It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arizona Law SB 1070 and HB 2162 Examined. Cite Your Reasons For Dissent.

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by Primordial
 


No one is claiming the act of stopping someone is racist. The potential for racism (note, I said potential, not intent) comes into play when the officer is required to make a case for reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal immigrant. What do illegal immigrants look like? Dress a bit funny and can't speak English? That was me (and my parents) when we immigrated here twenty years ago from the Soviet Union. My mom still can't speak English to a large extent, but she's a housewife and mostly socializes with other Russians. Why should she be required to speak the language perfectly? I spoke with an incredibly thick accent (and still do when tired/aggravated), and my entire family looked like we had just come from the Moscow slums for years after we moved here. Would we have been stopped? Probably not, because we aren't the "right" kind of immigrant, i.e. brown.


But see there you go speaking of potential.

EVERY law has potential for abuse. EVERY police officer can potentially overstep his authority.

Should we abandon all law an order because someone might, potentially, maybe some day, abuse the law?

Can Californias law be abused? Can the police make a judgment call on who they question on status, even if they have to arrest them first?




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Does your mom drive? If so, does she have a drivers' license? Or any other form of identification? If so your example fails to prove your point... she's doing what she needs to do in order to be a legal citizen of this country.

If she drives and doesn't have these things then, well, I really have no sympathy. My grandmother emigrated here from Poland along with my grandfather shortly before WWII (smart move on their part) - she refused to learn to drive. As such, she got a basic i.d. card issued by the government with a photo, her name, ss# and address. All she needed. She didn't do this because she thought she might get stopped and deported, she did it because it was the smart thing to do for a variety of reasons.

Oh, and just to hedge off the argument that a drivers license can be faked, I say come up with one that can't. Until then, it'll do...



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Primordial

But see there you go speaking of potential.

EVERY law has potential for abuse. EVERY police officer can potentially overstep his authority.

Should we abandon all law an order because someone might, potentially, maybe some day, abuse the law?

Can Californias law be abused? Can the police make a judgment call on who they question on status, even if they have to arrest them first?


When the law has a pretty high potential of infringing on the civil liberties of legal citizens, yes, it does need to be abandoned. Why should every citizen of Mexican heritage be required to carry proof of citizenship? I know if I were in their situation, I would be livid.

You can also take it from another angle. The Arizone bill allows an immgigration check during any lawful contact, as has been shown in a previous post. Now, suppose a woman were mugged or raped, she reports it, and the police show up. IF she seems "illegal" enough, the police could use their amorphous "reasonable suspicion" to question her. If she doesn't have proof, she now goes to a holding cell, on top of just having been raped and/or mugged. Does that seem right?

Should ANY American citizen have to be able tp prove, on the spot, with no criminal action having been committed, that they are allowed to be here? That seems absolutely ludicrous.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


You sound like the typical ex- resident of tent city. Joe is mean to us!!!WHAAAAAAA


Like him or not, he gets the job done. You go to his jail once and I can guarantee you you will never want to go back. And that's the way it should be. And I'm not saying that because I'm afraid of him. The only people afraid of him are the same one's that are afraid of going back. And as a result, they stop commiting crimes that would land them back in his care. If that's not getting the job done, I don't know what is. Since the state and feds aren't going to give him any money for any REAL rehabilitation programs, he'll rehabilitate them on his own. And the prisoners aren't going to like it. Why the hell should they. THEY BROKE THE LAW!!! What do you think a prison should be? A friggin' country club?

I've been to jail in Arizona only 1 time, and I can tell you from personal experience based on what I've done and what I've seen, that you get what you give. There's alot of a##holes in prison that think that there are people who will stick up for them if they cry "human rights violations!!!" Whether anything bad happened or not is beside the point. Prisoners know about Arpaio's reputation and try to exploit that for their own gain. Namely, getting out of jail. Arpaio knows this, he has for YEARS. And that little game doesn't work. The only people who don't know that are the people who haven't been through the system.

And you say he's a publicity hound? Maybe for the purposes of letting the public know what his policies are up to lately. We did vote for him after all, we have a right to know.

