Thought's on the new immigration law in Arizona?

[Cyrus]

Box of Fail doesn't do a good job making his argument so to say (ignoring history of Chinese Exclusion, Korematsu, etc); however, he is most importantly an example of how just not giving a damn goes a long way in healing race relations in the U.S. On average, I know way more Asian descent Americans who don't care, make fun of, or otherwise treat the issue of race nonchalantly. I also observe that, on average, Asian Americans are much better off than Latinos or African Americans on average, and are generally more educated than White Americans. Is there a correlation? Yeah, but as they say, is there causation? Not sure, but the tea leaves are there.

That's all beside the point though: Lawman, I need to relook at the section you're talking about, but you associating this law with Hitler and Nazi Germany does a huge disservice to the millions who died in World War Two and the Holocaust. If you see a slippery slope, then it's fair to be show skepticism, concern, or even fear, but gross exaggerations like Nazism, statism, and claims of "ethnic cleansing" (Domingo Garcia) make your argument look ridiculous. Don't cop out to hyperbolic talking points, and instead just spell out why this law is bad, and in what parts.

EDIT: yup, just reviewed that section -

If you read the law, you will see that even for an offense that is simply a fine (violation of state or local law), AND the police have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is not here legally, they can be DETAINED! Really???? Because a person of color cannot produce their "papers", they can be jailed until it is proven they are here legally?? Wow....american indians have no papers...errr, they were here 1st...DUH! Why SHOULD they HAVE to carry anything to PROVE they belong here??? Whitey McWhiteypants doesnt have to ever worry about this "reasonable suspicion"

Yeah, the law is bad. IF the police and INS do their jobs, they will find the illegals in a proper fashion.

Keith

Again, even if the result you're claiming is 100% true, then you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater - SB1070 also heavily deals with punishing the employers or illegal aliens.
And as I said, standard of reasonable suspicion is the cornerstone of this whole thing - the law needs to be AMENDED (not thrown out) to clear these things up, offer strict constitutional safeguards, yet still maintain a higher rule of law standard.

The law is NOT bad - certain sections present concerns and questions, but most of this is basic stuff that every state should be pushing for.

 

[DarthPika]

Illegal immigration is illegal, no matter how much you spin it. If there are better ways of dealing with the current illegals in this country (other than maybe full amnesty), I would like to hear it.

Sure, the police might be on heightened alert when they see a Hispanic person moreso than other types of people, but the police still need some sort of reason to apprehend the person, like running a red light, and not just their skin color. And if they do get pulled over, if they do not have anything suspicious (Twelve people in the trunk or having no registration or driver's license? Come on.) or the person has their "papers" in the dashboard, everything is fine and dandy. And just because there is going to be disproportionately higher apprehension rate of Hispanics does not mean the law is inheritly racist; that is like saying robbery should not be illegal because the majority of robberies are done by African-Americans (No offense.) Statistics do not lie but they do not automatically make you guilty either.

Hispanics will not be the only targets by this law as there are still many Asian, Arabic, etc. illegal immigrants as well. Oh, and Caucasians will not be targeted by this law? Did you know foreign Italians and Russians have weird accents? (No offense, again)

How about we wait for the law to be actually enforced before we start jumping to conclusions that only Hispanics will be singled out.

Unfortunately people like to through the term "racist" around when theu think it will help them argue against something they don't like. I saw the most wonderful, and sadly, true joke made about overly sensitive people are about this, and how quick they are to through the term racist around. It went something like this: (I apologize for the bad wording of this. I'm doing it from memory)

2 people of different race are talking to each other. One asks the other if he want's to go sky diving. The other replies that he would never go with him. The one who wants to go skydiving takes offense and it claims that the other is racist for not wanting to go with him. The man who does not wish to go, replies " I wouldn't go skydiving with anyone of any race... I'm not racist, I'm afraid of heights".

I'm really sick and tired of people using others fear of being racist to their advantage. For example, several places around here put up signs in both english AND spanish out of fear of being sued. That's just stupid IMO.

Personally, I think the best way to do it would be to just request ID of people when ever they buy something at a store. It would be unbiased, as everyone would have to do it. Seriously, it wouldn't even be that inconvenient, as id checks aren't all that uncommon anyway.

