SB 1070: Most Controversial Component IS Constitutional

[PLAYER57832]

The CC awakening of Common Sense has hereby been Initiated!

Too late, Woodruff, greekdog, etc already started.

Too bad you have been left in the netherworld of rhetoric... and seem to not even comprehend that fact.

[stahrgazer]

Asking someone who "looks like" he or she could be one of those "illegal presence" criminals is no different than police bringing in a variety of folks for a lineup because they may "look like" the description of someone who committed a more violent crime.

No, it is a completely different thing. "Having folks in a lineup who look similar to a suspect" is done to ensure that the witness to the crime can specifically identify the suspect as having been there (or not). Those other individuals are in no manner of being in jeopardy of their independence in any way. In fact, they will many times be paid for doing it. I can't quite honestly even believe you made that comparison.

It's asking someone who "looks like" a potential criminal to come in to ensure he or she isn't that criminal. Just as asking someone who "looks like" he or she may be criminally (illegal) in our country to show identification is to ensure that he or she isn't one of those many criminals. In fact, if they can produce proper identification, the "looks like an illegal" are not even hauled in to a lineup. I quite honestly can't see why you don't see the comparison.

And we'll all be "paid" for a crackdown by having less of OUR taxes supporting those who don't pay any.

[Timminz]

A lineup is almost always done with only one suspect, and a bunch of people who have been hired to stand next to them. It is not a valid comparison at all, in this situation.

[stahrgazer]

A lineup is almost always done with only one suspect, and a bunch of people who have been hired to stand next to them. It is not a valid comparison at all, in this situation.

No, I've known a person who was required to come in to a lineup because he "looked like" someone who had perpetrated a crime in the area, even though he had not perpetrated the crime... wasn't given a choice and wasn't paid for being hauled in.

Legal citizens will "almost always" be able to immediately produce a valid identification when asked, so it is a valid comparison.

[Timminz]

I "almost always" have a beer with lunch. Doesn't mean that's a valid comparison.

[Night Strike]

Police departments use racial profiling all the time when putting out bulletins on possible suspects after a robbery, murder, etc.. Illegal immigrants have committed a crime, so racial and ethnic profiling to catch the offenders is fair game.

[PLAYER57832]

Police departments use racial profiling all the time when putting out bulletins on possible suspects after a robbery, murder, etc.. Illegal immigrants have committed a crime, so racial and ethnic profiling to catch the offenders is fair game.

Except, evidence shows that this type of tactic does NOT truly work. It perpetuates stereotypes that minorities are responsible for the majority of crimes, etc and keeps police from seeing the real and true indicators of crimes, which are NOT race.

Now, I am not suggesting that if a Chinese man robs a bank the bulletin should say "look for a white woman", but that is a profile of a specific, identified person (and, even then, is very likely to be wrong, often based on the witness's prejudice). Any other context is just not effective. This has been proven over and over and over again, but prejudice is so well engrained that people think it works.

[Metsfanmax]

Police departments use racial profiling all the time when putting out bulletins on possible suspects after a robbery, murder, etc.. Illegal immigrants have committed a crime, so racial and ethnic profiling to catch the offenders is fair game.

What you're talking about is not racial profiling. If the suspect in a crime was actually seen to be of a certain race by the victim or a witness, then the fact that the cops say something like "the suspect is a black male" is not racial profiling, because there's actually evidence of someone from that race committing the crime. Racial profiling occurs to the police suspecting someone of a crime simply because of their race and not because there's any evidence that suggests they may have committed a crime. At the point where there's actual evidence of the crime, it is no longer racial profiling, at least in the sense that most people recognize it by.

[Woodruff]

Asking someone who "looks like" he or she could be one of those "illegal presence" criminals is no different than police bringing in a variety of folks for a lineup because they may "look like" the description of someone who committed a more violent crime.

No, it is a completely different thing. "Having folks in a lineup who look similar to a suspect" is done to ensure that the witness to the crime can specifically identify the suspect as having been there (or not). Those other individuals are in no manner of being in jeopardy of their independence in any way. In fact, they will many times be paid for doing it. I can't quite honestly even believe you made that comparison.

