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?
Do you travel much? For the hotel maid example, I couldn't tell you who's legal or not - but for my past 15 years of travel almost every maid I've bumped into has been East European or Latino. [the two biggest groups of illegals nationally - far more East Europeans in my experience though, god I wish my wife had their type of accents, those accents drive me crazy (Its where her genetics comes from too, but 3 generations here killed any accent her family had)]
And this includes stints of 2-3 months living in a hotel while assisting on the HR load for opening a location, etc.
Sure, some places like the middle of nowhere Iowa likely do have spots where all the jobs are covered by "likely legal" looking folks - but considering those areas make up a drastic minority of the US population it's indicative of next to nothing.
I could run around in Oklahoma and likely find most of the people doing low pay work are American Indians, because that's how the population there is skewed - just like I know the same happens in the neighboring Nevada.
Local inconsistencies doesn't mean an issue doesn't exist on a national scale - it just means in whatever small town you're from the issue is a non-factor.
Do you travel much? For the hotel maid example, I couldn't tell you who's legal or not - but for my past 15 years of travel almost every maid I've bumped into has been East European or Latino. [the two biggest groups of illegals nationally - far more East Europeans in my experience though, god I wish my wife had their type of accents, those accents drive me crazy (Its where her genetics comes from too, but 3 generations here killed any accent her family had)]
And this includes stints of 2-3 months living in a hotel while assisting on the HR load for opening a location, etc.
Sure, some places like the middle of nowhere Iowa likely do have spots where all the jobs are covered by "likely legal" looking folks - but considering those areas make up a drastic minority of the US population it's indicative of next to nothing.
I could run around in Oklahoma and likely find most of the people doing low pay work are American Indians, because that's how the population there is skewed - just like I know the same happens in the neighboring Nevada.
Local inconsistencies doesn't mean an issue doesn't exist on a national scale - it just means in whatever small town you're from the issue is a non-factor.
Correct me if I'm wrong here (and I could be) -- but weren't you getting on his case for assuming things? And, aren't you just assuming that the hotel maids you saw in your many travels are illegal immigrants? Keep in mind, if they are here legally then your whole argument is sunk since the job would, by definition, be one that Americans were willing to perform.
Do you travel much? For the hotel maid example, I couldn't tell you who's legal or not - but for my past 15 years of travel almost every maid I've bumped into has been East European or Latino. [the two biggest groups of illegals nationally - far more East Europeans in my experience though, god I wish my wife had their type of accents, those accents drive me crazy (Its where her genetics comes from too, but 3 generations here killed any accent her family had)]
And this includes stints of 2-3 months living in a hotel while assisting on the HR load for opening a location, etc.
Sure, some places like the middle of nowhere Iowa likely do have spots where all the jobs are covered by "likely legal" looking folks - but considering those areas make up a drastic minority of the US population it's indicative of next to nothing.
I could run around in Oklahoma and likely find most of the people doing low pay work are American Indians, because that's how the population there is skewed - just like I know the same happens in the neighboring Nevada.
Local inconsistencies doesn't mean an issue doesn't exist on a national scale - it just means in whatever small town you're from the issue is a non-factor.
I have lived in alot of places (my family has moved around alot).
Combine all those smalle places together and you do have a good size of the population. Besides I have also lived in cities (atlanta) and found plenty of legals that worked those same jobs. Sure there are lots of illegals doing those jobs, but there are lots of legal citizens going them to.
Correct me if I'm wrong here (and I could be) -- but weren't you getting on his case for assuming things? And, aren't you just assuming that the hotel maids you saw in your many travels are illegal immigrants? Keep in mind, if they are here legally then your whole argument is sunk since the job would, by definition, be one that Americans were willing to perform.
I am glad someone else pointed out all the inconsistancies floating around in here.
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
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.
Thanks, while I agree reading the bill is useful. The furor over the ID laws is certainly justifiable. Cracking down on business should be more than sufficient to cut down on illegals. However, it will still not have the desired effect on violent crime and drug smuggling as that is another issue entirely.
You have group A which is largely people crossing the border for work and a better lifestyle. Illegal yes, but not likely to add much to the violent crime and drug issue. Then you have group B which consists of drug smugglers, people traffickers and other violent criminals. They do not typically cross the border looking to do low wage manual labor. Group B will by and large be unaffected by the new laws. Group B is who is really causing the worst of the problems. Group A is likely to suffer the most by the new laws. Yes, they broke the law, but persecution is not how America should solve the issue.
Turn off the free money and low wage labor, provide worker visa's so they can pay taxes if they want to come and work. Undocumented labor hurts all workers and erodes our quality of life. The easiest solution is documentation, provide legal methods to cross the border to work without getting US citizenship. Amnesty is no solution because is does nothing to solve issues of those coming in the future.