 

[Cyrus]

Don't get me wrong, there IS a potential threat of racism in all of this; however, it's a less severe form - disparate impact - rather than disparate treatment. Most opponents are claiming the latter, when I think the training police officers will have to go through generally eliminates that.

However, you are right to say that "racism" is a term that distracts us from the most important issue, which is keeping "America" a separate entity from elsewhere. In Europe, would you seriously last long at all without knowing a country's language, without being legal, etc? You wouldn't, because those countries are more socialistic in their operation, and a heavy illegal alien presence would SEVERELY damage the functions of their infrastructure, so it wouldn't even be tolerated.

Because the issue's been tolerated so long, and hasn't been looked at from a practical standpoint, we're at where we're at now: a state acting unilaterally to protect its citizens, and being labeled racists/nazis in the process. Granted, they have a lot to fix about this law to eliminate the slippery slopes, but it's a necessary decision, both morally and legally, when certain areas in Mexico are alleged to be Hell on Earth.

 

[DarthPika]

I agree that there is potential for racisim, but we've got to start somewhere. As you said, most of Europe would never put up with this mess we're dealing with now. I suppose those who think that saying illegal immigrants shouldn't be here is racist, then you just called most of Europe racist. :/

 

[Cardkeeper]

I personally find no problem with this law whatsoever. It is indeed um... Illegal to be illegal. And just to say the fact that aliens can get health benefits is crap. They DONT HAVE constituational rights. THEY AREN'T AMERICAN CITIZENS

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

Racism are in bold.

Since everybody who has ever come to this country assimilates completely, what tribe of Indians are you part of?

Since I'm white and I've only left this country in the course of my military service, I would certainly say that there is no chance of me being an illegal immigrant and that I do love this country a great deal.
I don't have a magnetic yellow ribbon on my car and I don't wear an American flag pin because actions speak louder than words.

I love my country, but I'm not a huge fan of some of the people in it, and I aint talking about brown people.
Seriously, the racism surrounding this debate is a little too blatant.

1) Not being able to speak English is a valid reason to throw someone out of the country, not racism. 2) Anyone can learn English...

While we're at it, I tend to have some trouble understanding mentally challenged people sometimes, so let's just ship them off to an island. amiright?

I'm sorry, but your Boston accent is a little too thick, so I'm going to send you to another country.

Sure, the police might be on heightened alert when they see a Hispanic person moreso than other types of people, but the police still need some sort of reason to pull the person over, like running a red light, and not just their skin color. And if they do get pulled over, if they do not have anything suspicious (Twelve people in the trunk or having no registration or driver's license? Come on.) or the person has their "papers" in the dashboard, everything is fine and dandy. And just because there is going to be disproportionately higher apprehension rate of Hispanics does not mean the law is inheritly racist; that is like saying robbery should not be illegal because the majority of robberies are done by African-Americans (No offense.) Statistics do not lie but they do not automatically make you guilty either.

Actually, Arizona law, combined with this law, does allow for the police to stop any person who appears to be Hispanic, simply because they are brown.
The cops can walk up to any person on the sidewalk and detain them until they show their papers.
What if they are from out of state and their state doesn't require your birth certificate before they issue a license?
Obviously everybody carries their birth certificate in the car, right?

I bolded the part of your post that completely invalidates the rest of it.
The law assumes guilt instead of innocence.
Racial profiling FTW.

You know what? Most violent crimes are committed by men, so let's just make a law that requires all men to be microchipped so they be tracked wherever they go, right?
I seriously hope that you are just a troll.

Hispanics will not be the only targets by this law as there are still many Asian, Arabic, etc. illegal immigrants as well. Oh, and Caucasians will not be targeted by this law? Did you know foreign Italians and Russians have weird accents? (No offense, again)

Because Arizona has so many Russian immigrants, right?
Wait, you must be talking about the well-known Asian communities of Arizona, right?
Are you going to try to convince everybody that you are honestly that ignorant in regards to what the intent of this law is?

Its useless to "argue" with Box...it is obvious he would walk the Trail of Tears barefoot thru winter, get an arm tattoo # like the Jews and be thrown in an Internment Camp all summer long just to prove us wrong. He is too young to "get" what this law means. Not to say he shouldnt have a voice here, you just need to understand this going forward.

