Arizona bill 1070 - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-30-2010, 12:19 AM   #181
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Yes, and this is similar to the Arizona law how?
Same shallow, reflexive, mechanical, out-of-touch reaction from the Left.

Unconstitutional !! Racist !! Unfair !!

To which more and more Americans say
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 12:20 AM   #182
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:50 AM

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by u2387 View Post


Quote:
i think the kind of racial profiling, forced interrogations, widespread harassment is a thing of the distant past. Ever since the professional policing wave, police departments have been some of the people most concerned with racial profiling and harassment of citizens in general.


this is correct.

Quote:
this bill will most definitely lead to profiling because it says "reasonable suspicion" of being in the country illegally is grounds for a stop.


and this is incorrect. You can't pull somebody because of skin color, they have to break a traffic law first, if they provide a valid dl, they're find and on their way, w no questions asked.

<>
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 12:35 AM   #183
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
So, was Steve being "profiled"?
Yep. He was on a bike.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 12:38 AM   #184
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 03:50 AM
[QUOTE=diamond;6746169]
Quote:
<>
It is my understanding that there need not be a traffic violation. Simply "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally, which leads to concerns that race or the appearance thereof may be used.

Unless I am entirely wrong and the AZ law does require a preexisting traffic violation?
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 12:42 AM   #185
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Same shallow, reflexive, mechanical, out-of-touch reaction from the Left.

Unconstitutional !! Racist !! Unfair !!

To which more and more Americans say
Same avoidance of the real questions...

I've asked real constitutional questions, but haven't got one answer...

Shock and awe
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 12:43 AM   #186
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Same shallow, reflexive, mechanical, out-of-touch reaction from the Left.

Unconstitutional !! Racist !! Unfair !!

To which more and more Americans say
I did not ask about the reaction, I asked about the content of the actual law.

The notion that there are more "professional victims" on the left then there are on the right is a little ridiculous when you have the Tea Party running around claiming to be the real Americans beaten down for years and years by all those intellectual elites........... this is a trend that has been quite common to American conservative thought for a long time. Rush, Glenn Beck, all those guys try and convince the common American that they are victims of some "leftist Democrat" plan to end America as we know it.

Lets get back to the issue at hand, though.

And Indy, this is not directed just at you.

In what way does anyone think this law, or laws like it if other states follow suit, will solve the problem?

We have kidnapping, drug cartels and gun running. Serious stuff, happening at shocking levels in Phoenix and across AZ as Diamond rightly points out.

Like all crime, this is a small minority of really bad, really dangerous people wreaking a lot of havoc.

The cartels and the kidnappers(almost always cartel related) by no means match up perfectly with or constitute even close to the majority of undocumented immigrants.

How will questioning anyone who looks like they may be illegal(Mexican, driving an old pick up truck, leaving a construction site????) and finding out in many cases that they are perfectly legal even begin to solve the problem?

To me, it sounds like taking scarce law enforcement resources and using them pretty inefficiently as they are very, very likely, on any given day, to have most of the people questioned under this law be legal.

This is why many police agencies are concerned about this law, may not enforce it, and if they do, will make it their lowest priority.

Never mind the serious issue of crime, how is it even the most effective way to find and deport illegals? Question 100 suspects per day in Tempe only to have 3 turn out to be illegal?

Sounds to me like we would be better off focusing on better border security, specialized federal-state-local task forces to deal with cartels and kidnapping and better funding of ICE so that the people devoted to the intelligence aspect of finding out who is illegal and acting on it as their full time jobs, not the local police, are catching 10 illegals instead of 3 and leaving the 100 legals alone.

I sound like a broken record by now, but the funny thing is, McCain-Kennedy immigration reform that was killed largely by the same people who accuse the feds of not acting, actually did all of the things I mentioned above.