Also group B is likely to respond with more violence toward law enforcement which will make law enforcement step up the game on group A and they will be many cases of excessive force if this law stays on the books long. Latino decent citizens are still citizens yet they will be targeted.
Basically there is no real gain in the ID part of the bill, and we give up a decent chunk of civil liberty and likely incite violence.
Oh I have many problems with the bill. I also don't have a problem with the amount of media coverage it has been getting. I simply have a problem (and it doesn't apply just to this) when people don't take the the time read a 20 page bill and use bits and pieces from the media coverage of the issue. Its not a problem I personally have with you, its just not very hard to take the specific lines from the bill if you want to talk about them.
Correct me if I'm wrong here (and I could be) -- but weren't you getting on his case for assuming things? And, aren't you just assuming that the hotel maids you saw in your many travels are illegal immigrants? Keep in mind, if they are here legally then your whole argument is sunk since the job would, by definition, be one that Americans were willing to perform.
Yes, thus the entire "I couldn't tell you who was legal or not" part of my statement. Just that they fit into the potential demographics.
There's no inconsistency in pointing out that there's little question that the type of career in question has a level of appeal to those of those backgrounds - whether or not they're legal, I don't know (omigosh I said it again - wonder if it'll get missed this time with twice in one post) - but there's not really much room to debate that the type of work doesn't appeal to "immigrant" groups, there is room to question is what type of immigrants they fall under however. [legal/illegal/temporary]
Quote from unkyunk »
Combine all those smalle places together and you do have a good size of the population. Besides I have also lived in cities (atlanta) and found plenty of legals that worked those same jobs. Sure there are lots of illegals doing those jobs, but there are lots of legal citizens going them to.
Atlanta as a "city" is a relatively low immigration area you do realize, right?
Most immigrants come through a very limited number of states - Florida, the southern border, California, Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York.
It's not surprising at all that the demographics in areas that are distant from the "coming over" points are going to be less skewed by immigration - similarly those positions in distant areas tend to be better paid as well since there's less supply for workers creating a need for higher wages to attract employees. (HR101 for determining base wages for offers is very much supply/demand based)
Not to mention - once again how do you know those illegals were illegal and those legals were legal? X-ray vision? Did you check their ID? Or were you just presuming/presuming they were telling you the truth? [I'd bet pennies to pesos it was option C]
Quote from Jetfire911 »
Basically there is no real gain in the ID part of the bill, and we give up a decent chunk of civil liberty and likely incite violence.
Right, especially since under the civil protections given to us by the Federal Government we have the right to refuse to prove our identity to a police officer, unless we are under reasonable suspicion to have been directly involved in committing a crime.
Quote from Partisan »
Oh I have many problems with the bill. I also don't have a problem with the amount of media coverage it has been getting. I simply have a problem (and it doesn't apply just to this) when people don't take the the time read a 20 page bill and use bits and pieces from the media coverage of the issue. Its not a problem I personally have with you, its just not very hard to take the specific lines from the bill if you want to talk about them
Well, to be fair most of the bill makes sense - but the neon "What the heck were they thinking" sign goes off for only a couple points which are really quite glaring.
If you make a bill that's perfect with a small page hidden in the corner making it no longer a crime to eat the flesh of babies on Thursdays, I'm pretty sure you would only be hearing about the small subsection that is wrong in that case as well.
The intent of the bill is well and good, just the "how" on a few points are very questionable in nature.
Well you were not but another poster was. I was refering to that poster. As for the sample size I must then ask you...
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?
You don't have to; labor statistics and average wages can tell most of the story. If not many people do the job and the wages are low, then not many people are willing to do the job.
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.
Ah, but if that $1500 goes toward (variously) visa applications and the border security budget... it's a pretty tight noose.
I think that a punishment against employers that also works to document illegals and get them on worker's visas is necessary, because otherwise you'll just see a lot of people dumping their illegals and large groups of unemployed people aren't good to have around.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
You don't have to; labor statistics and average wages can tell most of the story. If not many people do the job and the wages are low, then not many people are willing to do the job.
But even that doesn't tell the whole picture. Other factors, such as the availability of low cost illegal labor, can also result in the wages being low (as in -- lower than minimum wage). Obviously thats not always the case, but the mere fact that few people do it and the people who do get paid low amounts is in no way dispositive that most Americans aren't willing to do the job.
But even that doesn't tell the whole picture. Other factors, such as the availability of low cost illegal labor, can also result in the wages being low (as in -- lower than minimum wage). Obviously thats not always the case, but the mere fact that few people do it and the people who do get paid low amounts is in no way dispositive that most Americans aren't willing to do the job.