It's asking someone who "looks like" a potential criminal to come in to ensure he or she isn't that criminal. Just as asking someone who "looks like" he or she may be criminally (illegal) in our country to show identification is to ensure that he or she isn't one of those many criminals. In fact, if they can produce proper identification, the "looks like an illegal" are not even hauled in to a lineup. I quite honestly can't see why you don't see the comparison.

Because it isn't a comparison at all. The two situations are quite divergent. I quite honestly can't see why you believe it's a valid comparison.

[Woodruff]

Police departments use racial profiling all the time when putting out bulletins on possible suspects after a robbery, murder, etc.. Illegal immigrants have committed a crime, so racial and ethnic profiling to catch the offenders is fair game.

You seriously believe that when the police put out a bulletin on possible suspects after a robbery, that is similar to the general idea behind racial profiling? So in your mind, the idea behind trying to describe a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL doesn't play into it at all? That seems monumentally stupid on your part.

[PLAYER57832]

The thing is, most hispanics are here legally and many non-hispanics are not here legally.

Also, most Native Americans look hispanic, as do many Italiens, Indians, Arabs, etc., at least to people who cannot look past skin color, clothing and "funny accents". (which is what happens in racial profiling)

[Night Strike]

The thing is, most hispanics are here legally and many non-hispanics are not here legally.

Also, most Native Americans look hispanic, as do many Italiens, Indians, Arabs, etc., at least to people who cannot look past skin color, clothing and "funny accents". (which is what happens in racial profiling)

So the police officers in Arizona who live on the border have no clue about the difference between those people groups? That's an incredibly naive assumption, especially since the law provides for specific training on how to properly carry out the law.

[stahrgazer]

Police departments use racial profiling all the time when putting out bulletins on possible suspects after a robbery, murder, etc.. Illegal immigrants have committed a crime, so racial and ethnic profiling to catch the offenders is fair game.

You seriously believe that when the police put out a bulletin on possible suspects after a robbery, that is similar to the general idea behind racial profiling? So in your mind, the idea behind trying to describe a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL doesn't play into it at all? That seems monumentally stupid on your part.

It's the same idea as going after a "5'10" man with dark complexion and brown eyes wearing blue jeans in the vicinity of...." which is frequently the description given on the news when they're after "a specific individual".

As I read the law, it doesn't allow the people to be hauled in unless they do not have identification. Not dissimilar from what they do in the baddest parts of my county when the law finds people roaming. The law stops them, asks for identification, asks what they are doing there. These aren't necessarily people perpetrating a crime; they are merely people in an area where crime (drugs, usually) is prevalent.

The officers have zero suspicion about these folks other than that they are there. Most frequently they happen to be black, simply because that's a black neighborhood. But be white and in the area and there's no "maybe" to it - you WILL be stopped. It's a racist profile thing, "white people don't belong in this area so if they are, they must be up to no good." This questioning people who happen to be on Avenue D as a form of anti-drug crime prevention is EXACTLY the same tactic that Arizona is establishing as a form of anti-illegal immigrant crime prevention.

So, Woodie, you're saying it's okay if it's anti-drugs, but NOT okay if it's anti-illegals. Hmm....

[Night Strike]

Just so everyone knows, the FEDERAL law states that any non-citizen in the country must be able to provide proof of lawful presence at ANY moment upon request, regardless of whether they were stopped for another possible crime or traffic violation. The lack of logic on the left regarding this more strict state law is astounding.

[Metsfanmax]

Just so everyone knows, the FEDERAL law states that any non-citizen in the country must be able to provide proof of lawful presence at ANY moment upon request, regardless of whether they were stopped for another possible crime or traffic violation. The lack of logic on the left regarding this more strict state law is astounding.

First, I believe you mean "less" strict.

Second, there's a difference between it being a crime to be found without identification and it being unlawful to enter the country. We do not put illegal aliens in prison, we simply remove them from our borders. So it's not a crime in the traditional sense of the word - they are not convicted by a jury of their peers, since they do not have peers in this country.

