Arizonan restrictive law backfires

[clarknova]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Instead, you jumped to the conclusion that the cops in Arizona are racists.

That's not exactly a hard conclusion to jump to. And why would anyone limit that conclusion to just Arizona cops? Have you ever even dealt with American policia? Making the assumption that an American cop isn't racist is like making the assumption that a Mexican Federale isn't on the take -- potentially dangerous.

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Tell me, how long have you been in favor of breaking the law instead of enforcing it?

Actually, civil disobedience against unjust laws is the responsibility of any good citizen. Be careful with your black and white arguments, those are reactionary propaganda techniques.

[happy_terd]

This thread started off ok, but now it is sort of a repeat of earlier threads. To repeat the same boring shit over and over is...well boring.


why not one of you make a poll?

"Would you vote for an immigration law like Arizona has?" (reworded of course to make it sound well written )

I think that would be more interesting than watching the same people making the same comments back and forth.

In the end it is all about entertainment, people. Let's bitch and moan at each other with some style.

[clarknova]

Originally Posted by MJK2111

We treat all law breakers equally, or at least we should..

Yeah, the next time you're caught speeding or downloading an mp3 without the permission of the copyright holder... DEATH SENTENCE! And let's not waste money on 'lectricity, cyanide or potassium chloride, I'm talkin' gallows and firin' squads!

Seriously, though, your comments are frightening.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

We should use the mathematician's method: shoot every second person. (For once being a rather odd person is a good thing.)

Whatever happened to first kill all the lawyers?

[happy_terd]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Whatever happened to first kill all the lawyers?

They are all being used to sue Arizona.

I think even Mexico is suing them.

[Poppa1956]

Originally Posted by obs20

Okay here's what's racist about it:
A stop is made because a tail light is out. Because the driver has an accent, or is brown, or dresses differently then he is asked for a passport or other documentation in addition to the driver's license to demonstrate that he is here legally. If it isn't produced then he could be detained. This person could be a naturalized citizen but now has to carry identification that other Americans do not. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger said his accent would get him detained in Arizona.

... and we can agree that is where the law can fail. If, however, the various police agencies in Arizona make it a point to question everyone with whom they interact, regardless of perceived race of national origin, and they need to monitor various interactions to verify that they are not stopping a higher percentage of any ethnic population than they are of the populations of other races.
The odds are, however, that either they will stop a smaller percentage of the Caucasian males in the 50-60 y/o bracket, OR —no matter what they do —even if they (they police) are perfect*, they will be vilified by people opposing any attempt to protect the sovereignty of the US.

[SameOldStory]

Does any of this resemble the Arizona law?

LEY GENERAL DE POBLACIÓN
This is the only Mexican immigration law (1999) that I could find. Spanish speakers may find more up to date info.

Google Translation
LAW GENERAL POPULATION

Article 32
" immigration of foreigners, according to their potential to contribute to national progress." No potential welfare immigrants wanted?

Article 34
"The Ministry of the Interior may lay to foreigners who enter the country, conditions it deems appropriate regarding the activities they will pursue, and the location or places of residence." Does that mean "what you can do and where you can live?


Article 37
"VII .- are not physically or mentally healthy in the opinion of the health authority" Anyone making such a law in this country would crucified.

Article 39
"When strangers marry and have children with Mexican-born (in) the country, the Ministry of the Interior may authorize or legal stay in it " MAY? In this country, if you are born here you are a citizen. I believe that you can renounce it on your 21st birthday.

Article 73
"The authorities which by law have federal forces under their command, local or municipales, shall assist the immigration authorities at their request, to enforce the provisions of this Act". As I read this I think that it says all police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities if requested to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.

Article 85
"The Ministry of Interior is responsible for registration and accreditation identity of all persons residing in the country and nationals residing abroad."
Article 86
"The National Population Registry aims to register every persons in the population, with the information needed to certify and accredit their identity".
Simple enough. Your papers, please. They are not in order, please come with us.

It goes on and on. Lets end on a couple of points.

Article 119
"A penalty of up to six years in prison and a fine of up to five thousand pesos (for an) alien who had obtained permission to legally enter the country, for failure or violation of legal or administrative provisions that conditioned their stay is illegally there." I think that means that if you come into Mexico with a visa and stay or mess up some how you can go to jail.

Article 123
"A penalty of up to two years imprisonment and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos, the foreigner who illegally (enters Mexico)."


Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony.

You can be stopped, searched, arrested, imprisoned, and/or tossed out of friendly Mexico.

