The Arizona Law: Is It Racist? Here you decide!

Money Quote

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

 

how many times does it have to be explained to people, that its not racist if the persons fit the profile? I was pulled over by an officer because i matched the description of a man who had robbed a convenience store.

There was ALREADY A CERTAIN DESCRIPTION OF THE MAN WHO ACTUALLY DID THE CRIME.

The law on the other hand doesn't have a description of an illegal immigrant rather than being an immigrant who is illegal.

It lets the COP DECIDE WHAT AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT LOOKS LIKE!!!!!

I mean seriously!

Originally posted by maria_stardust

Your concept of "nightmare" seems to have a low, low, low threshold. If having your papers checked qualifies as "nightmare", then most of us are already in hell anyhow. For me, filing an insurance claim or doing my taxes is lots more painful, and I don't sweat too much about it, either!

It has nothing to do with any type of threshold, as much as it is something that should occur to begin with under this specific law.

Well then, why did you use the scary word "nightmare" in the first place?

As it stands, the vast majority of the people who will be subjected to this law are going to be Hispanic.

By all laws of mathematics, this is necessarily true. If you have 10 illegal Norwegians in this country, and roughly 10 to 12 million illegal Hispanics, it's a fairly straightforward conclusion.

Doesn't sound unreasonable.

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla


Money Quote

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

 

how many times does it have to be explained to people, that its not racist if the persons fit the profile? I was pulled over by an officer because i matched the description of a man who had robbed a convenience store.

There was ALREADY A CERTAIN DESCRIPTION OF THE MAN WHO ACTUALLY DID THE CRIME.

The law on the other hand doesn't have a description of an illegal immigrant rather than being an immigrant who is illegal.

It lets the COP DECIDE WHAT AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT LOOKS LIKE!!!!!

I mean seriously!

What does it matter? If they aren't illegal what do they have to worry about? How come I do not care if they check me for legal citizenship but the illegals do? Any officer is welcome to ask me for proof of my citizenship, I will not be offended nor will I feel like my privacy is being invaded. I would give proof then be on about my business.

Why do you all care even if it was profiling? SO WHAT. If you have nothing to hide then where is the concern. If you are all so worried about it then lets get it changed to a blanket law that makes everyone get checked for proof of citizenship. I am sure that no one in Arizona that supports this bill will have a single issue with that.

I bet you would still cry and whine about that to.

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

What does it matter? If they aren't illegal what do they have to worry about? How come I do not care if they check me for legal citizenship but the illegals do? Any officer is welcome to ask me for proof of my citizenship, I will not be offended nor will I feel like my privacy is being invaded. I would give proof then be on about my business.

Why do you all care even if it was profiling? SO WHAT. If you have nothing to hide then where is the concern. If you are all so worried about it then lets get it changed to a blanket law that makes everyone get checked for proof of citizenship. I am sure that no one in Arizona that supports this bill will have a single issue with that.

I bet you would still cry and whine about that to.

It doesn't matter if you have nothing to hide I for one do NOT WANT TO BE CONSTANTLY HARASSED BY THE POLICE.

This law allows for them to constantly harass you and it is against this law you try and stop this harassment.

Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns, and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status of any individual.

I.e if your just walking in the street, had forgotten your i.d at home, if an officer suspects you of being illegal you cannot say "Hey I was already proven here by such and such cop." because if the officer doesn't think you are telling the truth then he doesn't have to listen to you.



[edit on 26-7-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]

reply to post by buddhasystem


To any innocent person who is racially profiled and caught up in this "reasonably suspicious" dragnet, the term "nightmarish" is wholly appropriate, especially since "reasonably suspicious" is a rather vague descriptor and open to much speculation.

By all laws of mathematics, this is necessarily true. If you have 10 illegal Norwegians in this country, and roughly 10 to 12 million illegal Hispanics, it's a fairly straightforward conclusion.

Doesn't sound unreasonable.