[Phatscotty]

The thing is, most hispanics are here legally and many non-hispanics are not here legally.

Also, most Native Americans look hispanic, as do many Italiens, Indians, Arabs, etc., at least to people who cannot look past skin color, clothing and "funny accents". (which is what happens in racial profiling)

So the police officers in Arizona who live on the border have no clue about the difference between those people groups? That's an incredibly naive assumption, especially since the law provides for specific training on how to properly carry out the law.

I am also going to straight up assume that, of the police forces as well as elected politicians and judges, there are many native Americans, Indians, Arabs, Italians, and hispanics who will insure that they nor any of their co-workers pull any racial profiling bullshit

Seriously, this misrepresentation of racial profiling has got to stop. The only thing racial about this entire issue are the racebaiting tactics that illegal supporters are using.

[Night Strike]

Just so everyone knows, the FEDERAL law states that any non-citizen in the country must be able to provide proof of lawful presence at ANY moment upon request, regardless of whether they were stopped for another possible crime or traffic violation. The lack of logic on the left regarding this more strict state law is astounding.

First, I believe you mean "less" strict.

Second, there's a difference between it being a crime to be found without identification and it being unlawful to enter the country. We do not put illegal aliens in prison, we simply remove them from our borders. So it's not a crime in the traditional sense of the word - they are not convicted by a jury of their peers, since they do not have peers in this country.

Sorry for the unclear statement, the Arizona is more strict in the requirements placed on the law enforcement to request papers; it is less strict on the requirements of the immigrant.

[Metsfanmax]

Just so everyone knows, the FEDERAL law states that any non-citizen in the country must be able to provide proof of lawful presence at ANY moment upon request, regardless of whether they were stopped for another possible crime or traffic violation. The lack of logic on the left regarding this more strict state law is astounding.

First, I believe you mean "less" strict.

Second, there's a difference between it being a crime to be found without identification and it being unlawful to enter the country. We do not put illegal aliens in prison, we simply remove them from our borders. So it's not a crime in the traditional sense of the word - they are not convicted by a jury of their peers, since they do not have peers in this country.

Sorry for the unclear statement, the Arizona is more strict in the requirements placed on the law enforcement to request papers; it is less strict on the requirements of the immigrant.

Oh, okay, that was the source of the confusion then. Still, I stand by my statement that the federal domain of dealing with matters of citizenship is far removed from the state level of making laws, which have nothing to do with nationhood or sovereignty.

[stahrgazer]

Oh, okay, that was the source of the confusion then. Still, I stand by my statement that the federal domain of dealing with matters of citizenship is far removed from the state level of making laws, which have nothing to do with nationhood or sovereignty.

True. And with the new Arizona and older California laws, all the city/county/state officers can do is hold the guy and report him to Federal immigration officials. It affects STATE sovereignty and lawmaking only in that states plan their funds based on income taxes - which illegal immigrants don't pay since they don't have the proper documentation; and the Federal government does not step in to help when illegal immigrants cause additional expenditures without paying their fair share.

A week or so ago, there was this big hooplah in the news about a little girl who was in the classroom Mrs. Obama visited. The little girl said, "My mommy says President Obama is going to make everyone without papers leave," and she later mumbled, "My mommy doesn't have papers." Boohoo, sob sob. So, the little girl is in a public school, payed for by everyone else's taxes, which in most states have become insufficient to cover what's needed to properly educate our kids. Is that one little girl the cause of the budget crisis? No, but because the mother is not paying taxes, that little girl's presence adds to the budget crisis. If the mother is working, and apparently she is, as a maid... then that's one more job some legal someone didn't get.

Turns out it's two; the little girl's father is apparently also illegal. He's a carpenter. I know a couple of carpenters who would love a job, so he's hardly taking a job no one wants.

