Neo-Nazis Rally For Arizona Immigration Law

reply to post by Aim64C

It is a policy law that allows an officer to, when stopping someone following observation of a legal infraction, require proof of citizenship.

And that is the problem, right there. Why not detain everyone stopped for an infraction, on murder charges, or child pornography just in case, then force them to prove that they aren't guilty of that crime.

It is not any different than being asked to show my drivers' license when getting pulled over, being required to submit to a breathalyzer test if there is reasonable suspicion that I have been drinking.

I see, so, what is the reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal? What are the "specific and articulable facts" required for a reasonable suspicion check of someones immigration status?

When I went to Korea, we carried a SOFA card around with us at all times.

Last time I checked, the United States isn't Korea, and so, this story of yours holds absolutely zero merit to this discussion.

There's substantial evidence linking Mexican military members (and possibly endorsed operations) to the illicit drug trafficking from Mexico.

Sounds like a Federal issue to me and not a State issue, there are clearly defined differences.

Now, yes, there is a problem with the boarder, and the boarder should be secured, and the government is not doing an adequate enough job yet doing that. But stripping legal citizens of their 4th Amendment constitutional rights doesn't help the problem, the only thing this is going to do is open up US Citizens for harassment.

This is a typical attempt at "Reductio ad Hitlerum", a logical fallacy that is attacking the character of any supporter of any measure, by saying that Hitler would probably do the same.

Let me guess, Adolf was probably an avid user of toilet paper. I challenge the purveyors of "Arizona Nazis Support New Law" to stop using TP immediately, out of indignation.

reply to post by whatukno

And that is the problem, right there. Why not detain everyone stopped for an infraction, on murder charges, or child pornography just in case, then force them to prove that they aren't guilty of that crime.

You can't do that without a warrant, genius.

Police officers can't just go around and pick people up off the street and accuse them of murder. They can only detain you for doing something illegal to begin with, and you still get a day in court.

I see, so, what is the reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal? What are the "specific and articulable facts" required for a reasonable suspicion check of someones immigration status?

Not being able to speak the language. Belonging to an ethnic group that shares the border in question. Or, you know, when I'm asked for identification (a rather standard question to be asked by any officer stopping someone for any infraction). When I go faster than the other cars on the road and the police officer pulls me over and runs my ID - he's checking to see who I am, if I have a warrant for my arrest, am a registered offender of some type, etc.

It would be amusing to see it argued that this is a violation of the 4th amendment.

In essence the law states what is already standard operating procedure, it simply says that if the person is not a citizen and has expired visas green cards, etc, then they are to be turned over to immigration authorities. Which is what federal law dictates.

Last time I checked, the United States isn't Korea, and so, this story of yours holds absolutely zero merit to this discussion.

It holds plenty of merit. I have been a guest in a foreign country. Statistics indicate it is unlikely that you have. I know how many other countries handle immigration. Places like Korea are enjoyable to go to because the laws are enforced and consistent. Head over to the Middle East if you want to see what complete lack of borders and immigration does to a country.

Sounds like a Federal issue to me and not a State issue, there are clearly defined differences.

A state is authorized to refer to national authority. The local police can arrest you for a federal felony and you sit to wait for the FBI. This is no different.

But stripping legal citizens of their 4th Amendment constitutional rights doesn't help the problem, the only thing this is going to do is open up US Citizens for harassment.

You're clearly confused on what the 4th amendment is.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Asking for identification is a standard and reasonable "search" when associated with legal infractions. Being stopped for no reason other than to shoot the feces and ask me to prove I belong here is not reasonable - but if I'm speeding, caught peeing on a statue, or whatever - it's a reasonable search.

reply to post by Aim64C


I disagree with this line of thought. I believe that this kind of law is exactly like arresting someone for a capital offense and demanding that they prove that they are innocent of the crime.

I also see that this kind of law is specifically designed against a specific ethnic group and it unfairly punishes members of that ethnic group for being who they are.

This law forces people to prove their innocence after being accused of a crime, without trial or judicial process. Giving law enforcement officers the roll of judge, and jury.

