizona ahs a right to uphold the rule of law and protect the sovereignty of her state when the feds drop the ball.

The problem comes from the fact that racial profiling is the only method available for them to find illegals.

MSNBC interviewed an Arizona sheriff last night -- I don't remember which one, but he's in charge of the county that includes Tuscon -- and he pointed to this problem of the law being unenforceable and unavoidable at the same time. He pointed out that the language of the bill gives lip service against racial profiling, but leaves no way for officers to enforce it except by racial profiling. And at the same time, it provides for any citizen of Arizona to sue the police if they (the private citizen) thinks they're not enforcing the law enough. The sheriff called it a "damned if we do and damned if we don't" scenario and stated outright that he will refuse to enforce this law if it is implemented on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, unenforceable, will harm law enforcement, and, in his opinion, is racist.

And we haven't really talked about that cute little provision, have we, the one that allows people to sue the police and whatever other authorities they choose if they feel that the law isn't being enforced? There's a can of worms for you. And I thought Real Americans^TM hated lawyers and lawsuits.

[Muravyets]

At what point are we just going to admit that there is no way for this law to "catch" illegal immigrants except by harassing and violating the rights of everyone -- or at least everyone who some random cop on the street might personally think is a likely target by whatever criterion he feels like applying?

I'm not sure how many people are asserting that the law doesn't harass people. I know I'll come out and say that openly. The reason I still support it personally is because I see no problem with that harassment. That said, I don't really know when such an admission will happen. I was just commenting on how 'reasonable suspicion' of a crime being required doesn't mean that a crime other than being there illegally has to be committed first.

Ultimately, though, even if the courts strike this down with a vengeance or the voice of the 'people' rises up in anger such that the law is repealed...what do we do instead? Nothing? I mean, just because this law doesn't work doesn't mean that SOME law wouldn't work. But are those who oppose this law really interested in ANY legislation prosecuting illegal immigration in Arizona? Do they just want Arizona to roll over and take it, lest they be deemed racist? I don't know that either...

Well, if you are happy to basically abandon the entire mechanism of personal liberty in the US, i.e. freedom of individual movement and freedom from unwarranted government interference in private business and life, then you are clearly not someone I would want making decisions for a nation that is based entirely -- in all our legal and governmental policies -- on exactly that. When you say you're okay with being harassed for no good reason at all, what I hear you saying is that you don't want the USA to exist. You want some other country where the state controls the lives of the citizens and we all have to live and work solely by the permission of the state instead.

It really is that fundamental a difference, and I reject absolutely your view of how things should be done. The best spin I can think to put on a view like yours is that you haven't really thought it through. I hope that you'll someday end up like that teapartier who was interviewed at the recent DC rally and asked specific questions about what she wanted government to do, and after the interviewer explored the status of her Medicare and Social Security payments with her a bit, she was quoted as saying, "Well, I never really thought of it in terms of losing things I need. I guess I've changed my mind [about the tea party]".

But until that day, I think I'll just put you in the list of people who need to be blocked from influence by political means.

[Parthenon]

I think more people should do their homework and actually READ the law before casting judgment. Here is a direct quote from Article 8, Enforcement of Immigration Laws:

"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."

This law specifically stipulates that it is prohibited for law enforcement officers to engage in racial profiling, and this law supplements the federal law that the U.S. Government has failed to effectively enforce. The governer of Arizona ahs a right to uphold the rule of law and protect the sovereignty of her state when the feds drop the ball.

The problem comes from the fact that racial profiling is the only method available for them to find illegals.

MSNBC interviewed an Arizona sheriff last night -- I don't remember which one, but he's in charge of the county that includes Tuscon -- and he pointed to this problem of the law being unenforceable and unavoidable at the same time. He pointed out that the language of the bill gives lip service against racial profiling, but leaves no way for officers to enforce it except by racial profiling. And at the same time, it provides for any citizen of Arizona to sue the police if they (the private citizen) thinks they're not enforcing the law enough. The sheriff called it a "damned if we do and damned if we don't" scenario and stated outright that he will refuse to enforce this law if it is implemented on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, unenforceable, will harm law enforcement, and, in his opinion, is racist.

So basically what you are saying is MSNBC interviewed an incompetent sheriff that openly admits to picking and choosing the statutes he enforces and will undoubtedly lose reelection and potentially face multimillion dollar lawsuits?

[Dyakovo]

At what point are we just going to admit that there is no way for this law to "catch" illegal immigrants except by harassing and violating the rights of everyone -- or at least everyone who some random cop on the street might personally think is a likely target by whatever criterion he feels like applying?

