Fears of Arizona's Immigration Law Are Bogus

[stu2002]

By John Lott

It's hard to argue that the requirements of Arizona's new immigration law will impose an undue burden.

When Arizona's new law was signed on Friday, Hispanics demonstrated outside the state capitol in Phoenix, fearful of what it would mean for them. "If a cop sees them and they look Mexican, he's going to stop me," a 18-year-old Hispanic told the Associated Press. "What if people are U.S. citizens? They're going to be asking them if they have papers because of the color of their skin." The young man claimed that he was that even though he was a U.S. citizen he risked being arrested and put in jail.

Other news stories discuss Hispanics believing that they will have to have to carry multiple IDs to avoid prison. "Even if you're legal, you're in fear that maybe your driver's license isn't going to be enough or if you're walking down the street and the police stop you," a 21-year-old University of Arizona college student told CNN. "It's a constant fear we're living in and even legal citizens are afraid to go out."

But it is a dangerous game stirring up fears of people being hunted down and put in jail because of their race or nationality. The law specifically bans picking up someone just because they are Hispanic or even because the person was originally from Mexico or any other country you can read a copy of the law right here. Anyone arrested for a crime must have their immigration status determined before they are released. Thus, it is not just Hispanics who will be required to provide evidence of citizenship, but so will all whites, blacks and Asians. If the eligibility for public services depends on citizenship, again, everyone who applies, regardless of race, will have to provide an ID. In other circumstances, law enforcement officials must have reasonable suspicion, not based simply on the person's race or origin, that the individual is an illegal alien before they can ask to check someone's ID.

Police today already have to deal with the "reasonable suspicion" standard all the time in other areas of law enforcement, and most understand very well how this standard limits what they can do. Police know that they can't pull over drivers for fear that they are smuggling drugs just because they are black. "Reasonable suspicion" requires that the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to convince a person of "reasonable prudence" that a crime has been committed. Obviously in a state such as Arizona, with an estimated half a million illegal immigrants, the vast majority OF illegal aliens are going to be Hispanic. But the reasonableness standard used by Arizona specifically requires something other than just race or national origin.

The ID requested is hardly draconian: a driver's license, a non-operating identification license, valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, or "any valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification." Rather than requiring multiple IDs as some fear, the law clearly says that "any" of the IDs is sufficient. And the notion of having to carry IDs is not something unique to Arizona. President Obama and many Democrats, such as Senator Charles Schumer, support a national ID card, so it hard to argue that Arizona's requirement will impose an undue burden.

Even if a person does not present the required ID, that doesn't necessarily mean the person faces problems. The new Arizona law requires that "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." Today, this is not hard to accomplish quickly as computer records have photographs and other identifying details for people who have state-issued IDs. The only exception to making "a reasonable attempt" is if making that investigation would "hinder or obstruct" a criminal investigation. That isn't going to effect many cases.

Obama has now instructed the Justice Department to find some way to challenge the new law. It seems very unlikely that they will succeed in stopping the law's primary requirements. Sadly, the president and others are unjustifiably stirring up extreme fears. This might be good short-run politics, but those stoking these fears must realize that their credibility is on the line. Unless some federal law will quickly be rammed through Congress, it will soon become evident that U.S. citizens and legal residents have absolutely nothing to fear.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2010), the book's third edition will be published in May.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/26/john-lott-arizona-immigration-law-fear-enforcement/

[FrankRep]

Yeah, I think even the Libertarians were sucked into the Mass Media's Propaganda.

[speciallyblend]

Yeah, I think even the Libertarians were sucked into the Mass Media's Propaganda.

bad law!! the best way to avoid this law is boycott AZ. i wouldn't want police pulling me over because my wife is hispanic!! this is simply bad law!!

encourage everyone to wear bear suits!!

[orenbus]

John Lott the author of that op-ed piece shouldn't be considered a source of reliable news or information, he has a shady past to provide false, unproven, unfounded or fraudulent information to create a story. What he posted here is an opinion piece. In a couple of cases he created a fan personality to support his conclusions and basically pretend he was someone else "Mary Rosh" (and has admitted it later) and has also proven to use studies and statistics that never actually existed.

http://reason.com/archives/2003/05/01/the-mystery-of-mary-rosh/

[FrankRep]

...

[FrankRep]

bad law!! the best way to avoid this law is boycott AZ. i wouldn't want police pulling me over because my wife is hispanic!! this is simply bad law!!

encourage everyone to wear bear suits!!


Arizona supports it though. :rolleyes:


70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_crack ing_down_on_illegal_immigration

[speciallyblend]

tell that to americans that have already been arrested. It has already happened to a california us citizen. i guess as an american you better look white or you are screwed!!

i guess republicans had been doing a good job at looking insane lately. so this is regular par for the course!!

