Despicable Arizona! by Niki2

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
i've re-evaluated my position on this issue, but not the validity of the cursed arizona law. the law is stupid, because (a) immigration is properly a federal issue...

Under Bush's Reign of Error, the fine for employing an undocumented worker went from $275 to $375. That's pretty much the extent of Federal policy in the last 10 years.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 8:58 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"(b) it does not provide a clear standard for enforcement."

Hello,

This is the primary objection. In the absence of clear standards, poor standards may be applied.

And hence a citizen could be required to prove his or her citizenship, and arrested if not able to immediately do so.

How do you establish probable cause for citizenship?

Not through any good means that I can imagine. I'd like it to be specified so that we know the law won't encourage racial profiling. And adding a 'Don't use racial profiling' section isn't good unless we have a section detailing what exactly they ARE supposed to use. Then we can judge the validity of the law and be sure of its effect.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 9:19 AM

MINCINGBEAST

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"(b) it does not provide a clear standard for enforcement."

Hello,

This is the primary objection. In the absence of clear standards, poor standards may be applied.

And hence a citizen could be required to prove his or her citizenship, and arrested if not able to immediately do so.

How do you establish probable cause for citizenship?

Not through any good means that I can imagine. I'd like it to be specified so that we know the law won't encourage racial profiling. And adding a 'Don't use racial profiling' section isn't good unless we have a section detailing what exactly they ARE supposed to use. Then we can judge the validity of the law and be sure of its effect.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

Hello,
That an inexact standard is problematic and open to abuse is easily lost amidst the frantic shouts of "RACISM" and "PROFILING" and "FILTHY IMMIGRANTS." Also, this is not a matter of probable cause, but reasonable suspicion, and not about probable cause for citizenship. We could easily imagine scenarios where there would clearly be a reasonable suspicion of immigration status, but just as imagine an abuse of discretion.

Goodbye.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 9:53 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Under Bush's Reign of Error, the fine for employing an undocumented worker went from $275 to $375. That's pretty much the extent of Federal policy in the last 10 years.

So you're saying that Bush raised taxes over 33% on small businesses?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 9:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"(b) it does not provide a clear standard for enforcement."

Hello,

This is the primary objection. In the absence of clear standards, poor standards may be applied.

And hence a citizen could be required to prove his or her citizenship, and arrested if not able to immediately do so.

How do you establish probable cause for citizenship?

Not through any good means that I can imagine. I'd like it to be specified so that we know the law won't encourage racial profiling. And adding a 'Don't use racial profiling' section isn't good unless we have a section detailing what exactly they ARE supposed to use. Then we can judge the validity of the law and be sure of its effect.

I'm all for checking into someone's background and status at the point you're booking them into jail on some other charge. I'm all for requiring valid paperwork upon employment, and having the immigration bureaucracy do the requisite background checks (the way background checks are done on gun sales from federally licensed firearms dealers). I'm fine with demanding your proof when getting your driver's license, or when buying a home. I'm *NOT* fine with having to produce your papers on a cop's whim, because just like there are regular people who are assholes and racists, there are cops who are assholes and racists, and they WILL abuse any authority they're given. And their buddies and captains and chiefs will be expected to "back the badge" at every single turn.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 4:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
One assumes that the state of California has certain contracts spelled out with the Arizona power generation companies that they are part owners of. Are you suggesting that such contracts should be null and void if one party decides they don't feel like living up to their end of the contract?

Are there similar contracts binding Los Angeles to hold conventions or meetings in Arizona? If so, Arizona can try to sue California for breach of contract.

You've got it generally correct. The specific details and remedy would depend on the contract.

While they might be able to sue for breach of contract...might being the opperative word, it is unlikely that specific performance would be the remedy since such remedies are rare in such agreements.

One example you might want to consider is my City's owned electric company. Citizens of the City get low cost electricity with good customer service. Unless we choose not to sell it to them. There are specific reasons laid out by ordinance, rule, and contract that define when and if service can be interrupted or denied. Their ability to sue is limited and the remedy is non-existant.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 4:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"(b) it does not provide a clear standard for enforcement."

Hello,

This is the primary objection. In the absence of clear standards, poor standards may be applied.

And hence a citizen could be required to prove his or her citizenship, and arrested if not able to immediately do so.

How do you establish probable cause for citizenship?

