Agree.
Disagree

Arizona is now a police state.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/...ex.html?hpt=T1

link

Slippery slopage. I wonder what "reasons to suspect they are in the country illegally" they will need? They don't look the same? Can we put arm bands on them?

Yep, very slippery.

Well sure, if you ask the commies...

You're funny. ;)

.

It'll just increase the redistribution of wealth. Rich lawn owners will have to pay more for legals to do landscaping than they paid illegals.

well, I was thinking more of the manufacturing sector and the imports from the maquiladoras

I was being tongue-in-cheek :blush:

So Arizona can throw them in jail now, but AFAIK, states don't have the authority to deport. So Arizona is going to pay around 100K per person per year to jail illegal immigrants? I doubt it.

This is an empty law passed only to help an embattled governor secure a primary victory.

The fines against people who hire illegal immigrants will be enforced though. That's money for the coffers.

I think the average cost per prisoner is more like $50k but your point is till valid.

You mean a more realistic LEGAL wage instead of the artificially low one? You mean one that will generate tax dollars instead of under-the-table ones?
Good - I think that could be a positive.

Speeding is different, it's revenue enhancement.

Only if you feed 'em.

link
Wait a minute - Its legal to be here illegally?

oh and a poll too.

I read the actual law for a few minutes yesterday. It's long and I didn't read it all. There's a lot of stuff in there aimed at people who hire illegal immigrants. Like you can't stop to pick up a day worker on a public street, and if you do, you can be charged with impeding traffic. There's also the tidbit that an illegal immigrant found on public property in Arizona is "trespassing" and can be charged with "trespassing" and thrown in jail.

The main point of the law seems to be that cops will have the power to check "suspicious" people and if they determine they are here illegally, they will have the power to drop them off at the INS. The Feds at INS don't have to do anything under the state law, so they may just release them at that point, or they may deport them. Arizona isn't deporting anyone.

I'd still like to see some verbiage on what constitutes "suspicion they're in the country illegally."

So a guy walking down the street could be "suspicious." On what grounds? Unless we're talking about the employment issues, I don't know how they will make that call unless it's on appearance. And, as we know, good cops, bad cops.

Me too, specifically whether it's a primary offense or if it just gives cops the authority to further question someone who can't produce ID when questioned about something else.

Not sure Shaw. That verbiage has been used elsewhere for decades. Still, that is the issue. From what I read over the weekend it was mentioned that if they stop a car for speeding or whatever, they can check status. What they cannot do, again from what I read, is just pull anyone over for whatever reason they want.

unless it's "we suspect they are illegals."

Hey, the last time my mom got mistaken for an illegal mexican, someone just asked her how much she charges to walk dogs.

Next time she might get thrown in jail.

A PhD, two Master's degrees, a 30-year career, money in the bank... And she's Existing While Dark-Skinned.

She's glad to be leaving Arizona, and taking her money and taxes with her. Good riddance.

Seriously, do you know this for a fact? Do you have more information?

Just what's being reported; that the new law "requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/...est/index.html

I've been mistaken for being "middle eastern" been pulled out of line at an airport, frisked, had all my shit gone through and almost missed my flight.... So what?

I can make up 10 probable causes right now. My word against the other guy.

That's the Night the Lights Went Out in Arizona, right?

Hahahahahaaaa...I don't know what's funnier, this asshat saying "Ohhhh, now they're onto us" when it's probably just the way it always is (but which doesn't make for good publicity) or the fact that, if what he says is true, he's admitting that they've already thwarted the law! :lol:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html

Certainly your big red white and blue t-shirt reading "I AM AN AMERICAN GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY COUNTRY" should have been a clue for your attackers, right?

:cool:

That article is from 2006. :eyebrow:

Nothing will really change until we secure our borders.

Oh. Well, thanks for clearing me up.

Now leave me alone.

Let's assume the worst. It's so much fun to be all pissed off all the time isn't it?! yay...

is it okay and/or legal to walk around outside without identification? I sure hope it is, in this country. Of course, if I were hispanic or hispanic looking, like my BD#1 and her children, maybe it isn't. How do you prove a negative?

Assuming the worst?

What am I pissed off about?

You've lost your touch.

Let me borrow a tactic from the Classic School of Discussion, too..."WHAT???"

:lol:

Yeah, xenophobes LOVE this law. Keep everyone away from our neighborhoods and our childrens, they might find themselves associating with "DIFFERENT" "OUTSIDERS" which will most certainly tear apart the very fabric of what this country was founded upon. :p:

Let's not forget about the illegal Irish, ethiopians, Latvians, and Cambodians.

You're an illegal optician! I just KNOW it.

Yup, xenophobes and racists... hate away shawnee.

You're really stretching. I'm not sure why you're all over my shit these days, but I've seen you pulling it on others lately.

Lots of people have noticed, but wouldn't say anything to you, out of fear I guess.

You've said nothing that even remotely discusses any of it, but you call me a hater for questioning this authority? How dare me, to question authority. I MUST be a hater, to not sit back and nod that those in charge have to be right, or they wouldn't be in charge, right?

Really stretching, hon. I won't cry and come back to apologize to you, like most. So, have fun with whatever you're trying to accomplish. I'm, frankly, bored with it already.