For 30+ year old adults that are doing a career for their entire life (also disregard those on Social Security supplementing their income - since for them going over $1k/mo [circa 2006] in earnings impacts their SS numbers at a terrible ratio of $1 lost for every $2 earned at the job, effectively halving their salary past $1k/mo) , there's very few citizens that look at a $10-20k/year (assuming full time and most of those "careers" are part time!) job with negligible, if any, benefits and think "Wow, that's what I want to do for the rest of my life".
Yes, some people get screwed into those types of jobs being the best available to them - but for the other (insert made up large percentage here)% of citizens of these shores even low-end careers like a full time adult grocery clerk is generally expected to make $30k/year starting, scaling up to $45k/year with 10 years of service. [And even more in more specialized parts of the grocery world that require some level of actual talent to produce meaningful results for - produce and meats especially]
And of course, there's always people that "want to get their foot in the door" that work under what they want to try to leverage an easier step up into the position they really want that will sometimes work under their level TEMPORARILY. [i.e. someone finishing up a hotel management education working as a hotel maid for terrible wages, but with an "in" to keep an eye on openings and a more likely chance of having their resume land closer to the top of the list as a result of them already working within the company (Note: If I ever do HR again, and you're looking for a management position with my company - don't play that game with me - works many places, but I look down on anyone who takes a position planning to leave it for another position, even when it's still within my own ranks)]
So what does everyone think? Will Washington attempt to pass a bill during an election year? Personally I think that this law will stick for quite a while. It will probably be challenged in court but I don't think it will be overturned.
I will admit that I haven't read the entire bill...but I have scimmed it. From my understanding...officers must have probably cause to ask someone for their ID / Citizenship. How is this any different than a Cop stopping anyone else in any other part of the country. When I was younger...I was part of a group hanging outside of a movie theatre after hours...after watching a movie. A Cop approached us, asked what we were doing, and then asked for our ID. We were just sitting there talking minding our own business. Once we showed our IDs he verified that we weren't doing anything illegal and he went on his way.
My question is...how is the above any different from what the Cops are now allowed to do in Arizona...from what they were allowed to do before?
If a suspect can't produce an ID and found to be an illegal...why should he/she not be treated like a criminal? It is in fact a criminal offense...even prior to this bill being passed. Several of the organizations are crying foul over that clause. It was already illegal to be here illegally. I am just failing to see what this bill does that is so wrong and evil...?
I will admit that I haven't read the entire bill...but I have scimmed it. From my understanding...officers must have probably cause to ask someone for their ID / Citizenship. How is this any different than a Cop stopping anyone else in any other part of the country. When I was younger...I was part of a group hanging outside of a movie theatre after hours...after watching a movie. A Cop approached us, asked what we were doing, and then asked for our ID. We were just sitting there talking minding our own business. Once we showed our IDs he verified that we weren't doing anything illegal and he went on his way.
Psst - what that cop did was illegal if he pressured you to show your IDs after you had stated that you'd rather not. And refusal to show ID at a polite request isn't considered probable cause to allow grounds for an arrest - the most an officer can obligate you to do under a "hanging out" circumstance is to ask you to stop loitering.
Demanding ID (and enforcing that demand by arrest if refused) follows pretty similar legal stipulations as there is to get a warrant to search someone - without probable cause, real or manufactured - a cop that goes around actively searching people just because "he thinks they might be up to no good" is doomed to have a very short career.
Even when you are obligated to show ID a verbal identification that they can verify is perfectly legal under all legal circumstances besides those that involve holding an appropriate license for an activity. (Notably driving - but some other non-driven heavy equipment requires similar licensing to be at hand as well)
For 30+ year old adults that are doing a career for their entire life (also disregard those on Social Security supplementing their income - since for them going over $1k/mo [circa 2006] in earnings impacts their SS numbers at a terrible ratio of $1 lost for every $2 earned at the job, effectively halving their salary past $1k/mo) , there's very few citizens that look at a $10-20k/year (assuming full time and most of those "careers" are part time!) job with negligible, if any, benefits and think "Wow, that's what I want to do for the rest of my life".
Yes, some people get screwed into those types of jobs being the best available to them - but for the other (insert made up large percentage here)% of citizens of these shores even low-end careers like a full time adult grocery clerk is generally expected to make $30k/year starting, scaling up to $45k/year with 10 years of service. [And even more in more specialized parts of the grocery world that require some level of actual talent to produce meaningful results for - produce and meats especially]
1st -- What the hell kind of grocery store are you working at where you can make 30K a year working the till? 10.00/hr * 40 Hr's per week * 52 weeks per year = $20,800, and thats assuming no vacation or sick time.
2nd -- You haven't really said anything here. You've made up a bunch of stuff (hell, you admitted you made it up) and then pointed to that as your evidence.