The standard is reasonable suspicion and it comes only after some other legal contact.

In other words, an officer cannot simply walk up to you and say "show me your papers" with his german accent.

He can walk up to you and say, 'what's your name', 'where you headed', and 'do you have any weapons or drugs on you'. You, even an illegal Mexican version of you can smile and say 'frack off' or something similar in Spanish and walk away.

But if the officer has legal contact with you...a speeding stop for example then if he has reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts then he can do a number of things. For example, if you were speeding, weaving, smelled of alcohol, and admitted drinking he could perform an OVI investigation getting you out of the car to do Field Sobriety tests. If you are hispanic, driving near the border, without a license, and speak no English...he could do a citizenship investigation. If there is blood leaking from you trunk and you are covered with blood and there is a bloody chainsaw in the passanger seat...and so on.

Probable cause is a much higher standard. It would be required before an actual arrest is made which would not happen till after the officer has concluded his initial investigation.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 4:41 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Hero,

What if an officer sees someone loitering in front of The Home Depot?

Can he have lawful contact based on the loitering?

Can he claim reasonable suspicion?

What if he approaches someone for suspicion of vagrancy and they speak Spanish and have brown skin?

What if my father visits me from Florida, and runs a stop sign? My father looks and sounds Hispanic. He rarely travels with a birth certificate. Florida licenses do not prove citizenship. How long will he be in jail, and how much will it cost him, because he looks Mexican to some yahoo?

What happens to him, if someone decides to be reasonably suspicious (a quite vague idea?)

Nothing good, as far as I can tell.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 5:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Pizmo, I understand how corporations work, I worked for some and I hear what you’re saying. But it’s a moot point; it was only a story because of it’s news value, and you’ll note disappeared almost immediately. If it had kept on, it would have become an absurd pissing contest, as LA could talk about the things that come into their port, the Water Wars could have started up again. It just “isn’t”.

What does “retrieved” mean in that report you found? Was it WRITTEN then? Because if so, that last sentence sure fits their rationalization that the law ISN’T racial profiling. They certainly made an effort to back themselves up that it wasn’t. But however you look at it, it is, I think anyone who thinks about it would realize that.

Yup, I see “ironical” is a word, looked it up. Sounds stupid to me, and yes, “irregardless” has always irked me, too. Then there’s “WMDs”, which is Weapons of Mass Destructionss” and “VIN Number”, which is “Vehicle Identification Number Number” and on and on. Our language has long been devolving...

“Legal contact” isn’t just speeding, etc., Pizmo. Somewhere I put up a smattering of quotes from some of the “laws” or “codes” around the nation, and the things they include (which can be used) cover some pretty small things, if the cop wants to use them. So it doesn’t have to be something overt like speeding, it can be something as small as what the COP considers “loitering”, of course “littering”, and if it’s in one’s homeowners’ association rules or “civil code”, those will suffice, too.

Thank you SGG, you covered it beautifully. Except no, citizens can’t detain people (tho’ they can certainly report them to the police), and nobody can sue because they were detained; but citizens can sue the POLICE if they think they’re not “doing their job”. What you’re right about in that respect is it will encourage people to report anyone and anything THEY find suspicious, and if the police didn’t follow up... Yes, a boon for the legal profession...like they need one!

Ahhh, Anthony, YOU don’t look infantile. The guy who wrote it does...and even his higher ups were a bit embarrassed by it. Tit for tat is always infantile, and it was just one idjit. There are plenty of them around, as we know all too well...

The thing about racial profiling where this is concerned is that they’re instructed to detain anyone on essentially any reasonable suspicion that they’re “breaking of the law” they want or know about which, under “civil code”, can cover just about anything from jaywalking to not mowing your lawn. It ISN’T clear what they can detain a person for, which leaves it open to misuse. So you’re right, the problem can exist if any policeman is well versed in both the law and “civil code” of the particular area and decides to use it.

Mincing, you are right, those are the “legal” objections. But in my mind there is also a valid moral objection, and I dislike it because of the reasons you enumerated as well as the fact that it IS racial profiling and because it endangers citizens who don’t know about it ending up in jail and/or fined. That’s just plain wrong on all four counts. Tho’ I agree with Pizmo, for all their bitching and moaning, the fed hasn’t done jack shit...it’s the “third rail” and no politician wants to deal with it—plus the fact that many Repubs don’t WANT to get rid of the cheap labor.