Regarding this little gem... had that been an apt analogy, then perhaps in some alternate universe a somewhat valid argument could be made. Since it's not, not only does is sound highly unreasonable -- it is highly unreasonable.

Despite the problems with illegal immigration, trying to address the issue through racial profiling is extremely disturbing. If this law would be equally applied to everyone then it would be a non-issue. Since it will be selectively targeted toward a highly visible ethnic minority group based upon appearance "reasonable suspicion" it is oppressive in nature.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
What is this Money Quote
I live in AZ and my last name is Money
I have Never said anything as stated and need mods to
clarify.
How ATS members claim
Money Quotes
when I have never said or stated as such!
By claiming Money Quotes
and I am self employed
ATS members are now
interfering with engagement of commerce
under my name!

Would you prefer the term quote of the highest value?

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Profiling people just because they are named Money?
What is Money Quote?

Money quote is the quote inside a certain text that shows what bases the entire argument invalid.

Let's stay On Topic folks...

Thank you

Semper

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
As many of us here know there is an immigration bill from Arizona that has been causing many heated debates this summer. The bill, also known as Senate Bill 1070, has been portrayed as bill that promotes racism.

But have any of you read the bill?You might think "Hey it might just be me who is misinformed to what it actually says." But in this case it is promoting racism.

Here is the source of Senate Bill 1070 as a pdf.

www.azleg.gov...

Here is the entire 3rd paragraph of the bill. Taken IN CONTEXT, without any editing
.

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).

And here is another paragraph of Senate Bill 1070...

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

So look at Senate Bill 1070 yourself and post your findings here.

(And p.s. I wasn't the one who capitalized everything.)



[edit on 26-7-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]

Your kidding right?

I read the above and there is NO racists statements in it.

They speak of people who they have a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal or committing other crimes.
This is the same as any cop already does for suspects.

It does not mention brown skin, Mexicans. or even illegal Mexicans..

It could be white Irish people who they suspect are in the country illegally and this law would still apply.

Racists? No, I don't see that at all.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by buddhasystem

Despite the problems with illegal immigration, trying to address the issue through racial profiling is extremely disturbing. If this law would be equally applied to everyone then it would be a non-issue. Since it will be selectively targeted toward a highly visible ethnic minority group based upon appearance "reasonable suspicion" it is oppressive in nature.

You are making things up that the law does Not say. No one is "selectively targeted" through racial profiling and according to what I read, this law IS applicable for everyone.

I challenge you to show me in this law where it says they will be racial profiling and selectively targeting people of a certain race or color. You cannot do it, it's Not in there.

You may personally fear that these things will happen, but you cannot say these things are written in this law.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
To any innocent person who is racially profiled and caught up in this "reasonably suspicious" dragnet, the term "nightmarish" is wholly appropriate, especially since "reasonably suspicious" is a rather vague descriptor and open to much speculation.

Since you have taken a sharp focus onto the language of 'reasonable suspicious" and how you have colored it vague and ambiguous, I do have to ask the following: Do you hold the same feelings for the equally ambiguous statement of 'reasonable doubt' or even 'probable cause'? Both ambiguous and could be seen as vague if you remove them from the context of where they are meant to reside, yet make complete sense when seen within the systems they are meant to be in.

Same goes for 'reasonable suspicious' or rather;

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE …WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS"

Brought into the whole context, its not just solely based upon a ‘reasonable suspicion’ but also a lawful contact. One can argue that saying ‘hello’ to a police officer on the street can be considered a lawful contact.
While the goal of any written law should be a highly transparent language so that even the most laymen of persons could understand not only the intent but also the spirit, it does not always work that way.

Despite the problems with illegal immigration, trying to address the issue through racial profiling is extremely disturbing. If this law would be equally applied to everyone then it would be a non-issue. Since it will be selectively targeted toward a highly visible ethnic minority group based upon appearance "reasonable suspicion" it is oppressive in nature.