You know what Lawman, you pretty much summed up about everybody who supports this law.

I think that there are two kinds of ignorance.
There are people who are ignorant because they are simply misinformed and there are people who are willfully ignorant because they refuse the opportunity to become informed.

This law has helped me to sort out who falls into each group. lol

DarthPika, seriously?
Are you seriously going to use some joke about being overly-sensitive about racism to say that being against racial profiling is wrong?

"Dewd, I red thys Joek a wyle ego and it saed thet scewbuh driving iz newt raycest. You dewds R sooooooooooo over re-acting".

We have to start somewhere, so let's do it by taking a giant leap backwards.
Regardless of what this law does in regards to illegal immigrants, it gives the government the right to detain a citizen until they prove their innocence.
If you think that is a good thing. . . . .

 

[Cyrus]

It's true that ignorance comes in the two forms you listed, but just because that's true doesn't mean it's true about "about everybody who supports this law."

Even if I were an adamant opponent of certain sections of the law, why would I demand repeal of the entire thing? Why should I, when so much of it is tackling the heart of the problem - the employers who give illegals incentive to come here? To throw babies out with bathwater is not only ignorant, but unwise and wrong.

I am ignorant about certain specifics, and like all people, I can sometimes show that off quite obviously. However, I am not an ignorant person by chance or by choice. I, a generally non-ignorant person, am in firm support of this law, and only ask that it be tweaked to protect Arizonan's constitutional liberties where they could be threatened.

 

[Cardkeeper]

If theres anyone on this board I agree with most its Box of Fail. America is America. Not Germany. Not Japan. Not China. If you wanna be a legal american? great! If not STAY IN YOUR FREAKING COUNTRY. America is its own nation. Not a mix n match bag. Also, So you say its racist to search out latinos as illegal alliens. That is stupid as stupd gets. Plain and simple. It might suck but if the majority of imigrants are mexican then who are we gunna look for? Oh you dont want us to look for mexicans to be 'fair' and unracist. That is not going to get the job done. If you needed to eliminate the great balls and master balls that sit among thousands of other Pokeballs from a toy shelf and needed to eliminate 70% of said toys as fast as possible. Lets say theres 200 Great balls and 5 master balls. What are you going to look for Great Balls or Master Balls? Or All of them to be CONSTITUTIONALLY FAIR. Seriously!!! Sure it might not actually be a great ball even though it looks as though. If its more likely a latino family is illegal than a polish one of course you search the latino! We're not going to be stupid just to be morally correct. Its not racist or against latinos. It just happens to be the ethnic group that needs to be searched. Denial gets one no where.

 

[Gir]

...and is there a reason you use the word 'eliminate' in your analogy? Are we eliminating people now?

 

[InfiniteMasterEx]

Actually, Arizona law, combined with this law, does allow for the police to stop any person who appears to be Hispanic, simply because they are brown.
The cops can walk up to any person on the sidewalk and detain them until they show their papers.

Proof please? I have seen plenty of proof that the police requires "reasonable suspicion" before they can approach anyone. And if they are unlawfully detained, they still have habeas corpus to protect them.

What if they are from out of state and their state doesn't require your birth certificate before they issue a license?
Obviously everybody carries their birth certificate in the car, right?

Oh yeah, like the police would know all the laws and processes of every state.

You know what? Most violent crimes are committed by men, so let's just make a law that requires all men to be microchipped so they be tracked wherever they go, right?
I seriously hope that you are just a troll.

What does this have to do with anything? This law does not not even come close to this.

Because Arizona has so many Russian immigrants, right?
Wait, you must be talking about the well-known Asian communities of Arizona, right?
Are you going to try to convince everybody that you are honestly that ignorant in regards to what the intent of this law is?

Point is, the law does not single out on Hispanics; If a cop pulled over a Russian immigrant for speeding, the cop is going to ask for legal status. Whether it will be enforced that way is another question.

So the intent of the law does target mostly Hispanics, I agree with that point. Does that mean that the police should not detain illegal aliens if they did find them? As I said before, should we legalize robbery because the majority of robberies are done by African-Americans (No offense)?