And this is bad news why?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Aim64C

 

I disagree with this line of thought. I believe that this kind of law is exactly like arresting someone for a capital offense and demanding that they prove that they are innocent of the crime.

I don't know about the "lines", but I don't see how you equate presumption of innocence with ID check.

I also see that this kind of law is specifically designed against a specific ethnic group

Where did you see the word "Norwegian" or "Mexican" in the text of the law?

This law forces people to prove their innocence after being accused of a crime, without trial or judicial process. Giving law enforcement officers the roll of judge, and jury.

Such nonsense, really. It's not even about the offense, it's about your identity which must be maintained in the legal process anyhow. When I go see a doctor, they ask for my (a) insurance card (b) driver license just to make sure mu identity is correct.

Originally posted by Target Earth
All the PC multi-nationalism just is not working, it's destroying the country... we need to protect our borders, and If a bunch of Idiot skin heads want to protest, more power to them, they are Americans, and have that right...

Doesn't help the cause for people that really do support this bill when idiots like those are behind it. Do they really think they can gain any steam with thier ignorant ideals? Do they not realize that they are an even bigger nuisance to society then the people they are trying to eject from this country?

reply to post by buddhasystem

Where did you see the word "Norwegian" or "Mexican" in the text of the law?

If you had read the post I was replying to you would see this...

Originally posted by Aim64C

I see, so, what is the reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal? What are the "specific and articulable facts" required for a reasonable suspicion check of someones immigration status?

Not being able to speak the language. Belonging to an ethnic group that shares the border in question.

Even proponents of the law recognize that it's targeted specifically towards a singular ethnic group. It's naive to think otherwise.

Plus not only does it target a singular ethnic group for discrimination, it also unfairly punishes legal members of that ethnic group telling them that they are all guilty of being here illegally until they prove their innocence. And forcing them to have their citizenship papers on them at all times and having that checked during an unrelated encounter with law enforcement is a clear violation of their 4th Amendment rights.

reply to post by whatukno

I disagree with this line of thought. I believe that this kind of law is exactly like arresting someone for a capital offense and demanding that they prove that they are innocent of the crime.

I've gotten pulled over before - was used to going a little faster down that stretch of highway than this officer felt I should have. I had to provide license and proof of insurance. I had to prove I had legal permission/authority to operate that vehicle, and that I was in compliance with a law requiring all operators of vehicles to have insurance on that vehicle.

Where was the presumption of innocence?

But was it somehow unreasonable?

An officer's job is not to presume innocence. An officer's job is to enforce laws. The court system's job is to presume innocence unless demonstrated otherwise through evidence. If I didn't have an ID with me when I got stopped - that officer could detain me. It would be found, later, that I was in the computerized system and I would be released (even though the officer could more than likely check this from his car) through administrative processes in the station or through the court system.

I also see that this kind of law is specifically designed against a specific ethnic group and it unfairly punishes members of that ethnic group for being who they are.

It is designed to counter a specific problem, yes. The problem is a bunch of mexicans are running across the border illegally. It wouldn't matter if the mexicans were of Chinese ethnic heritage, Aryan, Ukrainian, African, etc.

There is an old saying - if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck - it's probably a duck. If I look like an American, talk like an American, and walk like an American - I'm probably American. That's just fine if I'm in America - but if I am in China, I'd better have a good, documented reason for being there. Similarly - if it walks like a Mexican, talks like a Mexican, and walks like a Mexican - it's probably a Mexican, and needs a good reason to be in America. The same with Canadians.

Mexico is a very homogeneous ethnic group. Anything that deals with people -from Mexico- illegally trespassing over our border, is going to effect that ethnic group disproportionately to other ethnic groups. I know this taxes your little noggin to understand this - but it's not racism.

The difference is that the bill does not make any mention of Mexico, any ethnic group, etc. Yes - it is a response to a specific problem that centers around a particular ethnic group - but if the same law were to be applied to, say, Alaska, it would not bother Mexicans - or many people at all, since there isn't much of a problem with illegal immigration in Alaska, to my knowledge.

This law forces people to prove their innocence after being accused of a crime, without trial or judicial process. Giving law enforcement officers the roll of judge, and jury.