Mike put it pretty succinctly for me, and covered my MAIN objection very well.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 5:37 AM

Quote:
Yup, I see “ironical” is a word, looked it up. Sounds stupid to me, and yes, “irregardless” has always irked me, too. Then there’s “WMDs”, which is Weapons of Mass Destructionss” and “VIN Number”, which is “Vehicle Identification Number Number” and on and on. Our language has long been devolving...

You forgot "ATM machine"... :) That one bugs the fuck out of me. As do people who say "I didn't get home 'til 6am in the morning"; better than 6am in the evening, I guess... :facepalm:

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I say ATM machine a lot. Even though the M already stands for machine. I'm not sure how I got into the habit.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:48 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Yup, I see “ironical” is a word, looked it up. Sounds stupid to me, and yes, “irregardless” has always irked me, too. Then there’s “WMDs”, which is Weapons of Mass Destructionss” and “VIN Number”, which is “Vehicle Identification Number Number” and on and on. Our language has long been devolving...

You forgot "ATM machine"... :) That one bugs the fuck out of me. As do people who say "I didn't get home 'til 6am in the morning"; better than 6am in the evening, I guess... :facepalm:

I'm less of a language purist. "RBIs" makes sense to me even though that's like a double plural since it's already Runs Batted In. "You wouldn't say 'runs batted ins' would you?" "No. I'm saying 'RBIs.'" "Attorneys General" just sounds wrong.

I'm anxious to hear what Hero has to say regarding Anthony's questions. I thought a driver's license was enough, if it isn't I wonder how long would a naturalized citizen be expected to carry their papers? Forever? Can illegals get driver's licenses in AZ or are they so easy to spoof?

The fubar immigration enforcement and policy create an environment that is bad for everyone, including, and maybe even especially for, legal US citizens of Mexican nationality. I think that's what's missing from some of the discussion when people jump on the "racist" bandwagon.

For illegals: What's their relationship with the country they live in when they know that that country thinks of them as criminals? I can't imagine what it's like living like that.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:54 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Can illegals get driver's licenses in AZ or are they so easy to spoof?"

Hello,

I think it's easier to get a driver's license from another state. You are allowed to visit Arizona with another state's driver's license and drive around here.

Given how much howling I hear about illegals with driver's licenses, there may even be a way to get one in this state. You'd think so, with all the rhetoric floating around about it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:58 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Keep in mind also that all states issue licenses to legal aliens, as far as I know. One frequent complaint from people worried about terrorism is that people arrive legally, subsequently become illegal, but are able to continue operating for years as an illegal while using government documents and identifications.

Hence, even licenses from places with strict illegal alien laws may be in the possession of illegal immigrants, since their legal status may have expired subsequent to obtaining the license.

And therefore, on that logic, no drivers license is an assurance of current legal status. When I dispatched in Florida, I do not remember ID checks at traffic stops including someone's citizenship status. Admittedly this was over a decade ago. Maybe things have changed since 9/11?

I would not be surprised to find that ID checks still frequently fail to return citizenship data.

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 7:14 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think I lost a post somehow. I'll repost.

I found this at an anti-immigration site:

"Eleven states issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens, including Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and West Virginia. In 2003, California's Governor Davis signed into law a bill that would give illegals drivers licenses. It is widely believed that this was the final act that contributed to his 2003 recall. Immediately after this law was signed, hundreds of thousands of signatures were collected that would have placed the question on the March 2004 general election ballot. Incoming Governor Schwarzenegger annulled the law, purportedly so that the electorate would not have a chance to vote on the issue. "

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/drivers_licenses.html

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 7:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Keep in mind also that all states issue licenses to legal aliens, as far as I know. One frequent complaint from people worried about terrorism is that people arrive legally, subsequently become illegal, but are able to continue operating for years as an illegal while using government documents and identifications.

Hence, even licenses from places with strict illegal alien laws may be in the possession of illegal immigrants, since their legal status may have expired subsequent to obtaining the license.

And therefore, on that logic, no drivers license is an assurance of current legal status. When I dispatched in Florida, I do not remember ID checks at traffic stops including someone's citizenship status. Admittedly this was over a decade ago. Maybe things have changed since 9/11?