We have to start somewhere, so let's do it by taking a giant leap backwards.
Regardless of what this law does in regards to illegal immigrants, it gives the government the right to detain a citizen until they prove their innocence.
If you think that is a good thing....

Again, can you please cite where Arizona has the power to do this. I might have missed a clause while reading the bill so if you provide tangible proof, then I might consider changing my stance.

 

[Cardkeeper]

...and is there a reason you use the word 'eliminate' in your analogy? Are we eliminating people now?

Eliminating them from our country. That is, if they want to be LEGAL and AMERICAN than cool. Come join us thats cool. But dont come in here illegal. They (litterally) have NO RIGHT.

 

[Gir]

Eliminating them from our country. That is, if they want to be LEGAL and AMERICAN than cool. Come join us thats cool. But dont come in here illegal. They (litterally) have NO RIGHT.

then maybe the problem is with making it easier/faster to get into the country legally?

 

[InfiniteMasterEx]

then maybe the problem is with making it easier/faster to get into the country legally?

That is part of the immigration problem but solving that only deals with incoming immigrants. What about current ones that are living in the U.S. illegally?

 

[Gir]

I never proposed a way to fix that because I don't know. But what I do know is that I'm sure there's gotta be a better way than just picking out some latino guys and asking for their papers.

Did you watch the video I sent you?

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

Proof please? I have seen plenty of proof that the police requires "reasonable suspicion" before they can approach anyone. And if they are unlawfully detained, they still have habeas corpus to protect them.

Reasonable suspicion of a misdemeanor in the state of Arizona gives the police the authority to stop a person at any time and that law specifically states that illegal immigration is a misdemeanor in the state of Arizona.
That is just it, there is no such thing as unlawfully detained.
If they didn't have their papers (to prove their innocence), they are detained without warrant, and this law makes it legal.
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a good analogy if you think of the baby as constitutional rights and the bathwater as the illegals.

Oh yeah, like the police would know all the laws and processes of every state.

Do you think that Arizona cops will have a list of allowed states DL's, or you think that you will be at the mercy of the cop's memory (even if your DL meets their requirements)?

Point is, the law does not single out on Hispanics; If a cop pulled over a Russian immigrant for speeding, the cop is going to ask for legal status. Whether it will be enforced that way is another question.

So the intent of the law does target mostly Hispanics, I agree with that point. Does that mean that the police should not detain illegal aliens if they did find them? As I said before, should we legalize robbery because the majority of robberies are done by African-Americans (No offense)?

Are you still wondering why I think you are trolling? :lol:

Eliminating them from our country. That is, if they want to be LEGAL and AMERICAN than cool. Come join us thats cool. But dont come in here illegal. They (litterally) have NO RIGHT.

So what about people like my wife who were born in the U.S. and are descendant of the Indians that we got this land from?
Let's just treat her like she has no rights until she can prove her innocence?
Salem witch trials FTW?

That's all beside the point though: Lawman, I need to relook at the section you're talking about, but you associating this law with Hitler and Nazi Germany does a huge disservice to the millions who died in World War Two and the Holocaust. If you see a slippery slope, then it's fair to be show skepticism, concern, or even fear, but gross exaggerations like Nazism, statism, and claims of "ethnic cleansing" (Domingo Garcia) make your argument look ridiculous. Don't cop out to hyperbolic talking points, and instead just spell out why this law is bad, and in what parts.

You know, I could swear some of the early Nazi work was referred to as immigration reform and that it targeted a specific ethnic group while blaming them for all of their problems.

I also remember a saying that notes that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

What does this have to do with anything? This law does not not even come close to this.

Also, So you say its racist to search out latinos as illegal alliens. That is stupid as stupd gets. Plain and simple. It might suck but if the majority of imigrants are mexican then who are we gunna look for? Oh you dont want us to look for mexicans to be 'fair' and unracist. That is not going to get the job done. If you needed to eliminate the great balls and master balls that sit among thousands of other Pokeballs from a toy shelf and needed to eliminate 70% of said toys as fast as possible. Lets say theres 200 Great balls and 5 master balls. What are you going to look for Great Balls or Master Balls? Or All of them to be CONSTITUTIONALLY FAIR. Seriously!!! Sure it might not actually be a great ball even though it looks as though. If its more likely a latino family is illegal than a polish one of course you search the latino! We're not going to be stupid just to be morally correct. Its not racist or against latinos. It just happens to be the ethnic group that needs to be searched. Denial gets one no where.