I'm not sure how many people are asserting that the law doesn't harass people. I know I'll come out and say that openly. The reason I still support it personally is because I see no problem with that harassment. That said, I don't really know when such an admission will happen. I was just commenting on how 'reasonable suspicion' of a crime being required doesn't mean that a crime other than being there illegally has to be committed first.

Ultimately, though, even if the courts strike this down with a vengeance or the voice of the 'people' rises up in anger such that the law is repealed...what do we do instead? Nothing? I mean, just because this law doesn't work doesn't mean that SOME law wouldn't work. But are those who oppose this law really interested in ANY legislation prosecuting illegal immigration in Arizona? Do they just want Arizona to roll over and take it, lest they be deemed racist? I don't know that either...

Well, if you are happy to basically abandon the entire mechanism of personal liberty in the US, i.e. freedom of individual movement and freedom from unwarranted government interference in private business and life, then you are clearly not someone I would want making decisions for a nation that is based entirely -- in all our legal and governmental policies -- on exactly that. When you say you're okay with being harassed for no good reason at all, what I hear you saying is that you don't want the USA to exist. You want some other country where the state controls the lives of the citizens and we all have to live and work solely by the permission of the state instead.

It really is that fundamental a difference, and I reject absolutely your view of how things should be done. The best spin I can think to put on a view like yours is that you haven't really thought it through. I hope that you'll someday end up like that teapartier who was interviewed at the recent DC rally and asked specific questions about what she wanted government to do, and after the interviewer explored the status of her Medicare and Social Security payments with her a bit, she was quoted as saying, "Well, I never really thought of it in terms of losing things I need. I guess I've changed my mind [about the tea party]".

But until that day, I think I'll just put you in the list of people who need to be blocked from influence by political means.

What I hear is that he's okay with it because he doesn't think it will happen to him.. It's SEP.

[Muravyets]

At what point are we just going to admit that there is no way for this law to "catch" illegal immigrants except by harassing and violating the rights of everyone -- or at least everyone who some random cop on the street might personally think is a likely target by whatever criterion he feels like applying?

I'm not sure how many people are asserting that the law doesn't harass people. I know I'll come out and say that openly. The reason I still support it personally is because I see no problem with that harassment. That said, I don't really know when such an admission will happen. I was just commenting on how 'reasonable suspicion' of a crime being required doesn't mean that a crime other than being there illegally has to be committed first.

Ultimately, though, even if the courts strike this down with a vengeance or the voice of the 'people' rises up in anger such that the law is repealed...what do we do instead? Nothing? I mean, just because this law doesn't work doesn't mean that SOME law wouldn't work. But are those who oppose this law really interested in ANY legislation prosecuting illegal immigration in Arizona? Do they just want Arizona to roll over and take it, lest they be deemed racist? I don't know that either...

The "it's this or nothing" argument is false dichotomy. There is no reason whatsoever Arizona could not have passed a law that was not grossly racist. There is no reason Arizona could not have unilaterally stepped up enforcement of federal laws and thus forced the fed to scramble to catch up. There is no excuse for the provisions they have created.

The sheriff called it a "damned if we do and damned if we don't" scenario and stated outright that he will refuse to enforce this law if it is implemented on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, unenforceable, will harm law enforcement, and, in his opinion, is racist.

Well I hope he gets removed from office, then. It's his job to enforce the law, it's a big part of what a sheriff's elected for.

Like military personnel, law enforcement officers are not required to enforce illegal laws. A law that is unconstitutional is illegal.

[Flameswroth]

Well, if you are happy to basically abandon the entire mechanism of personal liberty in the US
...
When you say you're okay with being harassed for no good reason at all, what I hear you saying is that you don't want the USA to exist. You want some other country where the state controls the lives of the citizens and we all have to live and work solely by the permission of the state instead.

Not the entire mechanism, just its applicability to this scenario. I reject the notion that accepting compromise on that ideal is rejecting the ideal in its entirety. There is no slippery slope towards complete abandonment of such principles based on this one issue.

I think I'll just put you in the list of people who need to be blocked from influence by political means.

That's reasonable, and you can rest assured I've no aspirations towards a political body of any significant clout. My biggest impact will be my vote, which will be swallowed up in the will of the many. If that will be against mine, so be it. I'm certainly not going to be marching the streets in anger if this gets repealed. I'll shrug and move on.

EDIT

The "it's this or nothing" argument is false dichotomy. There is no reason whatsoever Arizona could not have passed a law that was not grossly racist. There is no reason Arizona could not have unilaterally stepped up enforcement of federal laws and thus forced the fed to scramble to catch up. There is no excuse for the provisions they have created.