I would not be surprised to find that ID checks still frequently fail to return citizenship data.

--Anthony

Thing is, this is the kind of stuff that SHOULD be easy to check and verify, if we could get all our bureaucracies communicating effectively. Here in Austin, we have a program where the police have an in-car connection to a database that is kept current and up-to-date (allegedly), which tells them whether or not you are currently covered by auto insurance. The idea is that people have been going for years just paying the down-payment and getting the proof of insurance card, then not paying for another 6 months or a year, until they need a new card.

So anyway, the cops pull up your license, and the database says whether you're covered or not. And now they're bringing in a roof-mounted scanner which will "read" license plates on parked cars or cars in traffic, and alert the cop if your car is uninsured, you have unpaid tickets, or have warrants out, or are wanted for anything, etc.

I don't imagine it would be that hard to tie such a system into the immigration/naturalization bureaus to alert police when a known illegal (or formerly legal but now overstaying his welcome) immigrant is flagged. So you come in and get your license (which really SHOULD be marked "ILLEGAL" at the very least, if you're not legally here, or "TEMPORARY - EXPIRES XX/XX/XXXX" if you're here on a temporary work or student or migrant worker pass), and if you overstay your welcome, then you get flagged by the system, and when you pop up at a traffic stop or any other time you're required to show your I.D. (airplane tickets, car registration, home loan, job application, etc.), an alert goes out.

We've already got the laws and the technology to tighten things up; we just choose not to do so.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 7:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What if an officer sees someone loitering in front of The Home Depot?

Our Home Depot has a bus stop in front of it.

Quote:

Can he have lawful contact based on the loitering?

Depends on local ordinances. If loitering is a crime, then yes.

Quote:

Can he claim reasonable suspicion?

I assume you mean of being an illegal. The answer is maybe, but he has to be able to testify to reasonable articulable facts that would lead an reasonable person to have that suspicion. For example, if the suspect had no ID, spoke no English, etc.

Edited to add: I forgot to mention earlier...its 'reasonable suspicion' based on 'articulable facts' given the 'totality of the circumstances'. That last part is the most recent addition and very important.

Quote:

What if he approaches someone for suspicion of vagrancy and they speak Spanish and have brown skin?

Lots of folks speak spanish and have brown skin. While these might be obvious indicators, the Arizona law bars investigations based solely on ethnicity. So without additional facts your answer is no.

Quote:

What if my father visits me from Florida, and runs a stop sign? My father looks and sounds Hispanic. He rarely travels with a birth certificate. Florida licenses do not prove citizenship.

Running a stop sign is not sufficient, neither is being hispanic, looking hispanic, or sounding hispanic, so right off the bat they'd never get to the question of citizenship.

A valid license, even from a foriegn state (presuming its a compact state) should be sufficient.

Quote:

How long will he be in jail, and how much will it cost him, because he looks Mexican to some yahoo?

You'll have to address the question to the Federal Govt. Likely they can hold them till there is a hearing and the Obama administration has indicated they may not be doing those kinds of hearings for Arizona's illegals.

I doubt my suggestion of lining the boarders with catapults and skipping the hearing will be adopted. I note for the record that my patented Mexi-flinger is avaibable for border state purchase. The idea being that when the are returned they are alive and unharmed and its up to Mexico to provide the safe landing.

Quote:

What happens to him, if someone decides to be reasonably suspicious (a quite vague idea?)

You mean like going into Best Buy and pretending to steal. I guess its a 'reap what you sow' kind of thing.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I found this at an anti-immigration site:

"Eleven states issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens, including...Ohio,

Ohio requires proof of legal residency...and insurance.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:12 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

"You mean like going into Best Buy and pretending to steal. I guess its a 'reap what you sow' kind of thing."

I'm not sure what you mean by this and I'm not sure how it relates to the conversation?

"You'll have to address the question to the Federal Govt. Likely they can hold them till there is a hearing and the Obama administration has indicated they may not be doing those kinds of hearings for Arizona's illegals."

You seem to be suggesting indefinite detention?

"I doubt my suggestion of lining the boarders with catapults and skipping the hearing will be adopted. I note for the record that my patented Mexi-flinger is avaibable for border state purchase. The idea being that when the are returned they are alive and unharmed and its up to Mexico to provide the safe landing."