Stronger border security, higher fines on illegal employers, specialized units focused on drug cartels and better funding and training for ICE. This was what we could have had in place since 2006 had most Republicans listened to their own President instead of a certain fat, drug addicted wind bag on the radio.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 01:04 AM   #187
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:50 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Yep. He was on a bike.
Well, I'm sorry that happened to him, I don't know of the circumstances surrounding his situation.

That's not the Seal Beach I knew growing up.

This biker club wasn't afraid of passing thru Seal Beach:
EagleGuiders Motorcycle Tours - CALIFORNIA COAST MOUNTAIN BEACH TOUR: Long Beach, Seal Beach, Sunset Beach, Newport Beach, Balboa Island, Huntington Beach, Malibu, Venice Beach, Marina Del Rey, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach

Perhaps Steve could hang out w this Seal Beach biker next time:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FK1NTsVArr...h/IMG_0011.jpg
<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 01:08 AM   #188
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:50 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
6746169]

.

Unless I am entirely wrong and the AZ law does require a preexisting traffic violation?


If there in a car-yes. You can't pull some one over because the color of their skin.

There's a lot of hype being floated about by the media parroted it by some here, but it's not holding up to scrutiny of course.

This is why other states are starting to adopt parts of Az's law as their own.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 01:47 AM   #189
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post

If there in a car-yes. You can't pull some one over because the color of their skin.

There's a lot of hype being floated about by the media parroted it by some here, but it's not holding up to scrutiny of course.

This is why other states are starting to adopt parts of Az's law as their own.

<>
I have been up in Vermont tending to family issues for the last few days, and so I am just now reading about the specifics of the law.

I was not suggesting that a Cop could use the color of someone's skin as the explicit basis to pull them over, I was wondering how "reasonable suspicion" would be defined. No one can answer that yet.

However, what has been answered, by you and by the objective sources I have checked, is my question of whether or not there needs to be a pre existing traffic violation to trigger all of this!

The answer, I now know, is yes.

Everyone here arguing against this law, were you all away from the news the last few days like me? Why have the suggestions that you can stop anyone who looks Mexican been so widespread? There aren't enough practical arguments against this law...................

The imposition on legal immigrants to have "papers" does not appear to be that great now that I know a traffic violation is needed. If they had a drivers' license, which everyone is required to have on them when operating a vehicle, then they are fine.

Out of the context of a vehicle, the law still says "lawful" encounter and makes clear that all federal and AZ civil rights protections apply. So that to me means that, just as you can't, as a police officer, say "black kid, crack dealer, under arrest," you can't say "Hispanic, illegal, deport his ass."

In a car, you will always be asked for your license when stopped by a police officer, on foot or otherwise, you will be asked to produce identification or at a minimum give your name when questioned in any way.

So I had a false impression of the intrusiveness of this law......

However, it seems like all we have left are the following scenarios, then.

-Speeder is arrested for driving w/o a license, upon further investigation at booking, he is found to be an illegal and sent to a federal detention center to await deportation.

-Guy "casing the joint" outside a bank is stopped, questioned about his activities(lawful encounter) and then the cop calls him into the hotline based on the "reasonable suspicion" that he is here illegally owing to the fact that he was reluctant to give his name.

-A van is pulled over for driving erratically near the AZ-Mexican border, 11 occupants, officer notices that the driver is being extremely evasive and one of the passengers admits to being an illegal. Now, we have reasonable suspicion that the rest are as well, so the officer checks them out. (In this case, in close proximity to the border, border patrol, and not the cops, probably handles it anyway, and they operate under a significantly more generous set of rules, and rightfully so, given the fact that they work on the border and know what the tell tale signs are)

Here is the $1,000,000 question:

How is that any different than what we already do today? In the scenarios I mentioned, the 3 illegals would, under current law, have drawn the attention of law enforcement and been investigated far enough to determine that they did not belong here

So why do we need to go further? I think it is this requirement "shall" that law enforcement agencies go further that begs the question "for what?" This is the question many law enforcement agencies are asking.

