First, thanks to Partisan for posting the actual bill.
Here's the problem I have with this bill:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
What do these bolded terms mean? They're too subjective. They need to be very clearly defined. Words lke 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause' can run a large spectrum, depending on who is enforcing it. Personally, I don't think a group of Hispanics standing outside of a home improvement store is 'reasonable suspicion' because that's a stereotype. It is not the law itself that is racist, but I think that some of the people enforcing this law will interpret 'reasonable suspicion' very loosely because the ENFORCER is racist.
I would be more okay if this law clearly explained what these terms mean, to try to eliminate SOME of the ambiguity behind the terms 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause'. Of course, people who are racist will take a looser interpretation, but at least this gives a more solid framework and less wiggle room from which to abuse this law.
I also have a problem with the non-warrant clause. I think this gives cops too much power. The cop can say a certain person broke the most ticky-tack law Arizona has (maybe like, I believe this person jaywalked! when really the cop may or may not have) just to have someone put in jail. That's not right.
I agree with the PREMISE that illegals shouldn't be here. They did not come through the system that they should have. However, I don't agree with this method proposed to enforce it. Personally, I think building a wall/electric fence/etc. would be a better idea if you really didn't want it. Even then, they'll find ways to get through.
these are the legal definitons and differences between the two terms.
I have an issue anytime a police officer can arrest anyone without a warrant or witnessing a crime that is currently occurring.
under the definition of reasonable suspicion an officer cannot make any arrest. you can be detained but not arrested.
reasonable suspicion would be someone hanging out around a closed business at night. a cop can stop and ask them what they are doing but that is about it.
unless they do something that would lead into probably cause (IE run away) then there is nothing that the officer can arrest them for.
they can ask them to leave or what not or check their ID but that is about it.
I don't think a group of Hispanics standing outside of a home improvement store is 'reasonable suspicion' because that's a stereotype.
it isn't a stereotype if it actually occurs.
unless they are shopping then they are loitering at best.
I also have a problem with the non-warrant clause. I think this gives cops too much power.
cops already have this power under probable cause please see the definition.
Probable cause is enough for a search or arrest warrant. It is also enough for a police officer to make an arrest if he sees a crime being committed
The cop can say a certain person broke the most ticky-tack law Arizona has (maybe like, I believe this person jaywalked! when really the cop may or may not have) just to have someone put in jail. That's not right.
in order for that to happen you would have to be causing a major disruption in traffic. at most it is a ticket. if you are behaving irrationally then it could be more than that.
at most you get a fine for jay walking.
people are blowing this out of proportion and as usual i blame the media.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Yep, wasn't that the one that almost exclusively targeted Irish and Italians specifically?
Actually no, not specifically. Although those groups made up a large portion of the immigrants. According to wiki:
Quote from Wiki »
[The act] limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 3%[1] of the number of persons from that country living in the United States in 1910
So basically it ensured that those populations who were historically minorities stayed minorities.
The later act of 1924 was actually targeted at Asians specifically.
Vaclav, So simply by virtue of a wide spread perception that most illegal immigrants are hispanic the law is automatically racist? So following that logic ANY and ALL attempts to reform immigration laws are racist.
That's rather strawmannish. However, in the specific case of the Arizona law, a vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico or Latin America, so for people in the Southwest, "illegal immigrant" conjures up pictures of Mexicans or Latin Americans. And I agree with the point that the law itself is not "racist" per se, but leaves the door open for racial profiling and police powers that go beyond reasonable bounds. We can sit and chat and be academical about it, but as shown in the media illegal immigration is rather a hot button issue down there.
Some black people really do like fried chicken and cornbread. Some Irish really are alcoholics. Some Chinese really are sneaky. I suppose those aren't stereotypes either? (Blech.)
Some black people really do like fried chicken and cornbread. Some Irish really are alcoholics. Some Chinese really are sneaky. I suppose those aren't stereotypes either?
how are they stereotypes?
a stereotype is usually a generic assumption (usually false) about a specific group of people. those are kinda not generic assumptions. except for the chinese one. i don't think they are anymore sneaky than anyone else.
the irish one is up in the air they do like to drink though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
a stereotype is usually a generic assumption (usually false) about a specific group of people. those are kinda not generic assumptions. except for the chinese one. i don't think they are anymore sneaky than anyone else.
the irish one is up in the air they do like to drink though.