With this statement, I don't even think you're making a serious attempt to discuss this topic.

I can't help but feel that you are taking 'good faith' that the law won't be abused. But your own statements suggest that an officer can stop someone for loitering, ask them some questions (ill defined thus far what these questions would be, exactly) and if they don't like the answer, they can haul the fellow in for indefinite detention.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:35 AM

Quote:

I doubt my suggestion of lining the boarders with catapults and skipping the hearing will be adopted. I note for the record that my patented Mexi-flinger is avaibable for border state purchase. The idea being that when the are returned they are alive and unharmed and its up to Mexico to provide the safe landing.

If only Iraq and Afghanistan had invested in such technology... They could be happily flinging American soldiers out of their country at will - and they wouldn't technically be killing any of them, since it's incumbent on us to provide the safe landing!

By the way, why on Earth would you want to line those who rent a room with catapults?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:36 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:41 AM

Quote:

I can't help but feel that you are taking 'good faith' that the law won't be abused. But your own statements suggest that an officer can stop someone for loitering, ask them some questions (ill defined thus far what these questions would be, exactly) and if they don't like the answer, they can haul the fellow in for indefinite detention.

And he's also shown a rather cavalier and callous disregard for human life, at least when it comes to anyone he considers "Mexican".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I can't help but feel that you are taking 'good faith' that the law won't be abused. But your own statements suggest that an officer can stop someone for loitering, ask them some questions (ill defined thus far what these questions would be, exactly) and if they don't like the answer, they can haul the fellow in for indefinite detention.

Wow, somebody's glass is half empty...

You would prefer we stop nobody (even if breaking the law), ask them nothing, and if we don't like it too bad.

What I said was if someone was breaking the law they can stop them to investigate, if they find reasonable suspicion (which courts have specifically designed and imposed on police for decades) then they can investigate other crimes such as being in the country illegally, if their investigation develops probable cause they can arrest them and hold them pending Federal disposition of their immigration status. I said nothing about bond, speeding trial rights, or anything else...all of which apply although the remedy may lie with Federal Court rather then State Court.

Whether the detention is indefinate is likely up to the Federal Courts and the Obama administration, but it is not unprecedented to hold illegal immigrants in custody for long periods so that they can have a hearing.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, why on Earth would you want to line those who rent a room with catapults?

I mispoke earlier.

The Mexi-flinger6000 is more trebuchet then catapult.

Digital, computer operated, and guarranteed to fling the average Mexican a minimum of 17 miles given proper weather conditions. Comes in a variety of colors and with many options and luxery add-ons.

I'm working on one that runs on alternative fuel so purchasers can qualify for a tax credit.

While its assembled in Michigan...most of the parts come from Mexico, hence the name...

Also working on other 'Deportation technology' such as the Chinese Morter (made in China) and the concept-version InterContinintal Ballistic Muslim (complete with Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles to allow us to return folks temporarily housed at Gitmo from a variety of hostile Islamic nations at the same time, each bearing a message of peace from the American people).

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:03 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Wow, somebody's glass is half empty..."

Hello,

I don't know what your experience with the law has been, Hero. But in my very limited experience, it can be used both for good and for evil. I can't afford to look at laws and think, "Well, no one would ever misuse this." I have to think, "What's the worst-case scenario, here?"

Probable Cause usually requires someone to find a thing, some piece of evidence, that makes them believe a crime has been committed. But the Reasonable Suspicion that leads to Probable Cause with this law seems to be the opposite. It is a lack of something that leads to suspicion and probable cause. There just isn't a piece of evidence you are likely to find on someone that tells you "Ah-ha! Illegal!" Just what kind of evidence would lead someone to suspect an illegal, and what sort of 'Probable Cause' could you get in a casual streetside interrogation?

It seems too easy for this to become, "He looks Mexican, he speaks Spanish, and he's loitering. He doesn't answer our questions very clearly, either. Let's haul him in and detain him until someone brings his Birth Certificate."

Which is fine if he is an illegal. But what if some officer of questionable moral character uses this law as a tool to harass people of a race he doesn't like? What happens when legal citizens and legal residents are hauled in because of this law? That possibility troubles me. To not take the 'Half Empty' stance on this seems almost irresponsible. Wasn't the Bill of Rights a product of a 'Half Empty' viewpoint? I'm glad someone thought to be pessimistic about the possibilities.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:06 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, "reasonable suspicion" is not the specific thing you think it is:

Quote:
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. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.