But a camerea hound? Have you SEEN him lately? If I looked like him, the last thing I would want around me is a camera




Peace



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I am not aware of too many LEO's that do not verify someone's identity during a traffic stop, or even when questioning someone that has been stopped on the street. After all, before an LEO exits his/her vehicle they have already ran the tag of the vehicle stopped, and what do you think is occurring when they take your driver's license back to their vehicle? They are verifying your identity and this is for EVERYONE.

I cannot vouch for every jurisdiction, but locally there have been subects with outstanding warrants and yes even those persons who are here illegally (and not only Mexicans, but there have also been Arabs, Ethiopians, and even a German) that have been apprehended by the simple act of verifying the identity of those who have been stopped.

So before things get too heated, let's think about some of these things are SOP even before getting into the immigration debate.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I'll give a hypothetical.

Here in Los Angeles, we all know that Illegal hangout in parks, gas stations, industry warehouses, home improvement centers, (home depot, etc.)

There's a group in a parking lot just sitting there looking at every car drive up and motioning toward them (Clue # 1)

They're wearing work boots, have drywall on their pants, sweathshirts, etc...HMMM
(CLUE #2)

Upon inspection, they seem to only know a few words in English (Clue #3)

They appear to be of MEXICAN Nationality (Clue #4)

Uh ohhhhhhh...I mentioned nationality?? Oh the horrors.

Well since the first three are usual signs of an illegal, we don't really NEED #4 to inquire or make a stop....based on REASONABLE SUSPICION.

So let's toss #4......

We inquire where they are from and come to find.....OH MY GOD...they're here illegally!!!!!!!

Bye bye Mr. Illegal.....better luck next time.


NOW

Let's just say we were going to use #4 included with all the other "CLUES". Can someones ETHNICITY be a factor by itself? NOPE, THAT would be profiling.

BUT...we here in the border states know that many of the MEXICAN Illegals (out of the many different racial types)...are the Illegals that like to hang out at Home Depot.
Their ethnicity goes along with a pattern of behavior and location.

If you want to be "politically correct" about it, you can, but it's BULL**IT and it's intellectually dishonest to say it's not a factor in the BIG PICTURE of reasonable suspicion.

Just like here we know the Korean Illegal tend to hang out more in the office type setting or in restaurants. Different patterns for different people.


But the Arizona law makes it so that race will not be the main factor. Why? Because it doesn't need to be. Illegals have BEHAVIORS other than their skin color.

And that's all law enforcement needs. Game over for the Illegals. Can't hide behind 'race' anymore.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Legion2112
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Does your mom drive? If so, does she have a drivers' license? Or any other form of identification? If so your example fails to prove your point... she's doing what she needs to do in order to be a legal citizen of this country.


Having an ID isn't the point. The point is that if she were Hispanic, rather than white, she would probably be asked for papers. This is what I have a problem with: when you ask someone what "reasonable suspicion" for being illegal is, it always boils down to being hispanic and not being able to speak English.


If she drives and doesn't have these things then, well, I really have no sympathy. My grandmother emigrated here from Poland along with my grandfather shortly before WWII (smart move on their part) - she refused to learn to drive. As such, she got a basic i.d. card issued by the government with a photo, her name, ss# and address. All she needed. She didn't do this because she thought she might get stopped and deported, she did it because it was the smart thing to do for a variety of reasons.


As I've stated above (and in another post), the issuance of an ID doesn't confer citizenship. Most states have programs where non-citizens can be given legal IDs by the government. Also, I don't see why any form of government ID should be required at all if you don't plan on driving.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 


Here's another hypothetical for you:

You see a group of men sitting in the park (clue #1).

They are all speaking Spanish to one another (clue #2).

They have workboots and work clothes on (clue #3).

You use the clues above to demand proof of citizenship, despite the fact that they have done nothing illegal or suspicious up to this point. They, in turn, explain that they are first generation American, having been born here to parents from another country.

You have now shown to them that profiling is occuring, as your entire immigration check was based on their skin tone and language.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
It is a pointless exercise in futility. The law - after being fixed to state it does not violate the constitution - does nothing to actually help the problem and simply caters to the least informed and most ignorant voters.