First thing, it's epically funny that you mispelled, "stupid" while calling another person's opinion stupid.
lol

Racial profiling FTW.
Like I said, since we already target entire groups, let's just go ahead and make it where cops can detain any man they see until they can prove their innocence.
Men do account for the bulk of violent crimes, so it would make sense to just go after all men.

Who needs those pesky constitutional rights anyways? :nonono:

Two kinds of ignorance. . .


EDIT:
To clarify, I'm not honestly calling you ignorant Cyrus.
You see the problems with the law and you accept that they need to be fixed before the law can be properly used.
You're kind of on a third side of this debate.

 

[InfiniteMasterEx]

Did you watch the video I sent you?

Yes, I did. While there are many flaws with that news story (i.e. only focuses on the victim's side of the story and not the cops, does not tell how frequent this happens, and does not say maybe the cop was a total n00b), it did highlight the fact that the cops could legally ask for a birth certificate so now I am suspicious of how much power the law will give police in detaining people (I still think the law would not promote racial profiling but that is another story.)

Are you still wondering why I think you are trolling?

Mostly = singling out? What part about 81% =/= 100% do you not understand? *facepalm*

And you continually avoid my robbery analogy.

EDIT: Actually, after rechecking some statistics, I found that a comparable 78.8% of all arson crimes are committed by White Americans. That must mean anti-arson laws are racist against White Americans!
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_43.html

Reasonable suspicion of a misdemeanor in the state of Arizona gives the police the authority to stop a person at any time and that law specifically states that illegal immigration is a misdemeanor in the state of Arizona.
That is just it, there is no such thing as unlawfully detained.
If they didn't have their papers (to prove their innocence), they are detained without warrant, and this law makes it legal.

Who needs those pesky constitutional rights anyways?

Gir is 100% more useful than you in providing me a video proof of police arbitrarily detaining someone. As I said before, I now agree that the law is too vague and "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" needs to be better defined (and we should go with a national ID, which would solve the "papers" problem.)

 

[ryanvergel]

Super Wooper: I don't think my point attacking his age was ad hominem.

The kid is like 12 or 13- how does he have adequate experience or knowledge of racism as it works in the world? I don't think he can.

Not quite ad hominem. I think his age and experiences (he claims to not have experienced racism or seen it towards Asians) definitely have a strong correlation.

Box of Fail:

@Ryan: American culture does indeed equal English speaking. Our signs are in English, our PA announcements are in English.

You've never been to Miami, have you? What about San Diego? You clearly lack the worldly experience to see different languages in work. It is a fact that a huge number of people in the United States speak English- but it is not an official language.

Why do products have warning labels in German, French, Spanish, etc? Why is there Spanish text on half the signs in South Florida and South California? Why does the government create sites like this? Why are IRS forms available in both English and Spanish?

And for what purpose is English the main mandatory language children must take in school? One of the main reasons is for immigrants to have an easier time integrating into our culture.
English is taught because that is what the majority speak- it is not taught to help immigrants assimilate. What are you basing this off of, besides pure conjecture?There is no official national language, as you can speak what you want in your home. In public, you should speak English. Why? You haven't explained this at all- merely said you "should". Why should you speak English in public? It is not required, it is not the national language, it is not the only language used, etc. I'd like to see some reasoning here.

'Infringing on someone's rights'? All you're doing is asking for ID. Should they have ID, they're good to go.
I guess you didn't pay attention to page 1 of this thread, and the increase in power police are given at the cost of privacy (A RIGHT), etc. The right to be treated equally? The right to be treated fairly, without appeal to physical differences?

What racism towards Asians? If you're talking about racist jokes about 'Yellow' people, that's really not a problem. I'm talking about racism that adversely affects your performance in life, not just words.
You kidding me? Did you NOT READ the first page, where people discuss at length the practice of Japanese/Asian persecution in before the 50s?

Replies in bold. How old are you, for real? 12?