Wikipedia

You REALLY don't think, given they can be sued if they don't check "enough" potentially illegal immigrants, that police aren't encouraged to use whatever "reasonable suspicion" they might be able to us, and nobody's gonna question it, ESPECIALLY given people arrested for not having their papers (citizen or not) CANNOT SUE for "unreasonable" detention? That's in here, too, you know.

Second, "criminal activity" can be used for possible breaking of "civil codes" and "local ordinances" as well. Both differ from state to state, county to country, and some of them can be VERY minor. And if you read the law, it states that police must check for citizenship papers of anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant. If they have "reasonable suspicion" someone is "loitering", bus stop or not (because "reasonable suspicion" is pretty open), they have to ask for papers. They HAVE to, do you understand?

It also states it "OBLIGATES police to make an attempt, when practicable, to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien[1]:§ 2 during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official."[20] Police may arrest a person if there is probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents. So ANY reason a policeman can STOP or DETAIN a person OBLIGATES the policeman to check their papers.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And he's also shown a rather cavalier and callous disregard for human life, at least when it comes to anyone he considers "Mexican".

The only cavalier I know is LeBron James and his time is running out.

As for what happens when folks are returned to Mexico...that's Mexico's business. Perhaps you'd rather I dicate to a foriegn country how they treat the persons who live there.

The people with callous disregard for the lives of Mexicans...are most Mexicans. They come here, knowing they could get caught and sent back because they don't have the guts to make what's there better.

They need to man up and get control of their country, their lives, and the future they want to build for their children. I suspect that if they were doing that, they'd see us there helping them as much or as little as they wanted us to.

Our biggest mistake about Mexico was not conquering the norther half of their country but rather not taking the rest of it while we were about it...and every Mexican who crosses the border wishes we had done that or that the border was further south then it already is.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:15 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
They need to man up and get control of their country, their lives, and the future they want to build for their children. I suspect that if they were doing that, they'd see us there helping them as much or as little as they wanted us to.

Our biggest mistake about Mexico was not conquering the norther half of their country but rather not taking the rest of it while we were about it...and every Mexican who crosses the border wishes we had done that or that the border was further south then it already is.

I find those statements amazing. As to "manning up", we've already discussed that one. As to not conquering the whole country...jezus.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Wikipedia

I rarely cite wikipedia in Court. I'd suggest you read Terry. Then go to lawschool or hire an attorney to explain it to you.

Quote:

...that police aren't encouraged to use whatever "reasonable suspicion" they might be able to us, and nobody's gonna question it...

I deal with this all the time. Reasonable suspicion is the starting point of nearly EVERY criminal case and EVERY criminal defense. Its specfically defined by Supreme Courts throughout the country and the Federal Law as well as strictly enforced and defined by local appellate courts or the whims of your local Judge who most always ere on the side of caution for fear of being overturned.

Your arguing against this as though its something new and lack of experiance or bad faith will lead to abuse. Police are familiar with the standard. Defense attorneys know how to attack it so police are extra careful. Judges know what to look for so police are extra careful. The slightest mistake can set a guilty person free so police are extra careful. The only people who have anything to fear from this reasonable suspicion approach are the folks who see every cop, prosecutor, and judge as corrupt and in their blind paranoia can't put any faith in the professionalism of the people employed in the system...oh...wait, thats most of you guys and PN is your king.

Quote:

Second, "criminal activity" can be used for possible breaking of "civil codes" as well. Civil codes differ from state to state, county to country, and some of them can be VERY minor.

Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about local criminal and traffic codes?

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 9:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I find those statements amazing.

Thanks. I was going for that. Said to myself, "lets write something amazing" and just to get some positive feedback makes it all worthwhile.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I find those statements amazing." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Of course abuse will occur...it already DOES and HAS! It's incredibly disingenuous to quote specifics of laws, etc., as if that's what will actually happen in the real world.

I take back "amazing"...let's go for "despicable", just like the Arizona law.