Please take a moment to review the flow of events - I will give you two events, one being a citizen stopped for a traffic violation; the other being a non-citizen stopped for some violation and not being found to have an ID.

Case A: I decide to go get hammered at a bar, because I'm an emo in disguise. I believe I am okay to drive and head out on the road, drunk. A police officer notices my haphazard driving and pulls me over. I provide a state-issued ID, insurance card, and a failed sobriety test. I am then taken to jail and detained in detox before a trail is scheduled. The law enforcement office does have the authority to temporarily suspend my license pending trial in most places. I show up for my trial and the evidence is provided to the Judge (Jury is usually not present for such cases) - the evidence will clearly show I was intoxicated and unable to safely operate a vehicle (there's not much to a trial when there's a video of you stumbling around all over and blood work demonstrating you were clearly over legal limits). Fines and suspensions ensue, as well as other penalties provided under the laws of your state.

Case B: I hop the border and decide to be-bop around after a locally established curfew. It only applies to people under 21, and I could pass myself off as a high school student - so this officer asks to see some form of ID. I explain that I don't carry one, but insist I really am 22 and not in violation of any curfew laws. The officer then asks me where I live and offers to escort me home because my age cannot be verified but he/she doesn't want to be a dick and detain me (even though they have the authority to). I now have a problem - as I have no home on -this- side of the border. I try to BS out of it or run - and end up detained (or scurrying back over the border). I am asked and provided the opportunity to disclose my ID - papers at home, local or state records, etc. It comes back that the state has no record of me existing and I refuse to show valid identification, proof of residence, and/or citizenship. I am turned over to immigration authorities, who have their own processes in place for finding out who is who and whether or not they are U.S. citizens or have a right to be there.

If you are not a U.S. citizen - you are not entitled to a trial in our court systems. If you refuse to demonstrate you are a citizen, you refuse to accept/use those rights. It is not as though you are/will not be provided the opportunity.

Plus not only does it target a singular ethnic group for discrimination, it also unfairly punishes legal members of that ethnic group telling them that they are all guilty of being here illegally until they prove their innocence.

When my friends and I go out and 'wander' around town, we often get stopped by police officers. We just talk about things and see what all is going on around the town. Most of them wear leather jackets and have long hair. We get stopped all the time and asked what we are up to, particularly after dark.

Because I am a member of the youthful demographic, and because I am out at night with other people, I am suspected of being there in an illicit capacity.

The bill does not say anyone is here illegally. It references a -National- Law that says no one can live or take up residence in the United States without first going through a legal process of immigration.

And forcing them to have their citizenship papers on them at all times and having that checked during an unrelated encounter with law enforcement is a clear violation of their 4th Amendment rights.

What planet are you from? Do -you- have citizenship papers? You have a drivers' license or other state-issued ID. You also have a social security card (not something you should keep with your license), legal records of your existence and citizenship in file cabinets and computer hard drives at the state and national level, etc. If you are here from another country on business, you have a card issued to you - if not a separate photo ID, a passport, etc.

When you go to another country and pass through their immigration and customs, you are told to keep that passport with you at all times. It's not there to get you through checkpoints - it is there to let their authorities know who you are and know that your being there is not a problem.

In no other country is there the belief that someone from another country has an inherent right to be in that country - much less live there. We are the only nation that doesn't seem to understand what, exactly, a national border is - or what to do when someone is in our country who isn't supposed to.

reply to post by Aim64C


You are obviously not getting my point. The people from south of the border that come here legally are being targeted unfairly by this law, the ones that have come here the right way are being discriminated against because of this law.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Aim64C

 

You are obviously not getting my point. The people from south of the border that come here legally are being targeted unfairly by this law, the ones that have come here the right way are being discriminated against because of this law.

No, they are not. Any time an officer would normally ask you for ID is when your citizenship status would be checked. The only thing this law does is mandate anyone who does not have proof of citizenship (which would be a state-issued ID that anyone, including you, has) be referred to immigration authorities.

Since your ID and proof of citizenship are synonymous in these cases, legal citizens are treated the same regardless of race or ethnicity. If I were stopped there and asked for my ID and I did not have it - I would be treated the same until my ID and citizenship could be established.