And, one last thing...some of you were bitching and moaning about the politics thread. You wanted the Cellar to be kinder and gentler: apparently those people were tired of political discussions. You said it was a hater's thread. You've told ME In the past to ignore threads I don't like. Yet you're worse, you don't say what your convictions are, but you will say nasty things to those who are talking about issues. I didn't think you cared. Maybe you don't care, you just like waiting around to piss people off.

Have fun with that. I don't get it, but have fun with it.

Yes, actually, I have. I'd like to know the details for real before I throw a fit though, if you don't mind.

Lot's of people have noticed what?

What fit? What is wrong with you? :lol:

Eh, man, this is unreal.

I'm a goddam hatin' bitch for discussing current events in the current event thread.

Un. Real. Yet, amusing, and thought-provoking! :thumb:

Can you answer the question, or no?

I can't even figure out what the question is

I have to call foul on that.

No one fears jinx and it is a manipulative way to get attention off the topic.

I think she deserves an answer since you brought up something vague aimed to hurt her character.

Jinx, Cloud, skysidhe, don't waste your time. :rolleyes:

We all undergo increased security in airports and for some reason it's tolerated. I don't like it, but it is a special heightened secure area. This new law applies to walking down the sidewalk, driving down the road. This is every day life. This isn't a couple times a year of standing in a line and being frisked in a place where you have the option to go.

:3_eyes:

Mine the borders with claymores. Come through normal gates, no problem. Come via any other means, not my problem.

Problem solved.

until someone has to pay for amputation and prosthetics.

If true, that would make it a clear 4th amendment violation, right?

well, yeah. did you wonder why people were upset? (okay, maybe I'm confused . . . )

I think she said repeatedly that she wanted clarification on whether it is a PRIMARY (meaning.....that's the reason they stop you) offense to look like an immigrant.

It's fucking incredible in the classical meaning of the word. They are talking out of both sides of their mouths if they say they're going to do this and NOT profile. This is BY DEFINITION profiling.

Yeah but, the actual law says "for any lawful contact by law enforcement" which, as far as I know, is not having a cop walk up to anyone they want on the street and demand ID. That's what I wanted to know about before getting upset.

It's all about how the initial contact is made.

it is now, assuming they have "probable cause" to suspect someone is an illegal alien. How do they do that? I guess if they look poor and brown.

I laughed. So sue me.

Yeah but, what are you basing that on? The law says lawful contact first, then suspicion. That the media says suspicion then contact doesn't mean that's what the law says.
Srsly, show me something official that says suspicion first and I'll be pissed right along with ya.

In fact, the law does now allow a cop to walk up to anyone on the street and demand ID by criminalizing "trespassing" to a much higher level...to mean standing on any public or private property (assuming one is here illegally)...from a city park to a 7-11 store, you can now be charged with "trespassing"...if the cop thinks (no standard) that one is suspicious, he charges "trespassing" and the burden of proof is on the victim to prove he/she is a citizen or legal resident.

The law is fraught with Constitutional issues, from the supremacy clause to 4th and 14th amendment issues.

I dont think it can stand up to the test...but time will tell.

added: a member of Congress, Brian Bilbray (R-CA) offered his perspective on determining "suspicion":

"They (cops) can look at the kind of dress you wear, there’s different type of attire, there’s different type of…right down to the shoes, right down to the clothes."

One would hope the AZ law enforcement community has a tougher standard...but the fact is, there is no standard.

hmm. it's a chicken and egg question, really.

I looked at the law here, and it doesn't really go into that, except to say that they can stop a car if there's a traffic violation, and then ask about immigrant status.

The AZ law creates a new definition of trespassing:

A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

It gives law enforcement the legal cover to apprehend "suspicious" persons....with no legal standard of what constitutes suspicious.

Think about it...any person in AZ can now be charged with trespassing by simply standing on any public or private property IF (#2) they cannot prove (by carrying papers at all times) they are a citizen or legal resident.

I see what you're saying... but not quite. *Any* person cannot be charged, because the code is specific to aliens, presumably legal, but in violation of the trespassing law to some degree, either by being illegal or by not having their papers on them.

Right...but the burden of proof is now on the person to prove he/she is a citizen or legal resident and NOT on the cop to have reasonable doubt that the person isnt.

This goes way beyond stopping someone for a traffic violation or a civil disturbance and then, secondarily checking citizenship status. It is using the cover of trespassing to force a person to prove his legal status.

IMO, its highly questionable that this is constitutional.

The Mexican Government?

Sounds like a great plan. They need to either buy more buses or build bigger holding facilities..

BTW, I think it would nice for a change if you (all) hold Merc to the same standard applied to others....most recently, Shawnee.

I'll leave it at that.

What are you talking about. I merely made a statement. Mine the borders, force people to use legal means of access and then address the issue of illegals who are here.

What is the problem?

That was the most blatant example - not the only one.

When Dazza was in the US last year he was inspected very thoroughly at every airport he had to pass through. The only thing he could put it down to was the fact that he had a pretty shaggy beard. He didn't care much except when it almost caused him to miss a connecting flight.

I was not referencing this particular thread, but your posts throughout.

If one wants to comment on a poster being "pissed off all the time" ... or "hate away" (uh Nazi references, whores/cunts/scumbags....) or providing proof when questioned....one should be consistent.

Glatt has a point. But the reality is that we alreay face increased levels of security in many places where we neve did before.

But if you have never visited other countries, other than the US, it would be obvious that people would find it not natural. Even in the mid 1990's European security was much higher than ours, as well as that in the Orient. That was my experience anyway.