[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;22175397]Statistic, please.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://reason.com/archives/2001/08/01/the-roots-of-racial-profiling/[/url]
[editline]12:52AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;22175459]They opted not to enter the country and get their citizenship legally, we shouldn't give Mexican nationals that, in a legal sense, are not supposed to even be on American soil an easy pathway to something that they should have obtained before they entered the country.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say easy.
I said we should HELP them obtain citizenship instead of just being dicks and kicking them out, which isn't really productive because they'll be back when they get a chance
[QUOTE=Lambeth;22175452]looking like a fool is better than being unable to communicate
[/QUOTE]
I think this scene from Wizards of Waverly Place the Movie illustrates my point.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pS5em3bnb4#t=04m55s[/url]
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22175461]Here is the part of the law that determines when to arrest:
I don't see any racial profiling in there.[/QUOTE]
and how are police officers going to have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally?
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22175462]I said we should HELP them obtain citizenship instead of just being dicks and kicking them out, which isn't really productive because they'll be back when they get a chance[/QUOTE]
I suppose making our borders ridiculously easy to cross such as not enforcing them is giving them incentive to become LEGAL citizens, right?
[QUOTE=Glaber;22175490]I think this scene from Wizards of Waverly Place the Movie illustrates my point.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pS5em3bnb4#t=04m55s[/url][/QUOTE]
No it doesn't
It's a fucking movie.
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22175491]and how are police officers going to have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally?[/QUOTE]
Because when they are booked, they won't have the proper documents on file. And the section for that is far too big to post here. And they aren't you're, assuming again...
and the Maricopa County PD has been using racial profiling for years
the new immigration law now gives them the authority to do so
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22175462][url]http://reason.com/archives/2001/08/01/the-roots-of-racial-profiling/[/url]
[editline]12:52AM[/editline]
I didn't say easy.
I said we should HELP them obtain citizenship instead of just being dicks and kicking them out, which isn't really productive because they'll be back when they get a chance[/QUOTE]
How the fuck would upholding federal law make us dicks and since when is not being a dick a valid reason not to uphold federal law? They aren't respecting the federal immigration system and they have no right to be in this country.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22175461]I don't see any racial profiling in there.[/QUOTE]
Most illegal immigrants are from Mexico. ([URL]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4703307[/URL])
A relatively small portion of all Americans are of Mexican/Hispanic descent.
To find the largest population of illegal immigrants, you would limit searches to Hispanic individuals, commonly identified visually.
There ya go, de facto racial profiling
[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;22175518]How the fuck would upholding federal law make us dicks and since when is not being a dick a valid reason not to uphold federal law? They aren't respecting the federal immigration system and they have no right to be in this country.[/QUOTE]
except this bill isn't upholding federal law
The Arizona law goes well beyond federal law because it mandates that all local police and sheriffs demand papers from people they stop and believe may be in the country without authorization. Nowhere is such requirement in federal law.
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22175491]and how are police officers going to have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally?[/QUOTE]
1. They can't speak any English
2. They don't want any medical help for fear of deportation.
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22175540]except this bill isn't upholding federal law
The Arizona law goes well beyond federal law because it mandates that all local police and sheriffs demand papers from people they stop and believe may be in the country without authorization. Nowhere is such requirement in federal law.[/QUOTE]
It is an exact parrot of the Federal Immigration law. There is no difference between the two. Other than length.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22175556]It is an exact parrot of the Federal Immigration law. There is no difference between the two. Other than length.[/QUOTE]
no, it's not.
[quote]What is the difference between this law and the federal law?
The Arizona law goes well beyond federal law because it mandates that all local police and sheriffs demand papers from people they stop and believe may be in the country without authorization. Nowhere is such requirement in federal law. This law reverses the presumption of innocence, forcing police officers on the street to demand that people prove they are U.S. citizens or otherwise in the country legally. The racial profiling this law invites with its undefined standard for what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country unlawfully would violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and federal civil rights protections.
There are a number of ways in which the Arizona law directly conflicts with federal law regarding the regulation and enforcement of immigration. As a threshold matter, SB 1070 presumes that the citizenship or immigration status of individuals can be determined simply, outside the complex administrative procedures set up under our nation’s immigration laws. It cannot. Moreover, the Arizona law would also impose different state penalties against people for conduct, such as authorization to work in the United States that is directly regulated under federal law. Not only is this unconstitutional under the supremacy cause, but it is also bad policy as the United States cannot have a patchwork of conflicting immigration laws depending on what state you happen to find yourself in.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Glaber;22175553]1. They can't speak any English
2. They don't want any medical help for fear of deportation.[/QUOTE]
Reasonable suspicion needs to be defined within the Bill. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it is.