As someone just said, you are now making things up. You have misquoted the language of the law, have interjected the above and implying that the law is selective, yet nowhere in the law, does it ever explicitly single out the group you are heavily implying. The law is yet to take effect and by some manner of foresight, you have already seen that it has not been applied equally. Will there be cases where the law was applied incorrectly? Yep, just like every other law.

You have no idea if it will be selectively applied, you are allowing your emotional argument take over the logical thought process.


EDIT TO ADD:

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 ARIZON CONSTITUTION.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by ownbestenemy]

[edit on 27-7-2010 by ownbestenemy]

reply to post by Gentill Abdulla


This law does not at any point in time state that you will be harrassed. That is a trumped up assumption based on fear rather than example. It is not harrassment to ask some one for ID. It is that simple, we all have to do it anyways. The only true difference now is that if you do not have your ID then you will be subject to an immigration check, that's all. What is so horrific about that if it saves the lives of countless people and helps keep billions of dollars in the taxpayers coffers so as to better the future of our youth?

You are the racist in my book. By going around and thinking that the hispanic ethnicity (i use this ethnicity for example only due to a large part that they are in the forefront of this battle) is entitled to break laws and not be challenged is very ethnocentric and borders on race superiority. Like I said change the law to check everyone. It would be no different than asking some one for their drivers liscense on a traffic stop.

All this law means is that if you are breaking the law, and cannot provide proper ID so to speak then you will be checked. SO WHAT..!!! You drama queens that flourish on the "Polically Correct" ideology are the core problem with the lack of values and national pride that runs so rampant with society today.

What I find so funny about this "politically correctness" that plagues us is that in all reallity it is the one thing that you fear most, "a new world order".

Being "PC" means erasing all individuallities from a culture and teaching it to live in fear of upsetting others by their opinions. Being "PC" will further the sheep mentallity by subjugating people into believing that you are not an individual but yet a piece of society that needs to fit in or be ostrisized for your individuality.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

To any innocent person who is racially profiled and caught up in this "reasonably suspicious" dragnet, the term "nightmarish" is wholly appropriate

So you are back to your assertion that having your ID checked is a nightmare. I have said already that I find this definition of a "nightmare" preposterous. What is nightmarish is AZ being virtually overrun with illegals, which in fact is the main reason we get to discuss this topic in the first place.

By all laws of mathematics, this is necessarily true. If you have 10 illegal Norwegians in this country, and roughly 10 to 12 million illegal Hispanics, it's a fairly straightforward conclusion.

Doesn't sound unreasonable.

Regarding this little gem... had that been an apt analogy, then perhaps in some alternate universe a somewhat valid argument could be made. Since it's not, not only does is sound highly unreasonable -- it is highly unreasonable.

You fail to even state why. By the way if a Norwegian is pulled over by police for running the red light, and he/she does have a very characteristic foreign accent, the police may ask for ID and their status according to the law. I don't see how this can be humiliating to said Norwegian, much less a "nightmare".

I happen to have dark hair and tanned skin, and could be mistaken for a member of any number of nations (there were cases when Hispanics addressed me in Spanish and didn't believe I was not Hispanic, and a similar thing happened in Central Asia on one occasion). When I drive in AZ, I'd be happy to discuss my nationality and papers with any member of LEA.

I see that some people became so soft-bellied that they aren't willing to take a stand when it comes to protecting their own country.

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
All this law means is that if you are breaking the law, and cannot provide proper ID so to speak then you will be checked. SO WHAT..!!! You drama queens that flourish on the "Polically Correct" ideology are the core problem with the lack of values and national pride that runs so rampant with society today.

Well said! Incidentally, the illegals do have plenty of pride when it comes to their mother nation (to which they will always keep their allegiance) -- did you see all the MEXICAN flags at the rallies when they protest us protecting OUR border?

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Doesn't mean we can't have better efforts to protect against illegals.

It also doesn't mean we have to be racist and harass everyone.

I support this bill and it's not racist. Besides if your President Obama would get off the golf course and do something about it then the states wouldn't have to take matters into their own hands.