I think that any Mexican should be allowed into this country as a political refugee. So long as the don't try to make this country like the one that they're fleeing from.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by obs20

That's exactly the point. The vagrancy laws in the USA have often targeted minorities.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/vagrancy

how about if we try something a little less off the board liberal. ok, while some states no longer enforce it, the FBI sure seems to think it is still valid

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Nothing, Police don't only approach you if they think you're doing something wrong. I've been stopped because they were going around looking for someone nearby who spoke a language they didn't to translate for them. I've been stopped to ask if I've seen anything unusual, I've been stopped just to ask if I was okay because I was out late and alone. They can approach you for any or no reason just to see your reaction.






There's no requirement to carry identification in public if you're a US citizen. There's a requirement to have a license to drive on public roads but that's not the same thing.

so sorry about your bad luck. do you even live in the US?

I've been a hard partying college student out late (and drunk), never stopped.

worked odd after hours jobs because many times installing telecomm equipment can only be installed after hours, and never stopped.

re-wired entire banks after hours, and never stopped.

lived and/or visited foreign countries for lengthy periods of time, and never stopped.

I have however (and still am) stopped constantly by ferry workers, airline workers, railway workers, because apparently there is something about my demeanor or the way I carry myself, if there is a person that needs assistance, I manage to be the joe citizen at large that gets tagged to be the "helper". so for whatever reason, I don't exactly fly under the radar.

while it is indeed difficult to determine whether we are REQUIRED to carry ID, it goes to show that the need for having one outweighs not having one. if you are a student, you are required to have ID at all times on ANY school campus. if you are seeking medical attention, you are required to have one. if you are employed chances are you are issued a company ID, and if not, you certainly had to pony up some id to get the job. you need to show id to use public library services. in short, there is very little you can do as a productive legal citizen without having id on you

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

so sorry about your bad luck. do you even live in the US?

Yes and the local police probably think they're being helpful. I just try to find a way to both be polite and fail to answer any questions I'm not legally required to.

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I've been a hard partying college student out late (and drunk), never stopped.

worked odd after hours jobs because many times installing telecomm equipment can only be installed after hours, and never stopped.

re-wired entire banks after hours, and never stopped.

lived and/or visited foreign countries for lengthy periods of time, and never stopped.

Never been bothered when I've left the US, even forign customs people have never given me even a second glance, US ones though..... Maybe I radiate dislike for authority real or imagined.

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I have however (and still am) stopped constantly by ferry workers, airline workers, railway workers, because apparently there is something about my demeanor or the way I carry myself, if there is a person that needs assistance, I manage to be the joe citizen at large that gets tagged to be the "helper". so for whatever reason, I don't exactly fly under the radar.

while it is indeed difficult to determine whether we are REQUIRED to carry ID, it goes to show that the need for having one outweighs not having one. if you are a student, you are required to have ID at all times on ANY school campus. if you are seeking medical attention, you are required to have one. if you are employed chances are you are issued a company ID, and if not, you certainly had to pony up some id to get the job. you need to show id to use public library services. in short, there is very little you can do as a productive legal citizen without having id on you

I can't speak for where you live but where I live there's no requirement to carry ID nor have I ever needed one to see a doctor. I was required to carry one while i was at university but not once was i ever required to produce it for any reason other than checking out library books. Company ID is not government issued and not really useful for much outside that company so I don't think that example is useful to the discussion. I can visit a library without ID though I would need one to get a library card to check out books with. So while I admit what one can do in society is limited without and ID card that doesn't justify any requirement to carry one at all times. I grew up believing it was in those evil communist eastern block places where your were stopped and the authorities demanded to see your papers but in a free country people were able to go about their buisness unmolested. I still think of that as a requirement for a free country.

Since anytime a policeman stops and says hello to you it is a lawful encounter and since they are free to say hello and ask questions of anyone they want to, this Arizona law basically sets up the situation we prided ourselves on not having during the cold war.

I understand these people are frustrated by the federal government not doing as much as they'd like, but just as I am not a police officer and can't just decide to enforce laws I don't see why Arizona feels they have the power to take on federal duties.

There's also the matter of what this can do to the crime rate. If someone is living outside the law they're already an easy target but if it were safe for them to interact with local (not federal) law enforcement without fear they can report other criminal activity. Call me silly for placing some laws above others but I'd much rather they catch someone who rapes or kills an undocumented worker than catch the undocumented worker themselves. No I don't hold to the argument that if they weren't here they wouldn't be victims, it would just happen to someone else.

[MJK2111]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Calling someone's acts illegal is different from calling someone illegal.