Law enforcement agencies know best what the law says regarding the requirement for a traffic stop or other lawful encounter, but they are still skeptical of the effect any law of this kind will have on trust between the Hispanic community and officers. This is a huge concern if we are dealing with a crime wave, the cops need information, and the last thing Hispanics need, whether founded or unfounded, is the impression that they are being targeted as a community.

Plus, we still can't answer how this will even begin to solve the problem of 12 million illegals in the country and daily kidnappings in Phoenix. The same ratio of illegal/legal people stopped for a lawful purpose by police will exist. Plenty of people picked up for routine crimes today, including lack of proper ID, are deported. I don't see how it will get us more illegals to deport.

Especially considering the fact that funding ICE units trained specifically for this kind of work to a greater extent will provide a much better bang for the buck and free up some time for the Police to focus on kidnapping and drugs.

We will have more debates like this until we pass immigration reform. I hope Charlie Crist, Lindsey Graham and some other sane people get their views heard over the screaming of the Tea Party.
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 02:01 AM   #190
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:50 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
I have been up in Vermont tending to family issues for the last few days, and so I am just now reading about the specifics of the law.

I was not suggesting that a Cop could use the color of someone's skin as the explicit basis to pull them over, I was wondering how "reasonable suspicion" would be defined. No one can answer that yet.

However, what has been answered, by you and by the objective sources I have checked, is my question of whether or not there needs to be a pre existing traffic violation to trigger all of this!

The answer, I now know, is yes.

Everyone here arguing against this law, were you all away from the news the last few days like me? Why have the suggestions that you can stop anyone who looks Mexican been so widespread? There aren't enough practical arguments against this law...................

The imposition on legal immigrants to have "papers" does not appear to be that great now that I know a traffic violation is needed. If they had a drivers' license, which everyone is required to have on them when operating a vehicle, then they are fine.

Out of the context of a vehicle, the law still says "lawful" encounter and makes clear that all federal and AZ civil rights protections apply. So that to me means that, just as you can't, as a police officer, say "black kid, crack dealer, under arrest," you can't say "Hispanic, illegal, deport his ass."

In a car, you will always be asked for your license when stopped by a police officer, on foot or otherwise, you will be asked to produce identification or at a minimum give your name when questioned in any way.

So I had a false impression of the intrusiveness of this law......

However, it seems like all we have left are the following scenarios, then.

-Speeder is arrested for driving w/o a license, upon further investigation at booking, he is found to be an illegal and sent to a federal detention center to await deportation.

-Guy "casing the joint" outside a bank is stopped, questioned about his activities(lawful encounter) and then the cop calls him into the hotline based on the "reasonable suspicion" that he is here illegally owing to the fact that he was reluctant to give his name.

-A van is pulled over for driving erratically near the AZ-Mexican border, 11 occupants, officer notices that the driver is being extremely evasive and one of the passengers admits to being an illegal. Now, we have reasonable suspicion that the rest are as well, so the officer checks them out. (In this case, in close proximity to the border, border patrol, and not the cops, probably handles it anyway, and they operate under a significantly more generous set of rules, and rightfully so, given the fact that they work on the border and know what the tell tale signs are)

Here is the $1,000,000 question:

How is that any different than what we already do today? In the scenarios I mentioned, the 3 illegals would, under current law, have drawn the attention of law enforcement and been investigated far enough to determine that they did not belong here

So why do we need to go further? I think it is this requirement "shall" that law enforcement agencies go further that begs the question "for what?" This is the question many law enforcement agencies are asking.

Law enforcement agencies know best what the law says regarding the requirement for a traffic stop or other lawful encounter, but they are still skeptical of the effect any law of this kind will have on trust between the Hispanic community and officers. This is a huge concern if we are dealing with a crime wave, the cops need information, and the last thing Hispanics need, whether founded or unfounded, is the impression that they are being targeted as a community.