3rd -- you are conflating eagerness to do a job with willingness to do a job (see bolded portion.) they are not the same thing. When I was in college I worked in a dish room scrubbing dishes for $6.00 an hour. I didn't want to do it. I was willing to do it.
nobody has ever said Americans want to perform these jobs. Hell I bet most illegal immigrants don't want to do the job. They aren't chomping at the bit for an exciting career in hotel cleaning. But its the best option they have available, so they are willing to do it. Americans would also be willing to do it. Especially given that the pay rate would increase to at least minimum wage if the illegal workforce wasn't there.
Psst - what that cop did was illegal if he pressured you to show your IDs after you had stated that you'd rather not. And refusal to show ID at a polite request isn't considered probable cause to allow grounds for an arrest - the most an officer can obligate you to do under a "hanging out" circumstance is to ask you to stop loitering.
Demanding ID (and enforcing that demand by arrest if refused) follows pretty similar legal stipulations as there is to get a warrant to search someone - without probable cause, real or manufactured - a cop that goes around actively searching people just because "he thinks they might be up to no good" is doomed to have a very short career.
Even when you are obligated to show ID a verbal identification that they can verify is perfectly legal under all legal circumstances besides those that involve holding an appropriate license for an activity. (Notably driving - but some other non-driven heavy equipment requires similar licensing to be at hand as well)
Know your rights, people.
psst -- I hear handing out legal advice is a bad idea, especially if you have no particular training in that area.
im not claiming to be an expert, but when they say "with probable cause the police officer can ask for identification," doesnt that give the officer the right to ask someone who they think might be an illegal immigrant for ID because the probable cause would be that they could be in fact an ILLEGAL immigrant? It seems to me like its circular thinking. I see a hispanic person, i think they could be illegal, therefore i have probably cause to ask for ID because if they are ILLEGAL than they are breaking the law already?
Psst - what that cop did was illegal if he pressured you to show your IDs after you had stated that you'd rather not. And refusal to show ID at a polite request isn't considered probable cause to allow grounds for an arrest - the most an officer can obligate you to do under a "hanging out" circumstance is to ask you to stop loitering.
Demanding ID (and enforcing that demand by arrest if refused) follows pretty similar legal stipulations as there is to get a warrant to search someone - without probable cause, real or manufactured - a cop that goes around actively searching people just because "he thinks they might be up to no good" is doomed to have a very short career.
Even when you are obligated to show ID a verbal identification that they can verify is perfectly legal under all legal circumstances besides those that involve holding an appropriate license for an activity. (Notably driving - but some other non-driven heavy equipment requires similar licensing to be at hand as well)
Know your rights, people.
It seems like I left out a valuable piece of information from my senerio. In Florida if you are 17 years old or younger there is a curfew. We all happen to be 18 at the time...so this didn't affect us. I felt that it was well within the rights of the Cop to make sure that we were of age.
Psst - what that cop did was illegal if he pressured you to show your IDs after you had stated that you'd rather not. And refusal to show ID at a polite request isn't considered probable cause to allow grounds for an arrest - the most an officer can obligate you to do under a "hanging out" circumstance is to ask you to stop loitering.
He didn't say anything about being pressured. even so the cop has every right to verify anyone that he stops.
actually it can be. the cop can detain you as long as needed to verify who you are.
Demanding ID (and enforcing that demand by arrest if refused) follows pretty similar legal stipulations as there is to get a warrant to search someone - without probable cause, real or manufactured - a cop that goes around actively searching people just because "he thinks they might be up to no good" is doomed to have a very short career.
no one said he searched anyone. there is a thing called reasonable suspision. which means that he can detain and verify who you are.
that can lead into probable cause if needed.
in this case it didn't.
Even when you are obligated to show ID a verbal identification that they can verify is perfectly legal under all legal circumstances besides those that involve holding an appropriate license for an activity. (Notably driving - but some other non-driven heavy equipment requires similar licensing to be at hand as well)
most cops won't take a verbal identification since there is no way to back that up. more so if they are a teenage without ID.
Know your rights, people.
better to know the laws.
doesnt that give the officer the right to ask someone who they think might be an illegal immigrant for ID because the probable cause would be that they could be in fact an ILLEGAL immigrant?
no there has to be enough evidence beyond him looking at you.
there has to be enough reasoning that he would pull someone else over as well
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
I think the question everyone needs to ask themselves is this; will this law effect Hispanic legal citizens more than white legal citizens? If you have to admit that one race will be affected more, chances are the law is racist.
(and I'm not talking about it affecting them more because of population differences or something like that, I'm talking about everything being equal, legal citizens of one race will be affected more)
So what does everyone think? Will Washington attempt to pass a bill during an election year? Personally I think that this law will stick for quite a while. It will probably be challenged in court but I don't think it will be overturned.