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22175578]no, it's not.[/QUOTE]
Source, other than news agencies. And any other biased organization. Including the ACLU.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;22175579]Reasonable suspicion needs to be defined within the Bill. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it is.[/QUOTE]
it isn't
no legitimate grounds have been established for what "reasonable suspicion" is
doesn't anyone else see a problem with this
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22175582][url]http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/frequently-asked-questions-about-arizona-racial-profiling-law[/url][/QUOTE]
And you believe them? Have they even read the bill?
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22175582][url]http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/frequently-asked-questions-about-arizona-racial-profiling-law[/url][/QUOTE]
This link more or less explains what I was trying to say.
[editline]10:05PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;22175594]And you believe them? Have they even read the bill?[/QUOTE]
Yes and yes
[QUOTE=Glaber;22175594]And you believe them? Have they even read the bill?[/QUOTE]
lol
you didn't possibly read the entire article in 30 seconds
no, they didn't read the bill. they're just going to file lawsuits without even reading it :downs:
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22175590]doesn't anyone else see a problem with this[/QUOTE]
Yes
[QUOTE=Glaber;22175594]And you believe them? Have they even read the bill?[/QUOTE]
The ACLU isn't stupid.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22175584]And any other biased organization. Including the ACLU.[/QUOTE]
lol..
you are really dense.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;22175597]This link more or less explains what I was trying to say.
[editline]10:05PM[/editline]
Yes and yes[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6qEQ-KnitQ&feature=player_embedded[/url]
[URL]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8.html[/URL]
Federal Immigration Law. Read it, then read the Arizona law, no difference.
Glaber I encourage you to think before you post. It's been proven to lead to dramatically less stupid posts.
[QUOTE=davidofmk771;22175616]The ACLU isn't stupid.[/QUOTE]
They certainly sound stupid going against this law.
You should take a look at this ABC article
[url]http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Is-federal-immigration-law-different-from/1ZdAAkpg-U6oVELk47QVBw.cspx[/url]
It come from a local affiliate in Arizona and even references federal Law.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22175629][URL]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8.html[/URL]
Federal Immigration Law. Read it, then read the Arizona law, no difference.[/QUOTE]
*Bookmarks*
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22175629][URL]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8.html[/URL]
Federal Immigration Law. Read it, then read the Arizona law, no difference.[/QUOTE]
[quote]What is the difference between this law and the federal law?
The Arizona law goes well beyond federal law because it mandates that all local police and sheriffs demand papers from people they stop and believe may be in the country without authorization. Nowhere is such requirement in federal law. This law reverses the presumption of innocence, forcing police officers on the street to demand that people prove they are U.S. citizens or otherwise in the country legally. The racial profiling this law invites with its undefined standard for what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country unlawfully would violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and federal civil rights protections.
There are a number of ways in which the Arizona law directly conflicts with federal law regarding the regulation and enforcement of immigration. As a threshold matter, SB 1070 presumes that the citizenship or immigration status of individuals can be determined simply, outside the complex administrative procedures set up under our nation’s immigration laws. It cannot. Moreover, the Arizona law would also impose different state penalties against people for conduct, such as authorization to work in the United States that is directly regulated under federal law. Not only is this unconstitutional under the supremacy cause, but it is also bad policy as the United States cannot have a patchwork of conflicting immigration laws depending on what state you happen to find yourself in.[/quote]
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22175629][URL]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8.html[/URL]
Federal Immigration Law. Read it, then read the Arizona law, no difference.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Leon Trotsky;22175578][QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;22175556]It is an exact parrot of the Federal Immigration law. There is no difference between the two. Other than length.[/QUOTE]
no, it's not.
[quote]What is the difference between this law and the federal law?
The Arizona law goes well beyond federal law because it mandates that all local police and sheriffs demand papers from people they stop and believe may be in the country without authorization. Nowhere is such requirement in federal law. This law reverses the presumption of innocence, forcing police officers on the street to demand that people prove they are U.S. citizens or otherwise in the country legally. The racial profiling this law invites with its undefined standard for what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country unlawfully would violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and federal civil rights protections.
There are a number of ways in which the Arizona law directly conflicts with federal law regarding the regulation and enforcement of immigration. As a threshold matter, SB 1070 presumes that the citizenship or immigration status of individuals can be determined simply, outside the complex administrative procedures set up under our nation’s immigration laws. It cannot. Moreover, the Arizona law would also impose different state penalties against people for conduct, such as authorization to work in the United States that is directly regulated under federal law. Not only is this unconstitutional under the supremacy cause, but it is also bad policy as the United States cannot have a patchwork of conflicting immigration laws depending on what state you happen to find yourself in.[/quote][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Glaber;22175651]They certainly sound stupid going against this law.[/QUOTE]
yeah, protecting and preserving individual rights/civil liberties/constitutional rights.. how stupid of them!
you are a fucking idiot
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