I said exactly that, didn't I? I said something akin to 'there's no reason that, just because this law gets removed, that some other law wouldn't work in its place' or something like that. If it wasn't clear, I apologize - I agree that there is no dichotomy here. But in this thread, there really hasn't been a lot of input as to a nonracist way of accomplishing what the law is trying to do, so it's almost like people don't want anything done at all.

EDIT2

Like military personnel, law enforcement officers are not required to enforce illegal laws. A law that is unconstitutional is illegal.

That may or may not be true, but if the law is implemented and upheld by the courts it will be, regardless of his or others opinions, considered constitutional, right? I mean, that's what the courts do with something like this, isn't it? Interpret its constitutionality? If they approve it, it's constitutional for all intents and purposes of enforcement, until a higher court decides otherwise through appeal. At least that's my understanding.

So even if he, and you, and everyone else scream it's unconstitutional, it takes a court to make that official and justify his refusal to enforce it. Until that time, I think he'd be best off just not running for another term as sheriff or getting removed for someone who will enforce it.

[Muravyets]

So basically what you are saying is MSNBC interviewed an incompetent sheriff that openly admits to picking and choosing the statutes he enforces and will undoubtedly lose reelection and potentially face multimillion dollar lawsuits?

No, actually, they interviewed a sheriff who read the Constitution.

[Emperor Pudu]

With the poll figures coming in it looks like over 70% support the new anti-illegal immigration Bill in Arizona.

I wouldn't dare to try to appear neutral in this debate. I support it 100% and actually feel that it isn't tough enough. Other States should follow suit as well.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... mmigration

Other polls show that upward to 80% of U.S. voters support legislation that would actually "force out" illegal immigrants. It seems that the Federal Government is once again neglecting to respect the will of the people and it looks like the American people are starting to fight back.

Sooo, lets work this out.

America celebrates freedom, hurries up and buys a ton of westward land from France, then in the 1850's or so, we decide that it is our "Manifest Destiny" to expand all the way to the Pacific coast.

Mexico, a free and independant nation, currently occupies Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Mexico decides to let American settlers into it's Texas province, provided they don't bring slavery with them. They do, so the Mexican authorities crack down on it - go Texas revolution!

Texas is free, now annexed by "Manifest Destiny" happy US. Mexico is understandably upset that we just annexed a rebellious province of theirs; it would be like Spain annexing Florida during the Civil War... Anyway, Mexcio breaks diplomatic relations.

America blockades Caribbean Mexican ports and garrisons the border, and sends a minister to Mexcio City who attempts to convince the Mexicans to sell a third of their country to America. Mexico refuses to talk until America removes the blockade, which we do not do, and then we declare war on Mexico and take what we want from them ourselves.

Now Americans, who are almost entirely immigrants, move into what had been Mexican for hundreds of years (Santa Fe is older than Jamestown...) and decide Mexican's aren't allowed anymore.

This has nothing to do with where the Aztecs lived, it has to do with the territory that imperialist warmongering expansionist America STOLE from a sovereign nation, which all started over the American settlers importation of slavery.

[Muravyets]

Well, if you are happy to basically abandon the entire mechanism of personal liberty in the US
...
When you say you're okay with being harassed for no good reason at all, what I hear you saying is that you don't want the USA to exist. You want some other country where the state controls the lives of the citizens and we all have to live and work solely by the permission of the state instead.

Not the entire mechanism, just its applicability to this scenario. I reject the notion that accepting compromise on that ideal is rejecting the ideal in its entirety. There is no slippery slope towards complete abandonment of such principles based on this one issue.

No need for a slippery slope when you're starting from the bottom. The notion that you can have totalitarianism in one compartment of your life and personal liberty in all the other parts of your life is just ridiculous. The right to move about your normal business without being stopped under unwarranted suspicion of a crime and forced to account for yourself either exists or it doesn't, andi f you don't have it in one circumstance, you don't have it in any.

[

I think I'll just put you in the list of people who need to be blocked from influence by political means.

That's reasonable, and you can rest assured I've no aspirations towards a political body of any significant clout. My biggest impact will be my vote, which will be swallowed up in the will of the many. If that will be against mine, so be it. I'm certainly not going to be marching the streets in anger if this gets repealed. I'll shrug and move on.

I'm not even thinking of you running for office. I'm thinking of doing our best to see that no candidate you might support gets elected, no law you might agree with gets passed, etc. People like you are the standard for how not to run a country, in my opinion. You're the litmus test -- if you think something is a good idea, there must be something wrong with it. I won't compromise with people like you, just like I won't compromise with termites and let them eat away at only part of my house.