I will admit that I haven't read the entire bill...but I have scimmed it. From my understanding...officers must have probably cause to ask someone for their ID / Citizenship. How is this any different than a Cop stopping anyone else in any other part of the country. When I was younger...I was part of a group hanging outside of a movie theatre after hours...after watching a movie. A Cop approached us, asked what we were doing, and then asked for our ID. We were just sitting there talking minding our own business. Once we showed our IDs he verified that we weren't doing anything illegal and he went on his way.
As we discussed earlier in the thread, it's not probable cause, it's reasonable suspicion, which is a significantly lower standard. Further, it's required at any lawful encounter. A lawful encounter could be something like what you describe, but it could also be if you're reporting a crime. It could be if they're responding to a 911 call from your residence. It's basically any contact you have with a police office, if they have a reasonable suspicion that you're not legal, they are obligated to investigate that, and detain you if you can't prove that you're legal.
So, the objection I have is what constitutes a reasonable suspicion? How do you tell that someone is illegal? I have yet to hear any answers to that that aren't racial profiling and stereotyping. The governor said as she signed the bill that she didn't know how to tell if someone is illegal. It seems to me that this law is just a way to mandate that police engage in racial profiling and witch-hunting at all times.
will this law effect Hispanic legal citizens more than white legal citizens? If you have to admit that one race will be affected more, chances are the law is racist.
wrong again this law does not target hispanics. it targets anyone that is an illegal in that state. while a large cross section of them are hispanics the law it's does not target them anymore than the current federal laws already target them. this law basically backs up the federal law only on the state level.
It's basically any contact you have with a police office, if they have a reasonable suspicion that you're not legal, they are obligated to investigate that, and detain you if you can't prove that you're legal.
42 of the states require that you carry some form of ID on you. this is nothing out of the ordinary that police officers don't do on a regular basis anyway.
It seems to me that this law is just a way to mandate that police engage in racial profiling and witch-hunting at all times.
sorry but this is not the case and the law itself strictly forbids racial profiling. It completely bars officers from considering race as the only evidence needed to check for legal status.
if you had actually read the bill then you would have known this.
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
wrong again this law does not target hispanics. it targets anyone that is an illegal in that state. while a large cross section of them are hispanics the law it's does not target them anymore than the current federal laws already target them. this law basically backs up the federal law only on the state level.
/facepalm
What I said is whether it would affect legal hispanics more than whites. I know you would love to believe there is a magic way to tell if someone is illegal without ever infringing on the rights of legal citizens, but the fact is, this law will lead to the violation of the rights of hispanics along the way to catching illegals, making it a racist law. I'm not sure why you felt the need to post what the law is intended to do. We are talking about the consequences of this law, and how it could lead to the violation of rights based on race.
What I said is whether it would affect legal hispanics more than whites. I know you would love to believe there is a magic way to tell if someone is illegal without ever infringing on the rights of legal citizens, but the fact is, this law will lead to the violation of the rights of hispanics along the way to catching illegals, making it a racist law. I'm not sure why you felt the need to post what the law is intended to do. We are talking about the consequences of this law, and how it could lead to the violation of rights based on race.
the only time you are going to be pulled over and asked is if you were to be pulled over anyway.
The cops have to have something other than your skin color (this is in the bill) in order to question your status.
If you are a speeding and a cop pulls you over he is going to ask for your drivers license. he can also ask for the licenses of anyone else in the car as well.
if you are walking down the street there is not enough reasonable suspicion to pull you over.
if you are hanging out in front of a home depot store and not shopping then yea he can ask you what you are doing and ask for some identification.
if you are riding in the back of a truck etc...
he would follow normal procedures just as dealing with anyone else. the only people that are going to have a problem are those that do not have or carry documentation on them. 42 states require that you carry some form of ID and i think AZ is one of them.
there is nothing racist in this bill and there is no evidence to support it. even the bill itself says that racial profiling is illegal, and that there has to be other evidence to support the inquiry.
so far the only people against this bill are pro-amnesty people. in fact the Gov. of AZ popularity jumped 16% when she signed this bill.
other states across the border are now demanding similar legislation. In fact about 10 other states are looking at the same type of legislation.
Actually there are only 24 states which require to you have identification on you when stopped by a police officer. So even if for some reason 42 states require you to have ID on you only in 24 do you have to produce said ID. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
I love how mystery is of the view that the best way to tell who is illegal is to think up comedic stereotypes of hispanics, and then start looking for them.
So even if for some reason 42 states require you to have ID on you only in 24 do you have to produce said ID.
I didn't say anything of producing ID i send 42 states require that you have ID on you. more so if you are driving a car.
I love how mystery is of the view that the best way to tell who is illegal is to think up comedic stereotypes of hispanics, and then start looking for them.
there is nothing comic about it seeing how it happens in real life. i can't tell you how many times on construction sites i was on i would see a truck or a van pull up with mexicans in it (none of them could speak english or very little) they were paid in cash as was the person driving them around and when they were done they would leave.
i worked temporarly with a guy that use to hire out illegals. why? because he couldn't afford to pay real workers because all the other guys used illegals that did it for half of what it cost him.
he quit using them do to other reasons i think now he is out of business not enough houses being built.