The people that continue to defend in on ATS seem to have a complete lack of understanding of it.

It does nothing real OR it violates the constitution. It is either and ILLEGAL LAW or it is a POINTLESS LAW. Yet here you all are praising it.

Just some of my issues with it.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
The Bill gives police the perfect reason to discriminate those who seem "suspicious" of being illegal citizens.

It's repulsive and has no room on our society.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
It's appalling to see people claim that LANGUAGE should not be a clue, ALONG WITH OTHER FACTORS, about a reasonable suspicion that someone is here Illegally.

When language is a COMMON PATTERN of someone being here Illegally. Patterns are things that EVERY LAW ENFORCEMENT USES. Patterns are what they MUST LOOK FOR when investigating a crime or offense.

It's SO, convenient that Illegals and their supporters are using it to hide behind, isn't it?

Unfrigginbelievable.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 


Current laws state that, unless arrested, you only have to identify yourself to an officer, not provide an ID. If the police made contact with me, for example if I reported being mugged, I would not legally have to provide identification. Compound that with my thick accent when stressed, and I could very well be considered "unable to speak English" if the officer takes a liberal interpretation. However, I'm a "white woman" for all intents and purposes, and my language isn't Spanish. What do you think the chances are I'll have an officer check my immigration status? The mere fact that language and ethnicity are being used as factors in "reasonable suspicion" formation is reprehensible.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 


Here's another hypothetical for you:

You see a group of men sitting in the park (clue #1).

They are all speaking Spanish to one another (clue #2).

They have workboots and work clothes on (clue #3).

You use the clues above to demand proof of citizenship, despite the fact that they have done nothing illegal or suspicious up to this point. They, in turn, explain that they are first generation American, having been born here to parents from another country.

You have now shown to them that profiling is occuring, as your entire immigration check was based on their skin tone and language.



And as soon as I see them flag a car, make hand gestures to drivers, approach a vehicle unsolicited....WHILE HANGING OUT AT A KNOOOOOOWN PARK for Illegal activity....they're getting rolled on....

REASONABLE SUSPICION of criminal activity with regards to Illegal Immigration


PERIOD...



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 

The mere fact that language and ethnicity are being used as factors in "reasonable suspicion" formation is reprehensible.


Can you cite the part of the Bill where is says it will.

If not, you are LYING and making # up to suit your argument.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 


I wasn't citing the bill, I was citing you. You said that language and ethnicity are part of the "patterns" that law enforcement officers use.

They were your words, not mine.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 


So, if I were sitting in that same park waiting for a friend, waved at them as they drove up, and walked up to the car speaking Russian, I would have my immigration papers checked?

Or am I not brown and Spanish enough?

EDIT: Forgot a few words...I apologize if you started replying before I added them!

[edit on 5/21/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I saw sheriff joe on the new's last night trying to get people fired up about "displaying" their support on this at the suns-lakers game on sundayShould be interesting.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 


So, if I were sitting in that same park, waved at them as they drove up, and walked up to the car speaking Russian, I would have my immigration papers checked?

Or am I not brown and Spanish enough?


I dunno, ask an Arizona officer, and cite the Bill.

Cite the bill as I originally stated in the OP as a basis for an argument.

Or concede that no such language is in the BIll, and what ever an officer decides to do outside of the bill is HIS ERROR, HIS JOB, HIS LAWSUIT.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW


I dunno, ask an Arizona officer, and cite the Bill.

Cite the bill as I originally stated in the OP as a basis for an argument.


I'll cite the bill when you explain why language and ethnicity should be part of the "pattern" an officer uses to decide if someone is illegal, which you strongly suggested it should be.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW


I dunno, ask an Arizona officer, and cite the Bill.

Cite the bill as I originally stated in the OP as a basis for an argument.


I'll cite the bill when you explain why language and ethnicity should be part of the "pattern" an officer uses to decide if someone is illegal, which you strongly suggested it should be.



You know what, your intellectual dishonesty is really not worth the time. I have better things to do than run in circular arguments with you.

As far as my original OP goes, you have NOT made the case about the Bill.

You're done on my end. Go play "wag the thread" with someone else



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join