[Muravyets]

EDIT

The "it's this or nothing" argument is false dichotomy. There is no reason whatsoever Arizona could not have passed a law that was not grossly racist. There is no reason Arizona could not have unilaterally stepped up enforcement of federal laws and thus forced the fed to scramble to catch up. There is no excuse for the provisions they have created.

I said exactly that, didn't I? I said something akin to 'there's no reason that, just because this law gets removed, that some other law wouldn't work in its place' or something like that. If it wasn't clear, I apologize - I agree that there is no dichotomy here. But in this thread, there really hasn't been a lot of input as to a nonracist way of accomplishing what the law is trying to do, so it's almost like people don't want anything done at all.

Only if you assume that the only way to secure the nation is to use racism. Gosh, I wonder what kind of people typically think that? You don't need people to come up with a non-racist way to do this because we already have that in the already existing laws, both state and federal. The only thing this new law accomplishes is to add racism to the mix.

EDIT2

Like military personnel, law enforcement officers are not required to enforce illegal laws. A law that is unconstitutional is illegal.

That may or may not be true, but if the law is implemented and upheld by the courts it will be, regardless of his or others opinions, considered constitutional, right? I mean, that's what the courts do with something like this, isn't it? Interpret its constitutionality? If they approve it, it's constitutional for all intents and purposes of enforcement, until a higher court decides otherwise through appeal. At least that's my understanding.

So even if he, and you, and everyone else scream it's unconstitutional, it takes a court to make that official and justify his refusal to enforce it. Until that time, I think he'd be best off just not running for another term as sheriff or getting removed for someone who will enforce it.

Actually, I think he's better off protecting and serving the people of his county, who will not be best served by him licking the boots of the pandering racist cynics running for reelection in the state capitol. And if racism does become institutionalized in the US, then I think he should resign and join the ranks of Americans who will be fighting this with their votes, their civil disobedience, and their wallets.

[Flameswroth]

Actually, I think he's better off protecting and serving the people of his county, who will not be best served by him licking the boots of the pandering racist cynics running for reelection in the state capitol. And if racism does become institutionalized in the US, then I think he should resign and join the ranks of Americans who will be fighting this with their votes, their civil disobedience, and their wallets.

It's not about boot-licking, it's about doing his job.

But I see we agree - should this law pass the tests of constitutionality, he should most certainly resign if he's unwilling to enforce it.

[Riverica]

I think more people should do their homework and actually READ the law before casting judgment. Here is a direct quote from Article 8, Enforcement of Immigration Laws:

"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."

This law specifically stipulates that it is prohibited for law enforcement officers to engage in racial profiling, and this law supplements the federal law that the U.S. Government has failed to effectively enforce. The governer of Arizona ahs a right to uphold the rule of law and protect the sovereignty of her state when the feds drop the ball.

The problem comes from the fact that racial profiling is the only method available for them to find illegals.

MSNBC interviewed an Arizona sheriff last night -- I don't remember which one, but he's in charge of the county that includes Tuscon -- and he pointed to this problem of the law being unenforceable and unavoidable at the same time. He pointed out that the language of the bill gives lip service against racial profiling, but leaves no way for officers to enforce it except by racial profiling. And at the same time, it provides for any citizen of Arizona to sue the police if they (the private citizen) thinks they're not enforcing the law enough. The sheriff called it a "damned if we do and damned if we don't" scenario and stated outright that he will refuse to enforce this law if it is implemented on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, unenforceable, will harm law enforcement, and, in his opinion, is racist.

The sheriff on MSLSD is just convoluting things. I'll simplify.

Have you ever been pulled over, or involved in a Terry stop? What is the very first thing that a law enforcement officer will generally ask for?

Picture this: You are a law enforcement officer who has just stopped a van because it had a brake light out. The time is about 1:15 a.m. You are on a known drug/human trafficking route, the driver's demeanor is evasive, and he cannot produce identification. There are 8 passengers in the vehicle who are also acting evasive, crouched down in the rear of the vehicle. The passengers appear to be prepared for a long-distance journey.

Considering that you are a reasonable person, would this scenario lead you to ask a few more questions? Keep in mind, that at no point did I mention anything about race, creed, color, national origin, etc. This combination of facts, even though each is individual fact is innocuous, can form a basis for reasonable suspicion that the driver and passengers of this vehicle may be in the country illegally, and thus cause an LEO to investigate further.