These are tense times for people like Daisy's mother, a maid who arrived in the United States with her carpenter husband when she was two months pregnant with Daisy.
Daisy's parents are fearful of U.S. anti-immigrant sentiment, which for many Latin Americans is epitomized by an Arizona law taking effect in July that gives police the right to demand ID papers of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has said it is not pursuing Daisy's parents. Immigration investigations, it said in a statement, "are based on making sure the law is followed and not on a question-and-answer discussion in a classroom."
Nonetheless, Daisy's mother asked the AP after the May 19 incident not to name her or her husband.
The AP story ends on a sad note, on the daughter left behind in Peru:
While Daisy has automatic U.S. citizenship and lives full time with her parents, her 9-year-old sister, July, has not been so lucky. July was left behind with her grandparents when her parents moved to the United States to escape poverty.
The two sisters met for the first time last year when Daisy spent a month visiting her grandparents in the working-class San Juan de Lurigancho district of Lima.
But July misses her parents, who are unlikely to visit Peru because of their illegal status in the U.S. July has only seen them in photographs and in video chats with a webcam.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham ... z0pb7JOhAa

This was in Silver Spring, Maryland; Maryland isn't even a state where illegal immigration is considered a concern. Unlike border states, and unlike Florida where every year they find a few boatloads of illegal immigrants and identify a few more suspected incidents of people coming illegally to the shores. Taking jobs that Americans DO want; not paying taxes because they're not in the system; but having kids who are using the system everyone else's taxes pay for.

I'm not anti-hispanic; my step-grandfather was part Spanish. But his family came here legally and paid their taxes like every other legal citizen or immigrant.

[Timminz]

Well, that sure was fortunate for your half-Spanish step-grandfather.

[Metsfanmax]

Oh, okay, that was the source of the confusion then. Still, I stand by my statement that the federal domain of dealing with matters of citizenship is far removed from the state level of making laws, which have nothing to do with nationhood or sovereignty.

True. And with the new Arizona and older California laws, all the city/county/state officers can do is hold the guy and report him to Federal immigration officials. It affects STATE sovereignty and lawmaking only in that states plan their funds based on income taxes - which illegal immigrants don't pay since they don't have the proper documentation; and the Federal government does not step in to help when illegal immigrants cause additional expenditures without paying their fair share.

A week or so ago, there was this big hooplah in the news about a little girl who was in the classroom Mrs. Obama visited. The little girl said, "My mommy says President Obama is going to make everyone without papers leave," and she later mumbled, "My mommy doesn't have papers." Boohoo, sob sob. So, the little girl is in a public school, payed for by everyone else's taxes, which in most states have become insufficient to cover what's needed to properly educate our kids. Is that one little girl the cause of the budget crisis? No, but because the mother is not paying taxes, that little girl's presence adds to the budget crisis. If the mother is working, and apparently she is, as a maid... then that's one more job some legal someone didn't get.

...

This was in Silver Spring, Maryland; Maryland isn't even a state where illegal immigration is considered a concern. Unlike border states, and unlike Florida where every year they find a few boatloads of illegal immigrants and identify a few more suspected incidents of people coming illegally to the shores. Taking jobs that Americans DO want; not paying taxes because they're not in the system; but having kids who are using the system everyone else's taxes pay for.

I'm not anti-hispanic; my step-grandfather was part Spanish. But his family came here legally and paid their taxes like every other legal citizen or immigrant.

I agree with much of the sentiment that you're expressing. However, I always find it a bit annoying when people claim that immigrants are "taking" our jobs. That's just a flawed claim. It's not like we had the jobs, and the immigrants came and beat us until we "gave" them the jobs. If they have the jobs, it's because of either A) they're more qualified, B) no one else wants the jobs they have, or C) they're willing to work for less money. If it's the second, then Americans obviously have no right to meaningfully complain. If it's the first, then let's seriously consider why an immigrant is more qualified than any other person to be a janitor. I mean, seriously, let's hope we Americans don't suck that much. If it's the last, though, that's where the controversy comes from - but the problem is, it has nothing to do with immigrants and everything to do with capitalism. Employers will obviously pay people less if they can. Furthermore, it's not like the jobs they are "taking" are well-paid positions or require immense experience. Most importantly, though, we need to consider whether we're really willing to be unemployed rather than make a little less money. If you can give me even one real example of where someone wanted a particular job but ended up unemployed for a serious length of time because of immigrants who "took" all the jobs, I will concede that there's legitimacy to the argument. But not until then, and only if that person actually had no choice in being unemployed. The fact is, the immigrants aren't taking the jobs we want, they're taking the ones we don't want.