There is no requirement that a stereotype be usually false. There is also no reason why stereotypes are inherently bad. Stereotypes can be bad, and can be used in a bad way.
A group of hispanics standing around outside of home depot is "stereotyped" as being a group of day laborers. This is what I would consider a "fair" stereotype in that it is generally true, and therefore a reasonable assumption. If a certain area knows that 95% (for example) of all day laborers are illegals, its reasonable to assume that at least one or two of the group may be here illegally.
The real question at issue in the hypothetical is: Did the cop think the group of hispanics were illegals because they appeared to be day laborers, and most day laborers are illegal, or did the cop think the were illegal because they were hispanic and he thought most hispanics were illegal.
Right, and the wording of the bill as it is presented allows either type of cop to regularly enforce the "law" as they see fit, one technically illegally, but with such a wide net allowed with "reasonable suspicion" to cause many false positives.
Not to mention for those that think it's not about racial profiling at all - do you honestly think they'll be dragging in a single person of Asian or European decent to check on their immigration status?
Only two groups stands out as a "probable cause" option from any type of evaluation that can be done quickly - hispanics and middle easterners/muslims.
Remember for something to be racial profiling, per the old Jim Crow rulings, it doesn't have to directly say it encourages targeting a group (or few groups) it can merely be the reality of the situation creating an environment that FOSTERS the ability to cause racial profiling - whether intentionally or not by the legislation - which seems a likely possibility that there will be some police that abuse their powers granted by this law.
Right, and the wording of the bill as it is presented allows either type of cop to regularly enforce the "law" as they see fit, one technically illegally, but with such a wide net allowed with "reasonable suspicion" to cause many false positives.
What you are failing to see(i think, I could be wrong), though, is that this doesn't make it a racist law. It makes it a law that can be applied in a racist manner. In such a case the law is constitutional unless it can be shown that as applied it actually is racist. The result being the cops have to actually be applying it in a racist manner for it to be overturned on those grounds.
To be honest I think its much more likely to be overturned (and in fact more insiduous) on grounds completely independent of race. Those grounds being that the local police force is usurping the power to enforce something it doesn't have the power to enforce. Local police are not INS agents. They are not trained to be INS agents. co-opting local police forces to perform this task is a problem.
Remember for something to be racial profiling, per the old Jim Crow rulings, it doesn't have to directly say it encourages targeting a group (or few groups) it can merely be the reality of the situation creating an environment that FOSTERS the ability to cause racial profiling - whether intentionally or not by the legislation - which seems a likely possibility that there will be some police that abuse their powers granted by this law.
Like I said above, though, is it has to actually create the racist application. "as applied" racism does invalidate laws, but they have to actually be applied in that manner -- not just have the possibility of being applied in a racist way. PLUS the racist application has to actually be racist. If 80% of the people "caught" under this law were hispanic that doesn't necessarily mean its racist. That would depend on what percentage of illegals in the area were hispanic.
Like I said above, though, is it has to actually create the racist application. "as applied" racism does invalidate laws, but they have to actually be applied in that manner -- not just have the possibility of being applied in a racist way. PLUS the racist application has to actually be racist. If 80% of the people "caught" under this law were hispanic that doesn't necessarily mean its racist. That would depend on what percentage of illegals in the area were hispanic.
The Jim Crow evaluations I'm reading all make statements including phrases like "creates an environment where the possibility of racist happenings is a likely potential outcome", etc.
Nothing that I see provides any indication that it has to actually have an abuse first to be overturned by the Jim Crow ruling.
Right. The "stolen jobs" argument is fairly weak considering that most people don't want to pick peaches or do menial labor. If anything the only "stolen jobs" are the ones that legal immigrants usually want, which makes illegals part of a free-rider problem. Of course, in that case we should work on closing the gap that makes such free-riding possible, rather than intensifying punishment against the free-riders themselves.
It's rather like trying to vaccum the water leaking from a bucket instead of patching up the hole.
EDIT: Also, this.