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
All the 50 of states can require me to carry ID but if they do not require me to produce it whats the point? I can't find anywhere a law that says you have to carry around an ID and I challenge you to do so. In fact almost everything that I have been finding says that you do not. States can make it a crime to not identify yourself to the police (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada,) but they cannot make you carry around id. In fact the law in that case as is the case for several case was satisfied with simply stating your name. I am going to guess 50/50 states require identification when driving a car since you know we have drivers licenses.
Do you travel much? For the hotel maid example, I couldn't tell you who's legal or not - but for my past 15 years of travel almost every maid I've bumped into has been East European or Latino. [the two biggest groups of illegals nationally - far more East Europeans in my experience though, god I wish my wife had their type of accents, those accents drive me crazy (Its where her genetics comes from too, but 3 generations here killed any accent her family had)]
And this includes stints of 2-3 months living in a hotel while assisting on the HR load for opening a location, etc.
Sure, some places like the middle of nowhere Iowa likely do have spots where all the jobs are covered by "likely legal" looking folks - but considering those areas make up a drastic minority of the US population it's indicative of next to nothing.
I could run around in Oklahoma and likely find most of the people doing low pay work are American Indians, because that's how the population there is skewed - just like I know the same happens in the neighboring Nevada.
Local inconsistencies doesn't mean an issue doesn't exist on a national scale - it just means in whatever small town you're from the issue is a non-factor.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Correct me if I'm wrong here (and I could be) -- but weren't you getting on his case for assuming things? And, aren't you just assuming that the hotel maids you saw in your many travels are illegal immigrants? Keep in mind, if they are here legally then your whole argument is sunk since the job would, by definition, be one that Americans were willing to perform.
Combine all those smalle places together and you do have a good size of the population. Besides I have also lived in cities (atlanta) and found plenty of legals that worked those same jobs. Sure there are lots of illegals doing those jobs, but there are lots of legal citizens going them to.
I am glad someone else pointed out all the inconsistancies floating around in here.
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
Thanks, while I agree reading the bill is useful. The furor over the ID laws is certainly justifiable. Cracking down on business should be more than sufficient to cut down on illegals. However, it will still not have the desired effect on violent crime and drug smuggling as that is another issue entirely.
You have group A which is largely people crossing the border for work and a better lifestyle. Illegal yes, but not likely to add much to the violent crime and drug issue. Then you have group B which consists of drug smugglers, people traffickers and other violent criminals. They do not typically cross the border looking to do low wage manual labor. Group B will by and large be unaffected by the new laws. Group B is who is really causing the worst of the problems. Group A is likely to suffer the most by the new laws. Yes, they broke the law, but persecution is not how America should solve the issue.
Turn off the free money and low wage labor, provide worker visa's so they can pay taxes if they want to come and work. Undocumented labor hurts all workers and erodes our quality of life. The easiest solution is documentation, provide legal methods to cross the border to work without getting US citizenship. Amnesty is no solution because is does nothing to solve issues of those coming in the future.
Also group B is likely to respond with more violence toward law enforcement which will make law enforcement step up the game on group A and they will be many cases of excessive force if this law stays on the books long. Latino decent citizens are still citizens yet they will be targeted.
Basically there is no real gain in the ID part of the bill, and we give up a decent chunk of civil liberty and likely incite violence.
Like smashing face? Like not worrying about pitiful tokens or life gain? Check out Stonebrow, Krosan Hero for all your face smashing needs
Yes, thus the entire "I couldn't tell you who was legal or not" part of my statement. Just that they fit into the potential demographics.
There's no inconsistency in pointing out that there's little question that the type of career in question has a level of appeal to those of those backgrounds - whether or not they're legal, I don't know (omigosh I said it again - wonder if it'll get missed this time with twice in one post) - but there's not really much room to debate that the type of work doesn't appeal to "immigrant" groups, there is room to question is what type of immigrants they fall under however. [legal/illegal/temporary]
Atlanta as a "city" is a relatively low immigration area you do realize, right?
Most immigrants come through a very limited number of states - Florida, the southern border, California, Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York.
It's not surprising at all that the demographics in areas that are distant from the "coming over" points are going to be less skewed by immigration - similarly those positions in distant areas tend to be better paid as well since there's less supply for workers creating a need for higher wages to attract employees. (HR101 for determining base wages for offers is very much supply/demand based)
Not to mention - once again how do you know those illegals were illegal and those legals were legal? X-ray vision? Did you check their ID? Or were you just presuming/presuming they were telling you the truth? [I'd bet pennies to pesos it was option C]
Right, especially since under the civil protections given to us by the Federal Government we have the right to refuse to prove our identity to a police officer, unless we are under reasonable suspicion to have been directly involved in committing a crime.