Plus, we still can't answer how this will even begin to solve the problem of 12 million illegals in the country and daily kidnappings in Phoenix. The same ratio of illegal/legal people stopped for a lawful purpose by police will exist. Plenty of people picked up for routine crimes today, including lack of proper ID, are deported. I don't see how it will get us more illegals to deport.

Especially considering the fact that funding ICE units trained specifically for this kind of work to a greater extent will provide a much better bang for the buck and free up some time for the Police to focus on kidnapping and drugs.

We will have more debates like this until we pass immigration reform. I hope Charlie Crist, Lindsey Graham and some other sane people get their views heard over the screaming of the Tea Party.
Based on the present environment in Az., having an extra tool for law enforcement isn't viewed as such a bad thing.

Yes, and we need to pass sensible immigration reform, no one is arguing that-at least I'm not.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 02:16 AM   #191
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
Based on the present environment in Az., having an extra tool for law enforcement isn't viewed as such a bad thing.

Yes, and we need to pass sensible immigration reform, no one is arguing that-at least I'm not.

<>
No argument here.

Just think the singular focus task forces and police units devoted to kidnapping and drug cartels given the extra tools would be a lot more effective than this vague, controversial and litigation inviting statute.

I think everyone, regardless of political views, can agree that anytime you can avoid a stand off between Glenn Beck and friends and Al Sharpton and friends, it is a good thing.

What Cop in Arizona would rather have tin foil on the head Beck and criminal Sharpton fighting it out with their armies of crazies than more funding for task forces focused on cartels and kidnappings?
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 02:18 AM   #192
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,882
Local Time: 03:50 AM
This isn't sensible. This is "hey, cops, inspect every brown person because if you don't, you could get sued."

"Suspicion" isn't defined, but lawsuit is very clear. So, everyone is suspect if they don't like like a real American. And a "real American" is someone of European descent to those who would sue the cops.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 02:26 AM   #193
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
This isn't sensible. This is "hey, cops, inspect every brown person because if you don't, you could get sued."

"Suspicion" isn't defined, but lawsuit is very clear. So, everyone is suspect if they don't like like a real American. And a "real American" is someone of European descent to those who would sue the cops.
But as far as the text of the law goes, they still need something else to stop the person in the 1st place.

The cop being concerned about getting sued sounds plausible at first, but think of it practically.

1.)Most Police Departments do not even want to enforce this, many will be instructed not to(Phoenix) and they are all lawyered up extremely well. Good luck fighting city hall or the Afghanistan veteran cop in court if you are Bubba the redneck pissed at them Mexicans but never served a day in the military. From a cost and a perception of the person standpoint, its a losing bet suing city hall or the cops.

2.)In order to have standing to bring a law suit, you need to show that you were harmed by a law, an act, etc. You are addressing a wrongdoing.

Who is/are the aggrieved part(y)(ies) in a case where the police do not sufficiently question a brown person?

Grandma and Grandpa real European Americans pissed off at the Mexicans are 3rd parties and have no standing to sue the cop for not asking Pablo where he is from.

Again, philsfan, you and I both are skeptics of this law. I just think that, upon further research, some of the opposition to it borders on the same hysteria whipped up by the Republicans against immigrants every election year.....
__________________
U2387 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 03:04 AM   #194
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,882
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Oh, of course, obviously it won't be as bad as I say it is in that post, but I'm saying that this law allows something like that to occur in theory, and that's the point. Too much is left up to subjectivity, and I don't like that.

However, as you and I know, lawsuits don't always end up just being about the "harm or no harm" situation you state in your second point. Many times the government/police will settle on something because they don't want to spend the time to go through the legal processes that are costly. That's another factor to consider, especially for those with "political influence."
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2010, 09:03 AM   #195
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
But as far as the text of the law goes, they still need something else to stop the person in the 1st place.
As far as the text of the law, sure. We'll see how that plays out in practice.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com