Understood.
Some might see that as splitting hairs, but I won't debate the point with you, as I believe you could provide a good argument to prove your point. I don't recognize the distinction, but that really doesn't matter.

[MJK2111]

Originally Posted by clarknova

Yeah, the next time you're caught speeding or downloading an mp3 without the permission of the copyright holder... DEATH SENTENCE! And let's not waste money on 'lectricity, cyanide or potassium chloride, I'm talkin' gallows and firin' squads!

Seriously, though, your comments are frightening.

Frightening? Hardly. But then, you already knew that when you took the statement out of context and made your accusation. It's rather easy to seemingly make an argument when you cherry-pick your source, isn't it?

P.S. I don't like the direction this thread is taking - this will be my final post on the subject. If anyone else disagrees with my first statement (or the one above) please PM me instead of wasting space in this thread.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Did you know that a driver's license is adequate to prove residency? No, obviously you did not. Instead, you jumped to the conclusion that the cops in Arizona are racists.

Seems a flimsy form of proof to me considering that in many places illegal immigrants can still get photo identification and driver's licenses issued by the state. Besides a driver's license isn't proof of citizenship, just proof (allegedly) of residency.

I've never been asked to prove citizenship to get a state-issued photo ID but perhaps in Arizona it is different. Hmmm -- suppose I don't have Arizona ID. Will they accept ID issued by more liberal and tolerant jurisdictions?

As for the Terminator, I doubt he would be stopped because they'd probably assume that anyone who can afford a Hummer can't possibly be illegal.

[kindlekitten]

[Originally Posted by kindlekitten
Never been bothered when I've left the US, even forign customs people have never given me even a second glance, US ones though..... Maybe I radiate dislike for authority real or imagined.

I have however (and still am) stopped constantly by ferry workers, airline workers, railway workers, because apparently there is something about my demeanor or the way I carry myself, if there is a person that needs assistance, I manage to be the joe citizen at large that gets tagged to be the "helper". so for whatever reason, I don't exactly fly under the radar.

while it is indeed difficult to determine whether we are REQUIRED to carry ID, it goes to show that the need for having one outweighs not having one. if you are a student, you are required to have ID at all times on ANY school campus. if you are seeking medical attention, you are required to have one. if you are employed chances are you are issued a company ID, and if not, you certainly had to pony up some id to get the job. you need to show id to use public library services. in short, there is very little you can do as a productive legal citizen without having id on you[/I]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Yes and the local police probably think they're being helpful. I just try to find a way to both be polite and fail to answer any questions I'm not legally required to.





I can't speak for where you live but where I live there's no requirement to carry ID nor have I ever needed one to see a doctor. I was required to carry one while i was at university but not once was i ever required to produce it for any reason other than checking out library books. Company ID is not government issued and not really useful for much outside that company so I don't think that example is useful to the discussion. I can visit a library without ID though I would need one to get a library card to check out books with. So while I admit what one can do in society is limited without and ID card that doesn't justify any requirement to carry one at all times. I grew up believing it was in those evil communist eastern block places where your were stopped and the authorities demanded to see your papers but in a free country people were able to go about their buisness unmolested. I still think of that as a requirement for a free country.

Since anytime a policeman stops and says hello to you it is a lawful encounter and since they are free to say hello and ask questions of anyone they want to, this Arizona law basically sets up the situation we prided ourselves on not having during the cold war.

I understand these people are frustrated by the federal government not doing as much as they'd like, but just as I am not a police officer and can't just decide to enforce laws I don't see why Arizona feels they have the power to take on federal duties.

There's also the matter of what this can do to the crime rate. If someone is living outside the law they're already an easy target but if it were safe for them to interact with local (not federal) law enforcement without fear they can report other criminal activity. Call me silly for placing some laws above others but I'd much rather they catch someone who rapes or kills an undocumented worker than catch the undocumented worker themselves. No I don't hold to the argument that if they weren't here they wouldn't be victims, it would just happen to someone else.

I REALLY do not appreciate you re-arranging my words especially in that fashion. it's one thing to do this when goofing around, but this seriously pisses me right the f*** off. probably goes to show why law enforcement is in your face on such a regular basis

[obs20]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

how about if we try something a little less off the board liberal. ok, while some states no longer enforce it, the FBI sure seems to think it is still valid

This is from your wikipedia link:

After the U.S. Civil War, the South passed Black Codes, laws that tried to control freed black slaves. Vagrancy laws were included in these codes. Homeless unemployed black Americans were arrested and fined as vagrants. Usually, the person could not afford the fine, and so was sent to county labor or hired out to a private employer.

So both are sources verify the abusive history of vagrancy laws.