But at any rate I heavily agree that it's very unfortunate when people take advantage of our school system without being part of the system of taxes that runs it. It's not even so much the money issue, because most of these people are ostensibly poor and can't contribute much in the way of taxes. But from a moral point of view, it's not fair to everyone else who legitimately takes part in the system.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh, okay, that was the source of the confusion then. Still, I stand by my statement that the federal domain of dealing with matters of citizenship is far removed from the state level of making laws, which have nothing to do with nationhood or sovereignty.

True. And with the new Arizona and older California laws, all the city/county/state officers can do is hold the guy and report him to Federal immigration officials. It affects STATE sovereignty and lawmaking only in that states plan their funds based on income taxes - which illegal immigrants don't pay since they don't have the proper documentation; and the Federal government does not step in to help when illegal immigrants cause additional expenditures without paying their fair share.

A week or so ago, there was this big hooplah in the news about a little girl who was in the classroom Mrs. Obama visited. The little girl said, "My mommy says President Obama is going to make everyone without papers leave," and she later mumbled, "My mommy doesn't have papers." Boohoo, sob sob. So, the little girl is in a public school, payed for by everyone else's taxes, which in most states have become insufficient to cover what's needed to properly educate our kids. Is that one little girl the cause of the budget crisis? No, but because the mother is not paying taxes, that little girl's presence adds to the budget crisis. If the mother is working, and apparently she is, as a maid... then that's one more job some legal someone didn't get.

Turns out it's two; the little girl's father is apparently also illegal. He's a carpenter. I know a couple of carpenters who would love a job, so he's hardly taking a job no one wants.

These are tense times for people like Daisy's mother, a maid who arrived in the United States with her carpenter husband when she was two months pregnant with Daisy.
Daisy's parents are fearful of U.S. anti-immigrant sentiment, which for many Latin Americans is epitomized by an Arizona law taking effect in July that gives police the right to demand ID papers of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has said it is not pursuing Daisy's parents. Immigration investigations, it said in a statement, "are based on making sure the law is followed and not on a question-and-answer discussion in a classroom."
Nonetheless, Daisy's mother asked the AP after the May 19 incident not to name her or her husband.
The AP story ends on a sad note, on the daughter left behind in Peru:
While Daisy has automatic U.S. citizenship and lives full time with her parents, her 9-year-old sister, July, has not been so lucky. July was left behind with her grandparents when her parents moved to the United States to escape poverty.
The two sisters met for the first time last year when Daisy spent a month visiting her grandparents in the working-class San Juan de Lurigancho district of Lima.
But July misses her parents, who are unlikely to visit Peru because of their illegal status in the U.S. July has only seen them in photographs and in video chats with a webcam.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham ... z0pb7JOhAa

This was in Silver Spring, Maryland; Maryland isn't even a state where illegal immigration is considered a concern. Unlike border states, and unlike Florida where every year they find a few boatloads of illegal immigrants and identify a few more suspected incidents of people coming illegally to the shores. Taking jobs that Americans DO want; not paying taxes because they're not in the system; but having kids who are using the system everyone else's taxes pay for.

I'm not anti-hispanic; my step-grandfather was part Spanish. But his family came here legally and paid their taxes like every other legal citizen or immigrant.

There are multiple problems here, butt he bottom line is that if these people were allowed to work here legally and the employer forced to pay fair wages, most of the problems would be solved. Also note, I just said "work legally" not "path to citizenship". Just as an example, I would be willing to be that those parents would give up a great deal to pay for BOTH thier daughters to be educated here in the US. So again, there are plenty of solutions other than the Arizona law.

I say our first priority should be tracking down the violant criminals above and below the border who operate in the US. Our second priority should be ensuring that employers pay.. pay taxes, pay reasonable, living wages. You indicated you know plenty of carpenters who would love the work. However, chances are they would want more money and better conditions than the illegal workers. Chances are the contractor hiring the illegals is working on a rather tight budget (maybe not). If he doesn't set the lowest prices, he loses work, for the most part (a few are able to demand more by doing significantly better work, but they tend to be specialists, working on historic properties and so forth).