The difference is that there will be far more illegal latinos in those areas than illegal whites, asians, etc.

It's how Germany would have more illegal French than illegal British. OMG - Racism! Or... could have something to do with being next to Germany....

People are stupid

Cops always stereotype, stereotyping makes their job easier (snip).

If we're speaking about illegal immigration, why the hell would a cop look for a man with blonde hair blue eyes?

Mod Note:
Please review our Terms and Conditions. You will not post content that is abusive towards other members.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Aim64C

 

You are obviously not getting my point. The people from south of the border that come here legally are being targeted unfairly by this law

Well, as an immigrant myself, I say "tough!" to these people. Having a legit ID on your person will be your contribution to well-being of the nation that graciously accepted you as one of their own. Live with it and help us deport the illegals.

hen maybe we should work on impeaching obama, since he was supported by the communist party? We all know how many people have been killed under communists regimes, or do we?

reluctantpawn

reply to post by buddhasystem


Sweet fascist rhetoric! Putting the welfare of the Nation before the rights of the individual is the American Way.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Why should people that have come to this country the right way, legally, and have done everything it takes to be a citizen of this country have to put up with harassment because they are from another country? They have done nothing wrong, they aren't here illegally, why should they have to be subjected to discrimination?

I understand people are pissed off at illegal immigration cause FOX News tells them to be pissed off at illegal immigration.

But do you all wonder where these laws come from? You know how special interest groups push through legislation that they like? What special interest groups are behind these laws?

NAZI's are nationalists before they're socialists.

That means they put their country before any other tenet of their beliefs. Sound familiar tea partiers? The NSDAP did more in terms of nationalism than anything even remotely close to socialism, so the fact that neo-nazi's rally for the immigration law shouldn't suprise anyone.

It's also why NAZI's are right-wing extremists and not left-wing extremists.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Sweet fascist rhetoric! Putting the welfare of the Nation before the rights of the individual is the American Way.

Oh, the sweet Reductio ad Hitlerum again and again! Call it fascist and all is magically explained, right? Phew.

My right as an individual is to live in a healthy community which is not overrun by the illegals, and not have wages seriously depressed because of influx of 3rd party labor. Of course, you chose to pick your right of not caring an ID as more important. I say you are lazy beyond belief.

In a nutshell, if the feds did their job, we wouldn't have States desperate to do something about the illegal immigration problem.

There have been States that have tried to pass laws against companies who hire illegals and they got shot down. The government does not care.

With millions of unemployed citizens, we don't need millions of illegals taking jobs and lowering our wages. Our homeless shelters are filled to capacity and tent cities are growing. We have so many citizens who are barely above the poverty limit and falling through the cracks. We have too many illegals recieving benefits that our own citizens cannot get.

If all you have to do is show your proof of identity, so be it. If you are legal, you have nothing to worry about.

I think lobby groups like FAIR create issues like this.

Federation for American Immigration Reform
Washington, D.C.
www.fairus.org

Founded in 1978 by John H. Tanton, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is one of the country's best-established anti-immigration groups — and the richest beneficiary among them of the largesse of the infamous Pioneer Fund.

The Fund, which has long subsidized dubious studies of the alleged links between race and intelligence, awarded FAIR $1.2 million between 1985 and 1994, according to the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism. FAIR now says that it has severed its links to the controversial Fund.

Today, FAIR claims a staggering 70,000 members, although that number is almost certainly inflated. Tanton remains on FAIR's board and also is the publisher of The Social Contract Press, which sells racist anti-immigrant tracts.

www.splcenter.org...



As you can see, this is a white nationalist agenda, being pushed through these state governments. It's no wonder that Neo Nazis are all for this, it's their agenda that is being legalized after all.



Did you see one white person in the back of that paddy wagon? One? No, there wasn't. These kinds of laws are specifically designed to target people of Latin heritage, They won't be checking a white person's immigration status, they will be arresting people based solely on their looks alone and then determining whether or not they are here legally or illegally.

That I think is wrong, I think it's the wrong approach. I know that FOX News tells you that it's ok to think that all Latinos are here illegally, and are in a gang or what not but I disagree with that stance.