We've debated this issue for many, many posts; you obviously came in with no desire to debate the real world or anything real about what the law does and doesn't do, nor the fact that the cops can be sued for not questioning ENOUGH people whereas citizens can't sue for being harrassed or detained. Wikipedia or other sources aside, try debating reality. ONLY Hispanics will be questioned, and that WILL include Hispanic citizens, who will be and have been jailed and fined because they aren't/weren't aware of the law in just that state and can't prove citizenship on the spot. That's reality.

I know, you'll shoot back "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but that's not reality, either. People will suffer, and not just illegal immigrants; abuses will increase--they already exist. This gives them carte blanche, precisely as it was intended to do.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:13 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"We've debated this issue for many, many posts; you obviously came in with no desire to debate the real world or anything real about what the law does and doesn't do, nor the fact that the cops can be sued for not questioning ENOUGH people whereas citizens can't sue for being harrassed or detained."

Oh, Good Lord.... this could easily be rewritten as.. "You disagree with me so you are WRONG WRONG WRONG!"

Nix, you are between 40 and 60... its time you grew up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:28 AM

Quote:
Where does Arizona get its water? Maybe someone should turn off the tap.

ME. >D

But, no, both states have the right to act like children and throw hissy temper tantrums. What annoys me is how self-defeating this is: eventually, disputes between states like this are solved in a court of law. Whichever state has the most money to afford paying for legal representation wins. That's why Nevada (or rather the Southern Nevada Water Alliance, representing Las Vegas) almost successfully forced Utah to allocate water rights to it when the allocation might exceed the available resources of the water. I imagine the courts will also order the same thing in regards to electricity, as the grid is also managed by the government. EDIT: Ah, yes, and shareholders, which in both water and electricity, access rights are carefully negotiated and purchased.

So here we are, economy is maybe improving, but still not doing well, and both states are about to blow billions in a pissing match. Pah. This is why politics is moronic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 1:09 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

No, sigh, WulfWind. We HAVE debated the FACTS of what the law says, and some of us have posted specifics and cites. There is absolutely no reason to duplicate those posts; if Hero wants to read the whole thread (or the other ones on the subject) he can find those facts. Why should I duplicate the time and energy to re-post what's already been presented??

That WOULD be a childish effort to say "I'm right and you're wrong, neener, neener", if anyone were to waste all that time going over material that's already been gone over.

You really should give up on the "childish" thing, it doesn't get to anyone; it's such an overused attack it has no impact; it's boring. I wish you'd get some new material...call us UnAmerican or Nazis or socialists or communists or traitors or something, why don't you? Those are old too, but at least it would be a change of pace. I'm 61, and was more mature than you will ever be at 25; in fact, most everyone here is--you just prove it over and over again every time you post. Something along the lines of your "I'm always amused when the petulant little children pretend they're on the moral high ground and call others petulant children", except it's not even amusing any more.

Thank you, Byte; yes, it is ridiculous. But as I said before, it's a non-issue; one idjit wrote the letter, the media picked it up, and dropped it again just as fast. It was a one-day story, nothing more, and nothing will come of it.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And he's also shown a rather cavalier and callous disregard for human life, at least when it comes to anyone he considers "Mexican".

The only cavalier I know is LeBron James and his time is running out.

Yeah, I bet he can't wait to get out of that hell-hole. Good for him.

Quote:

As for what happens when folks are returned to Mexico...that's Mexico's business. Perhaps you'd rather I dicate to a foriegn country how they treat the persons who live there.

Tried that. You supported it fully. It was called The Iraq War. You might remember it. It still goes on, all these years later.

Quote:

The people with callous disregard for the lives of Mexicans...are most Mexicans. They come here, knowing they could get caught and sent back because they don't have the guts to make what's there better.

You're saying the Founding Fathers of this country didn't have the guts to try to make England better?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 4:36 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

Hey Pizmo, you lost me.

Racial profiling is:

Looking at one particular race of people and singleling them out as targets for stop and search by cops based solely upon their ethnicity - period.

Wiki definition: "Racial profiling refers to the "use by law enforcement personnel of an individual’s race or ethnicity as a factor in articulating reasonable suspicion to stop, question or arrest an individual, (Part 2,sic) unless race or ethnicity is part of an identifying description of a specific suspect for a specific crime." [1]"

The second part, as I understand it, speaks to the police action as NOT being considered profiling. For instance, a witness describes an assailent as a "tall, asian with red pants" or "a short hispanic with a mohawk haircut."
The second part is legit because of the description given by a witness.