I am not as extreme as iRebel on immigration but thats bull☺☺☺☺. I live in a rural area where lot of legal citizens pick peaches for a job and don't mind it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern (I collect the format):
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron WDeath and Taxes WSoul Sisters RWG Pod Combo URSplinter Twin URStorm RBurn
I am not as extreme as iRebel on immigration but thats bull☺☺☺☺. I live in a rural area where lot of legal citizens pick peaches for a job and don't mind it.
When did I become "extreme" on immigration? One of my proposals (which was successfully refuted) could be classified as a bit out there, but the intent behind it -- curbing illegal immigration, is hardly extreme.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
When did I become "extreme" on immigration? One of my proposals (which was successfully refuted) could be classified as a bit out there, but the intent behind it -- curbing illegal immigration, is hardly extreme.
I don't mean extreme as in "extremist". I mean extreme as in over the top and impractical.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern (I collect the format):
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron WDeath and Taxes WSoul Sisters RWG Pod Combo URSplinter Twin URStorm RBurn
If things get bad enough, trust me, we will find people who will gladly do those jobs. There will be a loooong line, actually.
I believe this law is a step in the wrong direction insofar as it creates distrust between citizens and law enforcement. I believe it is also a step in the right direction insofar as it forces Washington to get off their duffs and do something to address.
As far as 'tidal wave of human rights abuses', I prefer to wait and see if that actually happens before blanket-assuming it will. Let's wait and see what actually occurs.
If feds are incapable of addressing this national security issue, I will let the states decide. If the Feds have a better way, they need to present it. Or just shut the hell up.
Does anyone find it ironic that "Mexicans" inhabited the Arizona area for about 300 years before we (U.S) kicked them out in the mid 1800's? Now we are writing laws criminalizing them for coming back to the same area? So we take their land by force, then we put them in jail for coming back?
I grew up in San Diego (about 20 miles from Mexico). I have been the victim of multiple crimes committed by illegal residents. My parents still live there and want nothing more than to kick them ALL back to Mexico. This does not make me an expert in immigration, but it does mean I know first hand some of the issues involved.
I'm not sure what the answer is? But I'm tired of people talking about them as "bastards" or other demeaning terms. If they still had the land they did 200 years ago, who's to say it wouldn't be us crossing their borders and getting put in jail.
I am not as extreme as iRebel on immigration but thats bull☺☺☺☺. I live in a rural area where lot of legal citizens pick peaches for a job and don't mind it.
Well, "a lot of legal citizens" in a rural area isn't all that many. I was speaking in terms of the whole population. Also there's the other side of the issue, which is that companies can get away with hiring illegals at substandard wages, thereby cutting the legal laborers out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Well, "a lot of legal citizens" in a rural area isn't all that many. I was speaking in terms of the whole population. Also there's the other side of the issue, which is that companies can get away with hiring illegals at substandard wages, thereby cutting the legal laborers out.
Not to mention I have serious doubts he went about carding every single person rather than just making a blanket assessment based on their skin or other criteria that involves a level of bias.
I've personally bumped into quite a few OBVIOUS, as in I've seen their lack of documentation when I've asked for it to be presented followed by no response to followups if they needed more time to get documentation, illegals in my day (go figure being that I did HR for a living) - and honestly, up here in Maryland and New England where I've done my work I've run across more Russians and Italians that didn't have their paperwork in order than hispanics.
Not to mention I have serious doubts he went about carding every single person rather than just making a blanket assessment based on their skin or other criteria that involves a level of bias.
I've personally bumped into quite a few OBVIOUS, as in I've seen their lack of documentation when I've asked for it to be presented followed by no response to followups if they needed more time to get documentation, illegals in my day (go figure being that I did HR for a living) - and honestly, up here in Maryland and New England where I've done my work I've run across more Russians and Italians that didn't have their paperwork in order than hispanics.
Why do you assume that I just saw them while driving by the road one day and thought "Hey they have white skin! They must be legal!". It seems like you are the one making the assumptions about here.
I went to school with these people, and yes they were legal citizens. One of my friends who recently left the military now works as a hotel maid. Another one of those jobs that has been wrongly labeled as jobs that "americans don't do anyways in general, and only illegals will do".