Well, to be fair most of the bill makes sense - but the neon "What the heck were they thinking" sign goes off for only a couple points which are really quite glaring.
If you make a bill that's perfect with a small page hidden in the corner making it no longer a crime to eat the flesh of babies on Thursdays, I'm pretty sure you would only be hearing about the small subsection that is wrong in that case as well.
The intent of the bill is well and good, just the "how" on a few points are very questionable in nature.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
You don't have to; labor statistics and average wages can tell most of the story. If not many people do the job and the wages are low, then not many people are willing to do the job.
Ah, but if that $1500 goes toward (variously) visa applications and the border security budget... it's a pretty tight noose.
I think that a punishment against employers that also works to document illegals and get them on worker's visas is necessary, because otherwise you'll just see a lot of people dumping their illegals and large groups of unemployed people aren't good to have around.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
But even that doesn't tell the whole picture. Other factors, such as the availability of low cost illegal labor, can also result in the wages being low (as in -- lower than minimum wage). Obviously thats not always the case, but the mere fact that few people do it and the people who do get paid low amounts is in no way dispositive that most Americans aren't willing to do the job.
For 30+ year old adults that are doing a career for their entire life (also disregard those on Social Security supplementing their income - since for them going over $1k/mo [circa 2006] in earnings impacts their SS numbers at a terrible ratio of $1 lost for every $2 earned at the job, effectively halving their salary past $1k/mo) , there's very few citizens that look at a $10-20k/year (assuming full time and most of those "careers" are part time!) job with negligible, if any, benefits and think "Wow, that's what I want to do for the rest of my life".
Yes, some people get screwed into those types of jobs being the best available to them - but for the other (insert made up large percentage here)% of citizens of these shores even low-end careers like a full time adult grocery clerk is generally expected to make $30k/year starting, scaling up to $45k/year with 10 years of service. [And even more in more specialized parts of the grocery world that require some level of actual talent to produce meaningful results for - produce and meats especially]
And of course, there's always people that "want to get their foot in the door" that work under what they want to try to leverage an easier step up into the position they really want that will sometimes work under their level TEMPORARILY. [i.e. someone finishing up a hotel management education working as a hotel maid for terrible wages, but with an "in" to keep an eye on openings and a more likely chance of having their resume land closer to the top of the list as a result of them already working within the company (Note: If I ever do HR again, and you're looking for a management position with my company - don't play that game with me - works many places, but I look down on anyone who takes a position planning to leave it for another position, even when it's still within my own ranks)]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I will admit that I haven't read the entire bill...but I have scimmed it. From my understanding...officers must have probably cause to ask someone for their ID / Citizenship. How is this any different than a Cop stopping anyone else in any other part of the country. When I was younger...I was part of a group hanging outside of a movie theatre after hours...after watching a movie. A Cop approached us, asked what we were doing, and then asked for our ID. We were just sitting there talking minding our own business. Once we showed our IDs he verified that we weren't doing anything illegal and he went on his way.
My question is...how is the above any different from what the Cops are now allowed to do in Arizona...from what they were allowed to do before?
If a suspect can't produce an ID and found to be an illegal...why should he/she not be treated like a criminal? It is in fact a criminal offense...even prior to this bill being passed. Several of the organizations are crying foul over that clause. It was already illegal to be here illegally. I am just failing to see what this bill does that is so wrong and evil...?
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
Psst - what that cop did was illegal if he pressured you to show your IDs after you had stated that you'd rather not. And refusal to show ID at a polite request isn't considered probable cause to allow grounds for an arrest - the most an officer can obligate you to do under a "hanging out" circumstance is to ask you to stop loitering.
Demanding ID (and enforcing that demand by arrest if refused) follows pretty similar legal stipulations as there is to get a warrant to search someone - without probable cause, real or manufactured - a cop that goes around actively searching people just because "he thinks they might be up to no good" is doomed to have a very short career.
Even when you are obligated to show ID a verbal identification that they can verify is perfectly legal under all legal circumstances besides those that involve holding an appropriate license for an activity. (Notably driving - but some other non-driven heavy equipment requires similar licensing to be at hand as well)
Know your rights, people.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
1st -- What the hell kind of grocery store are you working at where you can make 30K a year working the till? 10.00/hr * 40 Hr's per week * 52 weeks per year = $20,800, and thats assuming no vacation or sick time.
2nd -- You haven't really said anything here. You've made up a bunch of stuff (hell, you admitted you made it up) and then pointed to that as your evidence.