This is what I believe is going to happen more times than not in the aftermath of this new law:

A False Alarm Provides Plenty to Be Alarmed About

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/nyregion/17towns.html?_r=1

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your stand on this issue. I believe the new law will cause an uptick in racial profiling incidents; where innocent law-abiding citizens are going to catch hell.

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:05 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Better idea, if they wanna take it THAT far, set up checkpoints on all the highways out and refuse AZ natives entry to other states without a full and intensive background check and invasive interrogation.

Since, they obviously wanna play rough, well then, LETS GO THERE.

Then let em threaten to secede, yeah, that'll be even more fun, and wait ? where TO ?
Oh, yeah, duh.

-F

Your post is so absurd I had to respond. Are you advocating statehood profiling? You are truly retarded.

The "natives" of Arizona are covered by "Our" constitution. Being a part of our republic gives their citizens a right to travel freely.

Arizona does not have to do business with California, and California is free to boycott Arizona.

The Governor of Arizona should bus all caught illegals to California(L.A). Tell the state of California that... if they love illegals they can have them all....I'm all for states rights.

I'd run commercials in Arizona telling all illegals to go to California (or any state that is so offended by Arizona's right to crack down on their state problem that they call for a boycott). All would be happy.

except the states that the illegals go to.

Problem is no state would take them. The polls overwhelmingly show that Americans support Arizona...So, fuck you and California...Well, it's true........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:19 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Well, that can't be argued with. You would have to have your head shoved in your ass to rationally disagree with one word he says....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:21 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"The polls overwhelmingly show that Americans support Arizona."

Hello,

After a brief perusal of several polls, it appears that this is correct. Without knowing how the polls were conducted, it's impossible to know if they are skewed...

But I can't seem to find a poll where people are against this thing.

It seems that this law is going to move forward despite all my trepidation. I sure hope I'm wrong about how it might be misused.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:29 AM

Apparent popularity has little to do with whether or not a bill is passed (or repealed), and everything to do with politics and economics. That's why we're seeing California and Arizona butting heads.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:47 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"The polls overwhelmingly show that Americans support Arizona."

Hello,

After a brief perusal of several polls, it appears that this is correct. Without knowing how the polls were conducted, it's impossible to know if they are skewed...

But I can't seem to find a poll where people are against this thing.

It seems that this law is going to move forward despite all my trepidation. I sure hope I'm wrong about how it might be misused.

--Anthony

I sure hope you are wrong too Anthony.

With all of this attention I can only imagine that all AZ wants is for this law to be seen as effective and fair as it's applied. God knows there will be people from both parties working for or against that to happen. I know there are groups on the ground right now monitoring police activity from a distance.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Well, that can't be argued with. You would have to have your head shoved in your ass to rationally disagree with one word he says....

I think you meant that you would have to have your head firmly lodged up your ass to AGREE with one word he says. Which explains why you agree with him...

His entire point seems to be to lecture someone about how we won't be lectured to, to tell someone how repressive their country is - and then insist that we should be more repressive!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:57 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

No, Kwick, again you have missed the point...

NOONE comes into your home and tell you how to run things. ESPECIALLY, if THEIR home is a piece of shit...

But silly me for declaring U.S. sovereignty...

Yeah, its OUR home, its our rules, its our way of life...

but, according to Kwick here... some assclown overlording a FAILED country should be able to come to OUR center of government and lecture us on how to do things.

The best part, the most HIlarious part of this? The Dems stood up and cheered! Isn't that great?

Isn't that just PERFECT?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:13 AM

Ugh, politicians.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:28 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

I was trying to find a copy of Calderon's speech, I can only find edited ones and they weren't all that offensive. Have you seen on Wulf? Just want to know what he said.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're saying the Founding Fathers of this country didn't have the guts to try to make England better?

I would argue that they did make England better. They turned the best part of England into the United States...I urge Mexico to try the same thing, go home and become the United States, I'll even loan you some Texans and a Crockett or two to show you how its done.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I find those statements amazing." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
The Governor of Arizona should bus all caught illegals to California(L.A).

Bus? I refer you to my prior description of the Mexi-flinger. A far more enviromentally respectful way to deliver the illegals across both state and National borders.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I find those statements amazing." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:32 AM