I also know some illegals and they are good people, but don't give me this "americans don't want to do those kind of jobs" bull☺☺☺☺. Or the "LOLZ you must have just assumed!!!" bull☺☺☺☺ either. I do take offense for being implicated as being racist, racial biased, or prejudiced.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern (I collect the format):
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron WDeath and Taxes WSoul Sisters RWG Pod Combo URSplinter Twin URStorm RBurn
Considering the first person I "caught" during those paperwork checks was during my days of managing a Babbage's over my college days - and it was someone I'd known for almost 11 years without knowing he was in the country illegally. (An Irish guy - didn't fit most of the Irish stereotypes though besides his freckles - to continue the story even further - after I "caught" him he claimed he didn't even know that his parents never told him he was a citizen or not and that he was going to take it up with them - he stopped talking to me after that though, never stopped by the store again, so no clue if it was an act or what [I didn't call INS on him or anything - just did the normal request for him to return with appropriate documentation to get his tax paperwork in order to hire])
Illegals don't wear signs saying "Hey, I'm here illegally" that make any sort of presumption easy to make, and considering how many slip through the cracks for years it's not exactly surprising that a few of the people you "know to be legal" might not be, because it's not a topic that comes up or that you actually have to investigate appropriately in normal conversation.
Hell, besides my wife - I've personally only seen my mothers Social Security card in my entire life outside of professional capacity asking for a SS card during an identification check for work.
Heck, even with the "in depth" level that documentation checks for work require compared to social contact - I'm sure there's likely at least one or two people that I hired over the years with documentation that looked legit and snuck past me considering that I've hired over 2000 people in my 20 years of management/HR work across my jobs and career. (And note, not a single person I "caught" over my years as an illegal would've set up any red flags for me to think they might be illegal - every single person I "caught" I was surprised by)
Unless you're doing documentation checks or more on every single person you know - which would be ridiculously bizarre by any standards of friendship I'm familiar with - all you're going on to assume those people were citizens was their word (or the word of their parents if you knew them since they were a tyke) - and not too many illegals that run their mouths about being illegal to casual acquaintances stay in the country for as long as I'm sure your school friends have.
So if this bill was written by a racist and seems to enable racial profiling and discrimination, does that make it racist even without any "racist" wording?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
There is a huge problem with this law and it's not simply racial profiling. It is the innocent until proven guilty basis for our legal system. We have now declared everyone who looks Latino guilty until they prove their innocence. This is completely against everything America should stand for. It also completely misses the point on a lot of the issues as well.
A group in Minnesota is now aiming for similar legislation, but guess what. 50% of the illegals in this state are from Africa, 27% from Asia and 10% from Latin America. That leaves 13%... Caucasians. If this law is a good idea, then it's better idea in this state to target white people than Latinos. The fact of the matter is singling out one minority doesn't really help you and it does make you act unethically.
Address the issue in a sensible manner, require employers to pay fines for violations. A big enough fine and it's not worth the risk financially to hire them. As for drug dealers, that's a completely different issue and good luck stopping them with drugs being illegal and in demand in the states. There is too much money to be made, you could line the border with a mile thick layer of mines and they'd still find a way across.
Securing the border is pretty much a fantasy unless you want to make it a budget item around the same level as NASA. There is a whole lot of open border and unless you close it all including the coasts and the skies at low altitude it will not be secure. You would need walls, armed guards, sentry guns, radar units... etc. Take a look as how much effort went into the Baja wall. Now imagine the cost around the entire country's border.
About the only change you'll see in Arizona is that the drug dealers in the area will be more hostile as they are unlikely to get away peacefully if pulled over and the passive illegals will just move to the next border state. You keep the dangerous ones, because there are still lots of people to sell drugs to.
Policy to control immigration needs to be smarter instead of simply removing civil liberties until we live in a police state.
Actually the law does address stiffer fines and punishments for businesses. Not that I am defending it, thats just not a good issue to have with the law.
Actually the law does address stiffer fines and punishments for businesses. Not that I am defending it, thats just not a good issue to have with the law.