Now typical economics says "well, we cannot force these people to pay more, it will just wind up inflating the prices of everything". To a point, that is true. However, the other side is that if a business is not really and truly paying for its costs, then the benefits are largely artificial, as above. The contractor may get more money in his pocket (NOT talking millions here, I mean a few dollars), but is that money really "saved" or is it passed along to the rest of us? I say it is simply passed on to the rest of us. The contractor is likely NOT a bad guy. I do hold a seperate category for some of the larger corporations that really are reaping millions (even if the amount they skim off each worker is relatively little), and for those shady guys who will cut whatever corner they can and, who are often the ones who begin the price slide that forces the honest ones to follow suit and drop their prices.

This is the exact opposite of "trickle down" economics, but it is far more real. Everyone does not have to be wealthy. Honestly, not everyone really wants wealth. But, basically everyone wants a safe, clean place to live, healthy food and education for their kids.

I agree, to a point, with your assessment of the problem (at least the part above.. I do not believe in the tie of illegals to violant crime, except as victims). I do NOT, however, agree that the Arizona law is any kind of solution.

I don't believe it targets the ones driving the problem.
I believe it has law enforcement officers spending all their time apprehending people who are relatively "easy" to catch instead of concentrating on the ones who are part of the nasty drug, human trafficking, etc trades. I believe it fills the jails and gives the FALSE perception that police are "doing good"/"catching criminals". Meanwhile, the really bad guys just keep on doing what they do.. only worse, because now most illegal aliens won't step forward to report them.

[PLAYER57832]

The thing is, most hispanics are here legally and many non-hispanics are not here legally.

Also, most Native Americans look hispanic, as do many Italiens, Indians, Arabs, etc., at least to people who cannot look past skin color, clothing and "funny accents". (which is what happens in racial profiling)

So the police officers in Arizona who live on the border have no clue about the difference between those people groups? That's an incredibly naive assumption, especially since the law provides for specific training on how to properly carry out the law.

I am also going to straight up assume that, of the police forces as well as elected politicians and judges, there are many native Americans, Indians, Arabs, Italians, and hispanics who will insure that they nor any of their co-workers pull any racial profiling bullshit

I see. Well, I have lived among all those groups for some time and, frankly, I cannot tell unless I ask who is from where. Unless, of course they sprout a t-shirt that says "Kiss me, I'm Italien" or, sometimes, I hear their last name.

Amont other issues, Native Americans and Mexicans often ARE the "same" peoples (not always, it depends), the political boundaries did not always cooincide with cultural ones.

Seriously, this misrepresentation of racial profiling has got to stop.

No argument here, but you don't seem willing to pay attention to the data on the matter.

The only thing racial about this entire issue are the racebaiting tactics that illegal supporters are using.

Nice.. anyone who doesn't like this draconian law is now an "illegal supporter". Typical right-wing rhetoric.

[Phatscotty]

just for jrl332005

[Woodruff]

Seriously, this misrepresentation of racial profiling has got to stop. The only thing racial about this entire issue are the racebaiting tactics that illegal supporters are using.

Illegal supporter? What the hell does that even mean?

Police departments use racial profiling all the time when putting out bulletins on possible suspects after a robbery, murder, etc.. Illegal immigrants have committed a crime, so racial and ethnic profiling to catch the offenders is fair game.

You seriously believe that when the police put out a bulletin on possible suspects after a robbery, that is similar to the general idea behind racial profiling? So in your mind, the idea behind trying to describe a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL doesn't play into it at all? That seems monumentally stupid on your part.

It's the same idea as going after a "5'10" man with dark complexion and brown eyes wearing blue jeans in the vicinity of...." which is frequently the description given on the news when they're after "a specific individual".

No...it definitely is NOT "the same idea".

So, Woodie, you're saying it's okay if it's anti-drugs, but NOT okay if it's anti-illegals. Hmm....

You have a silly way of making yourself look stupid.