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Box of Fail doesn't do a good job making his argument so to say (ignoring history of Chinese Exclusion, Korematsu, etc); however, he is most importantly an example of how just not giving a damn goes a long way in healing race relations in the U.S. On average, I know way more Asian descent Americans who don't care, make fun of, or otherwise treat the issue of race nonchalantly. I also observe that, on average, Asian Americans are much better off than Latinos or African Americans on average, and are generally more educated than White Americans. Is there a correlation? Yeah, but as they say, is there causation? Not sure, but the tea leaves are there.

That's all beside the point though: Lawman, I need to relook at the section you're talking about, but you associating this law with Hitler and Nazi Germany does a huge disservice to the millions who died in World War Two and the Holocaust. If you see a slippery slope, then it's fair to be show skepticism, concern, or even fear, but gross exaggerations like Nazism, statism, and claims of "ethnic cleansing" (Domingo Garcia) make your argument look ridiculous. Don't cop out to hyperbolic talking points, and instead just spell out why this law is bad, and in what parts.

EDIT: yup, just reviewed that section -


Again, even if the result you're claiming is 100% true, then you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater - SB1070 also heavily deals with punishing the employers or illegal aliens.
And as I said, standard of reasonable suspicion is the cornerstone of this whole thing - the law needs to be AMENDED (not thrown out) to clear these things up, offer strict constitutional safeguards, yet still maintain a higher rule of law standard.

The law is NOT bad - certain sections present concerns and questions, but most of this is basic stuff that every state should be pushing for.

That's usually the case, I think. "Good intentions" gone about in a less than perfect way. In this instance, a way that allows for too much subjectivity and possible discrimination.

 

[dogma]

It is unfortunate, but true, that those who are 12 can experience and understand how racism works in the world.

This is not a good law. This is not a good way to solve this issue. Cannot believe that a country which criticises the world for human rights abuses has added one more to the list. :nonono:

 

[Box of Fail]

You are ABSOLUTELY 100% wrong. Ihr braunes Hemd stellt dar (your brown shirt is showing).

Over and over, courts have held that following orders is not an excuse or justification for atrocities, for moral wrongs. A "law" requiring that an order be followed can be unlawful by it's very discord with the Constitution which grants equal rights and protections to all - even to brown people in Arizona. Look up Andersonville.

You are so far removed from what an American is. Ameericans broke the laws of the British. We chose to withhold taxes, we kidnapped a tax inspector, we killed the soldiers of our rulers. Americans ignored the laws of Mexico in Texas regarding settling, we broke the laws of Mexico. We killed their soldiers. When we lost in our unlawful skirmish at the Alamo, we made war upon Mexico.

You would have us follow all laws, when America was made breaking all laws. You support following laws should they be morally evil. Soldiers can not do so, at least our soldiers can't. But your view would have put you in good with the Nazis, I'm sure they would have let you wear a brown shirt; what, you aren't blond and blue, not a true Aryan? Oh, well, thanks for agreeing with us, now won't you please step into this shower.

I thought the Constitution did not protect non-American citizens? (i.e. most of those "brown people" in Arizona?)

Moral wrongs are absolutely and unequivocally acceptable if the law permits them. If the law did not forbid theft, I would be stealing from my neighbors left and right. Subjective perceptions of "morality" are not important. Doing something illegal is bad. Doing something wrong? Depends on whether it's legal or not.

We declared war. The lines of 'breaking the law' are a bit different in that case.

I don't endorse Nazism at all. However, morals are a subjective and biased matter. Therefore only a set code of law can hold influence. If you sue me for not paying my debt, do I think it's fair, as I was borrowing the money to save a sick relative? No, but I should still pay up. Breaking the law for a just cause is not okay with me at all.

Ryan: I live a pretty "white" life. How am I disadvantaged by being Asian? I'm not.

 

[Cyrus]

Race relations are a very complicated issue - one of my minors is in Sociology, and I still can't say I know everything there is on the matter. Most importantly, I don't know how it is to be black, "yellow" (misnomer for the loss), etc in a "white man's country," or what it's like to be white in an Asian-dominated country, etc.

However, I do know that in spite of all that, our society has to function for everyone. Other than a couple sections, this law consists mainly of provisions an overwhelming number of level-headed people could all agree to.