Fair enough, it has not been apparent in anything I've read so far. The big question is whether or not the fines are large enough to compensate for the payoff of hiring below min wage. $1500 per illegal is probably less than a 10th of what you save hiring them. I'm just throwing out a number to make the point as I don't have the official amounts from the law.
Well here is the actual bill. So if you read it they actually have it so that if you are caught hiring illegals you can lose all of your licenses on the first go for 10 days if you have a history of illegal actions. On the second time you can lose all your licenses to operate your business.
For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately revoke the licenses.
Also they are forcing people who are caught hiring illegals into a probation of sorts where they have to hand in reports on who is working for them periodically.
Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
People really really need to read the actually bill. It's just idiotic to argue about it with only the knowledge that they have been receiving from the media ☺☺☺☺storm.
Here's the problem I have with this bill:
What do these bolded terms mean? They're too subjective. They need to be very clearly defined. Words lke 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause' can run a large spectrum, depending on who is enforcing it. Personally, I don't think a group of Hispanics standing outside of a home improvement store is 'reasonable suspicion' because that's a stereotype. It is not the law itself that is racist, but I think that some of the people enforcing this law will interpret 'reasonable suspicion' very loosely because the ENFORCER is racist.
I would be more okay if this law clearly explained what these terms mean, to try to eliminate SOME of the ambiguity behind the terms 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause'. Of course, people who are racist will take a looser interpretation, but at least this gives a more solid framework and less wiggle room from which to abuse this law.
I also have a problem with the non-warrant clause. I think this gives cops too much power. The cop can say a certain person broke the most ticky-tack law Arizona has (maybe like, I believe this person jaywalked! when really the cop may or may not have) just to have someone put in jail. That's not right.
I agree with the PREMISE that illegals shouldn't be here. They did not come through the system that they should have. However, I don't agree with this method proposed to enforce it. Personally, I think building a wall/electric fence/etc. would be a better idea if you really didn't want it. Even then, they'll find ways to get through.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5003941_pr...suspicion.html
these are the legal definitons and differences between the two terms.
under the definition of reasonable suspicion an officer cannot make any arrest. you can be detained but not arrested.
reasonable suspicion would be someone hanging out around a closed business at night. a cop can stop and ask them what they are doing but that is about it.
unless they do something that would lead into probably cause (IE run away) then there is nothing that the officer can arrest them for.
they can ask them to leave or what not or check their ID but that is about it.
it isn't a stereotype if it actually occurs.
unless they are shopping then they are loitering at best.
cops already have this power under probable cause please see the definition.
Probable cause is enough for a search or arrest warrant. It is also enough for a police officer to make an arrest if he sees a crime being committed
in order for that to happen you would have to be causing a major disruption in traffic. at most it is a ticket. if you are behaving irrationally then it could be more than that.
at most you get a fine for jay walking.
people are blowing this out of proportion and as usual i blame the media.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Actually no, not specifically. Although those groups made up a large portion of the immigrants. According to wiki:
So basically it ensured that those populations who were historically minorities stayed minorities.
The later act of 1924 was actually targeted at Asians specifically.
That's rather strawmannish. However, in the specific case of the Arizona law, a vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico or Latin America, so for people in the Southwest, "illegal immigrant" conjures up pictures of Mexicans or Latin Americans. And I agree with the point that the law itself is not "racist" per se, but leaves the door open for racial profiling and police powers that go beyond reasonable bounds. We can sit and chat and be academical about it, but as shown in the media illegal immigration is rather a hot button issue down there.
Some black people really do like fried chicken and cornbread. Some Irish really are alcoholics. Some Chinese really are sneaky. I suppose those aren't stereotypes either? (Blech.)
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
how are they stereotypes?
a stereotype is usually a generic assumption (usually false) about a specific group of people. those are kinda not generic assumptions. except for the chinese one. i don't think they are anymore sneaky than anyone else.
the irish one is up in the air they do like to drink though.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
There is no requirement that a stereotype be usually false. There is also no reason why stereotypes are inherently bad. Stereotypes can be bad, and can be used in a bad way.
A group of hispanics standing around outside of home depot is "stereotyped" as being a group of day laborers. This is what I would consider a "fair" stereotype in that it is generally true, and therefore a reasonable assumption. If a certain area knows that 95% (for example) of all day laborers are illegals, its reasonable to assume that at least one or two of the group may be here illegally.