Furthermore, the law states that there must be legal contact between the subject and the LEO. Just stopping someone on the street because they're Hispanic doesn't cut it. Morever, it wouldn't even be effective due to the high volume of Hispanic-Americans in the region.

Please keep in mind that LEOs must undergo extensive training in the the laws that they have been sworn to uphold. In most academies, new police officers will graduate just a few college credits shy of a bachelor's degree. Other agencies require a candidate to possess at least a bachelor's degree to even be considered for the job.

[Parthenon]

Well I hope he gets removed from office, then. It's his job to enforce the law, it's a big part of what a sheriff's elected for.

Like military personnel, law enforcement officers are not required to enforce illegal laws. A law that is unconstitutional is illegal.

Not his job to determine the constitutionality of a law. It's his job to enforce it.

[Muravyets]

Well I hope he gets removed from office, then. It's his job to enforce the law, it's a big part of what a sheriff's elected for.

Like military personnel, law enforcement officers are not required to enforce illegal laws. A law that is unconstitutional is illegal.

Not his job to determine the constitutionality of a law. It's his job to enforce it.

Just following orders? I don't think so. Being forced to commit a federal crime is not part of a state cop's job. The only people who think this law is not unconstitutional so far have been people who want it to be okay so they can discriminate based on race.

[Muravyets]

I think more people should do their homework and actually READ the law before casting judgment. Here is a direct quote from Article 8, Enforcement of Immigration Laws:

"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."

This law specifically stipulates that it is prohibited for law enforcement officers to engage in racial profiling, and this law supplements the federal law that the U.S. Government has failed to effectively enforce. The governer of Arizona ahs a right to uphold the rule of law and protect the sovereignty of her state when the feds drop the ball.

The problem comes from the fact that racial profiling is the only method available for them to find illegals.

MSNBC interviewed an Arizona sheriff last night -- I don't remember which one, but he's in charge of the county that includes Tuscon -- and he pointed to this problem of the law being unenforceable and unavoidable at the same time. He pointed out that the language of the bill gives lip service against racial profiling, but leaves no way for officers to enforce it except by racial profiling. And at the same time, it provides for any citizen of Arizona to sue the police if they (the private citizen) thinks they're not enforcing the law enough. The sheriff called it a "damned if we do and damned if we don't" scenario and stated outright that he will refuse to enforce this law if it is implemented on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, unenforceable, will harm law enforcement, and, in his opinion, is racist.

The sheriff on MSLSD is just convoluting things. I'll simplify.

Have you ever been pulled over, or involved in a Terry stop? What is the very first thing that a law enforcement officer will generally ask for?

Picture this: You are a law enforcement officer who has just stopped a van because it had a brake light out. The time is about 1:15 a.m. You are on a known drug/human trafficking route, the driver's demeanor is evasive, and he cannot produce identification. There are 8 passengers in the vehicle who are also acting evasive, crouched down in the rear of the vehicle. The passengers appear to be prepared for a long-distance journey.

Considering that you are a reasonable person, would this scenario lead you to ask a few more questions? Keep in mind, that at no point did I mention anything about race, creed, color, national origin, etc. This combination of facts, even though each is individual fact is innocuous, can form a basis for reasonable suspicion that the driver and passengers of this vehicle may be in the country illegally, and thus cause an LEO to investigate further.

Furthermore, the law states that there must be legal contact between the subject and the LEO. Just stopping someone on the street because they're Hispanic doesn't cut it. Morever, it wouldn't even be effective due to the high volume of Hispanic-Americans in the region.

Please keep in mind that LEOs must undergo extensive training in the the laws that they have been sworn to uphold. In most academies, new police officers will graduate just a few college credits shy of a bachelor's degree. Other agencies require a candidate to possess at least a bachelor's degree to even be considered for the job.

I like the way you have to post almost a text book in order to "simplify." All you've done above is reiterate what the sheriff was saying. The law cannot work unless they use racial profiling. How's that for simple?

[Muravyets]

Actually, I think he's better off protecting and serving the people of his county, who will not be best served by him licking the boots of the pandering racist cynics running for reelection in the state capitol. And if racism does become institutionalized in the US, then I think he should resign and join the ranks of Americans who will be fighting this with their votes, their civil disobedience, and their wallets.

It's not about boot-licking, it's about doing his job.

But I see we agree - should this law pass the tests of constitutionality, he should most certainly resign if he's unwilling to enforce it.

His job is to uphold the law. The law at it stands now makes this law illegal. If the court changes that, then he must act only on his own principles and leave his job. But as a officer of the law, he is within his rights to refuse to enforce an illegal law.