3rd -- you are conflating eagerness to do a job with willingness to do a job (see bolded portion.) they are not the same thing. When I was in college I worked in a dish room scrubbing dishes for $6.00 an hour. I didn't want to do it. I was willing to do it.
nobody has ever said Americans want to perform these jobs. Hell I bet most illegal immigrants don't want to do the job. They aren't chomping at the bit for an exciting career in hotel cleaning. But its the best option they have available, so they are willing to do it. Americans would also be willing to do it. Especially given that the pay rate would increase to at least minimum wage if the illegal workforce wasn't there.
psst -- I hear handing out legal advice is a bad idea, especially if you have no particular training in that area.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
He didn't say anything about being pressured. even so the cop has every right to verify anyone that he stops.
actually it can be. the cop can detain you as long as needed to verify who you are.
no one said he searched anyone. there is a thing called reasonable suspision. which means that he can detain and verify who you are.
that can lead into probable cause if needed.
in this case it didn't.
most cops won't take a verbal identification since there is no way to back that up. more so if they are a teenage without ID.
better to know the laws.
no there has to be enough evidence beyond him looking at you.
there has to be enough reasoning that he would pull someone else over as well
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
(and I'm not talking about it affecting them more because of population differences or something like that, I'm talking about everything being equal, legal citizens of one race will be affected more)
Aaaaand source?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
As we discussed earlier in the thread, it's not probable cause, it's reasonable suspicion, which is a significantly lower standard. Further, it's required at any lawful encounter. A lawful encounter could be something like what you describe, but it could also be if you're reporting a crime. It could be if they're responding to a 911 call from your residence. It's basically any contact you have with a police office, if they have a reasonable suspicion that you're not legal, they are obligated to investigate that, and detain you if you can't prove that you're legal.
So, the objection I have is what constitutes a reasonable suspicion? How do you tell that someone is illegal? I have yet to hear any answers to that that aren't racial profiling and stereotyping. The governor said as she signed the bill that she didn't know how to tell if someone is illegal. It seems to me that this law is just a way to mandate that police engage in racial profiling and witch-hunting at all times.
i posted this before had you read it then it would have already answered this question.
http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html
wrong again this law does not target hispanics. it targets anyone that is an illegal in that state. while a large cross section of them are hispanics the law it's does not target them anymore than the current federal laws already target them. this law basically backs up the federal law only on the state level.
42 of the states require that you carry some form of ID on you. this is nothing out of the ordinary that police officers don't do on a regular basis anyway.
sorry but this is not the case and the law itself strictly forbids racial profiling. It completely bars officers from considering race as the only evidence needed to check for legal status.
if you had actually read the bill then you would have known this.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
/facepalm
What I said is whether it would affect legal hispanics more than whites. I know you would love to believe there is a magic way to tell if someone is illegal without ever infringing on the rights of legal citizens, but the fact is, this law will lead to the violation of the rights of hispanics along the way to catching illegals, making it a racist law. I'm not sure why you felt the need to post what the law is intended to do. We are talking about the consequences of this law, and how it could lead to the violation of rights based on race.
the only time you are going to be pulled over and asked is if you were to be pulled over anyway.
The cops have to have something other than your skin color (this is in the bill) in order to question your status.
If you are a speeding and a cop pulls you over he is going to ask for your drivers license. he can also ask for the licenses of anyone else in the car as well.
if you are walking down the street there is not enough reasonable suspicion to pull you over.
if you are hanging out in front of a home depot store and not shopping then yea he can ask you what you are doing and ask for some identification.
if you are riding in the back of a truck etc...
he would follow normal procedures just as dealing with anyone else. the only people that are going to have a problem are those that do not have or carry documentation on them. 42 states require that you carry some form of ID and i think AZ is one of them.
there is nothing racist in this bill and there is no evidence to support it. even the bill itself says that racial profiling is illegal, and that there has to be other evidence to support the inquiry.
so far the only people against this bill are pro-amnesty people. in fact the Gov. of AZ popularity jumped 16% when she signed this bill.
other states across the border are now demanding similar legislation. In fact about 10 other states are looking at the same type of legislation.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
Like smashing face? Like not worrying about pitiful tokens or life gain? Check out Stonebrow, Krosan Hero for all your face smashing needs
I didn't say anything of producing ID i send 42 states require that you have ID on you. more so if you are driving a car.
there is nothing comic about it seeing how it happens in real life. i can't tell you how many times on construction sites i was on i would see a truck or a van pull up with mexicans in it (none of them could speak english or very little) they were paid in cash as was the person driving them around and when they were done they would leave.
i worked temporarly with a guy that use to hire out illegals. why? because he couldn't afford to pay real workers because all the other guys used illegals that did it for half of what it cost him.
he quit using them do to other reasons i think now he is out of business not enough houses being built.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Like smashing face? Like not worrying about pitiful tokens or life gain? Check out Stonebrow, Krosan Hero for all your face smashing needs