The real question at issue in the hypothetical is: Did the cop think the group of hispanics were illegals because they appeared to be day laborers, and most day laborers are illegal, or did the cop think the were illegal because they were hispanic and he thought most hispanics were illegal.
One reasoning is racist, the other is not.
Right, and the wording of the bill as it is presented allows either type of cop to regularly enforce the "law" as they see fit, one technically illegally, but with such a wide net allowed with "reasonable suspicion" to cause many false positives.
Not to mention for those that think it's not about racial profiling at all - do you honestly think they'll be dragging in a single person of Asian or European decent to check on their immigration status?
Only two groups stands out as a "probable cause" option from any type of evaluation that can be done quickly - hispanics and middle easterners/muslims.
Remember for something to be racial profiling, per the old Jim Crow rulings, it doesn't have to directly say it encourages targeting a group (or few groups) it can merely be the reality of the situation creating an environment that FOSTERS the ability to cause racial profiling - whether intentionally or not by the legislation - which seems a likely possibility that there will be some police that abuse their powers granted by this law.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
What you are failing to see(i think, I could be wrong), though, is that this doesn't make it a racist law. It makes it a law that can be applied in a racist manner. In such a case the law is constitutional unless it can be shown that as applied it actually is racist. The result being the cops have to actually be applying it in a racist manner for it to be overturned on those grounds.
To be honest I think its much more likely to be overturned (and in fact more insiduous) on grounds completely independent of race. Those grounds being that the local police force is usurping the power to enforce something it doesn't have the power to enforce. Local police are not INS agents. They are not trained to be INS agents. co-opting local police forces to perform this task is a problem.
Like I said above, though, is it has to actually create the racist application. "as applied" racism does invalidate laws, but they have to actually be applied in that manner -- not just have the possibility of being applied in a racist way. PLUS the racist application has to actually be racist. If 80% of the people "caught" under this law were hispanic that doesn't necessarily mean its racist. That would depend on what percentage of illegals in the area were hispanic.
The Jim Crow evaluations I'm reading all make statements including phrases like "creates an environment where the possibility of racist happenings is a likely potential outcome", etc.
Nothing that I see provides any indication that it has to actually have an abuse first to be overturned by the Jim Crow ruling.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
When did I become "extreme" on immigration? One of my proposals (which was successfully refuted) could be classified as a bit out there, but the intent behind it -- curbing illegal immigration, is hardly extreme.
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
I believe this law is a step in the wrong direction insofar as it creates distrust between citizens and law enforcement. I believe it is also a step in the right direction insofar as it forces Washington to get off their duffs and do something to address.
As far as 'tidal wave of human rights abuses', I prefer to wait and see if that actually happens before blanket-assuming it will. Let's wait and see what actually occurs.
If feds are incapable of addressing this national security issue, I will let the states decide. If the Feds have a better way, they need to present it. Or just shut the hell up.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
I grew up in San Diego (about 20 miles from Mexico). I have been the victim of multiple crimes committed by illegal residents. My parents still live there and want nothing more than to kick them ALL back to Mexico. This does not make me an expert in immigration, but it does mean I know first hand some of the issues involved.
I'm not sure what the answer is? But I'm tired of people talking about them as "bastards" or other demeaning terms. If they still had the land they did 200 years ago, who's to say it wouldn't be us crossing their borders and getting put in jail.
Well, "a lot of legal citizens" in a rural area isn't all that many. I was speaking in terms of the whole population. Also there's the other side of the issue, which is that companies can get away with hiring illegals at substandard wages, thereby cutting the legal laborers out.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Not to mention I have serious doubts he went about carding every single person rather than just making a blanket assessment based on their skin or other criteria that involves a level of bias.
I've personally bumped into quite a few OBVIOUS, as in I've seen their lack of documentation when I've asked for it to be presented followed by no response to followups if they needed more time to get documentation, illegals in my day (go figure being that I did HR for a living) - and honestly, up here in Maryland and New England where I've done my work I've run across more Russians and Italians that didn't have their paperwork in order than hispanics.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I went to school with these people, and yes they were legal citizens. One of my friends who recently left the military now works as a hotel maid. Another one of those jobs that has been wrongly labeled as jobs that "americans don't do anyways in general, and only illegals will do".
I also know some illegals and they are good people, but don't give me this "americans don't want to do those kind of jobs" bull☺☺☺☺. Or the "LOLZ you must have just assumed!!!" bull☺☺☺☺ either. I do take offense for being implicated as being racist, racial biased, or prejudiced.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Illegals don't wear signs saying "Hey, I'm here illegally" that make any sort of presumption easy to make, and considering how many slip through the cracks for years it's not exactly surprising that a few of the people you "know to be legal" might not be, because it's not a topic that comes up or that you actually have to investigate appropriately in normal conversation.
Hell, besides my wife - I've personally only seen my mothers Social Security card in my entire life outside of professional capacity asking for a SS card during an identification check for work.
Heck, even with the "in depth" level that documentation checks for work require compared to social contact - I'm sure there's likely at least one or two people that I hired over the years with documentation that looked legit and snuck past me considering that I've hired over 2000 people in my 20 years of management/HR work across my jobs and career. (And note, not a single person I "caught" over my years as an illegal would've set up any red flags for me to think they might be illegal - every single person I "caught" I was surprised by)
Unless you're doing documentation checks or more on every single person you know - which would be ridiculously bizarre by any standards of friendship I'm familiar with - all you're going on to assume those people were citizens was their word (or the word of their parents if you knew them since they were a tyke) - and not too many illegals that run their mouths about being illegal to casual acquaintances stay in the country for as long as I'm sure your school friends have.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36249_Video-_The_White_Supremacist_Roots_of_Arizonas_Immigration_Law
It's worth the watch.
So if this bill was written by a racist and seems to enable racial profiling and discrimination, does that make it racist even without any "racist" wording?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Like smashing face? Like not worrying about pitiful tokens or life gain? Check out Stonebrow, Krosan Hero for all your face smashing needs
A group in Minnesota is now aiming for similar legislation, but guess what. 50% of the illegals in this state are from Africa, 27% from Asia and 10% from Latin America. That leaves 13%... Caucasians. If this law is a good idea, then it's better idea in this state to target white people than Latinos. The fact of the matter is singling out one minority doesn't really help you and it does make you act unethically.
Address the issue in a sensible manner, require employers to pay fines for violations. A big enough fine and it's not worth the risk financially to hire them. As for drug dealers, that's a completely different issue and good luck stopping them with drugs being illegal and in demand in the states. There is too much money to be made, you could line the border with a mile thick layer of mines and they'd still find a way across.
Securing the border is pretty much a fantasy unless you want to make it a budget item around the same level as NASA. There is a whole lot of open border and unless you close it all including the coasts and the skies at low altitude it will not be secure. You would need walls, armed guards, sentry guns, radar units... etc. Take a look as how much effort went into the Baja wall. Now imagine the cost around the entire country's border.
About the only change you'll see in Arizona is that the drug dealers in the area will be more hostile as they are unlikely to get away peacefully if pulled over and the passive illegals will just move to the next border state. You keep the dangerous ones, because there are still lots of people to sell drugs to.
Policy to control immigration needs to be smarter instead of simply removing civil liberties until we live in a police state.
Like smashing face? Like not worrying about pitiful tokens or life gain? Check out Stonebrow, Krosan Hero for all your face smashing needs
What makes you think your sample size is good enough? Did you go around and ask every US citizen if they would be willing to do certian jobs?
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
Fair enough, it has not been apparent in anything I've read so far. The big question is whether or not the fines are large enough to compensate for the payoff of hiring below min wage. $1500 per illegal is probably less than a 10th of what you save hiring them. I'm just throwing out a number to make the point as I don't have the official amounts from the law.
Also they are forcing people who are caught hiring illegals into a probation of sorts where they have to hand in reports on who is working for them periodically.
People really really need to read the actually bill. It's just idiotic to argue about it with only the knowledge that they have been receiving from the media ☺☺☺☺storm.
Like smashing face? Like not worrying about pitiful tokens or life gain? Check out Stonebrow, Krosan Hero for all your face smashing needs