[speciallyblend]

Arizona supports it though. :rolleyes:


70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_crack ing_down_on_illegal_immigration

so did the germans before ww2!! reminds me to scratch off az as a state to visit wouldn't want my wife getting me pulled over!!

at one time a majority supported the failed war on drugs to,doesn't make it right!!

forget cracking down on employers. this is just bad law!! you can scream all day your an american but if your papers are not in order your screwed!! id wasn't good enough for a california citizen!! they already have state and federal law to crack down on illegals. the first folks they should go after are employers!! i guess my ss and id are not good enough anymore,slippery slope. Real id coming to a state near you asap. it is not real id because they removed those words!!! sounds logical to me(sarcasm)

[james1906]

If a family from Mexico for summer vacation flies into Phoenix and rents a car to go up to the Grand Canyon, what happens when they're stopped?

[speciallyblend]

If a family from Mexico for summer vacation flies into Phoenix and rents a car to go up to the Grand Canyon, what happens when they're stopped?

they get a free stay at a resort close to hq??:rolleyes:

[Stary Hickory]

Exactly this nonsense about it being draconian is preposterous. I still have not seen where they can stop you for looking hispanic. The law specifically says they cannot. But what it does do is allow cops to determine citizenship status when they check their IDs normally.

Absolutely nothing wrong with this. I mean unless you support zero enforcement of immigration laws this is just a common sense law. Go squat in Germany and see how they handle your butt, they won't put up with either. It's almost comical to expect that police officers should not be able to assess a person's citizenship status when they are already checking ID anyways. Esepcially in light of the huge immigration problem in AZ.

If you do not support immigration laws then help reform the stupid system so that there is no way for anyone to take from others using a corrupt democratic system. At this point open borders would be quite feasible and desireable.

[speciallyblend]

Exactly this nonsense about it being draconian is preposterous. I still have not seen where they can stop you for looking hispanic. The law specifically says they cannot. But what it does do is allow cops to determine citizenship status when they check their IDs normally.

Absolutely nothing wrong with this. I mean unless you support zero enforcement of immigration laws this is just a common sense law. Go squat in Germany and see how they handle your butt, they won't put up with either. It's almost comical to expect that police officers should not be able to assess a person's citizenship status when they are already checking ID anyways. Esepcially in light of the huge immigration problem in AZ.

If you do not support immigration laws then help reform the stupid system so that there is no way for anyone to take from others using a corrupt democratic system. At this point open borders would be quite feasible and desireable.

i have to find the link but an american hispanic citizen was already arrested!!

YouTube - 4409 -- Arrested over Arizona's Real I.D. Paper's Please SB1070 bill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knv6nDZX1mc)

[angelatc]

Yeah, I think even the Libertarians were sucked into the Mass Media's Propaganda.

No, they're Libertarians. They're open borders proponents who would prefer to see the state crash under the unsustainable weight of the welfare burdens than encourage government to start tracking us. There's something to be said for that, but that system isn't working.

People are being murdered, kidnapped, the drug cartels are out of control...the governor has the responsibility to protect the citizens who don't want to live in anarchy.

[angelatc]

i have to find the link but an american hispanic citizen was already arrested!!

YouTube - 4409 -- Arrested over Arizona's Real I.D. Paper's Please SB1070 bill (http://www.youtube.nDZX1mc)

You just made our point, actually. First, the law doesn't even go into effect until July, so this is really has nothing to do with that.

Additionally, the driver presented 2 documents that should have been accepted. He has now has grounds for a lawsuit, and the cops will hopefully be reprimanded.

Nothing is perfect, but this is a step in the right direction.

[MelissaWV]

In other circumstances, law enforcement officials must have reasonable suspicion, not based simply on the person's race or origin, that the individual is an illegal alien before they can ask to check someone's ID.

And per people on these forums, where you are standing or who you are standing with is reasonable suspicion. What, precisely, constitutes reasonable suspicion of being here illegally? That is the only thing necessary. The assurances that the detention will be brief and cannot be based on one's ethnicity, somehow, doesn't seem particularly comforting, nor do the seven mentions of e-verify in the bill, nor does the fact that the bill only partially targets the self-professed problems Arizona is having.

The article's entire point seems to be "don't worry... we'll be stopping EVERYONE at random and asking them for their papers." I didn't realize existing required you to have ID on you. It's going to suck to be under 16 in Arizona. Maybe they'll all have to go in and get special IDs... with added security features ;)

[angelatc]

And per people on these forums, where you are standing or who you are standing with is reasonable suspicion.

But that ship sailed a long time ago. This is not a new police power.






What, precisely, constitutes reasonable suspicion of being here illegally?

There are established legal precedents for similar laws. If you live in a neighborhood where drugs are sold, they can't harass you for living there. If you're hanging out on a corner where drugs are sold, they can.

If you live in a neighborhood where hookers walk the street, they can't hassle you. If you drive slowly through, or stand on a corner in, that neighborhood, they can.

Now if you live in the barrio, they can't harass you. If you hang out on a corner where illegal labor is sold, they can.





That is the only thing necessary. The assurances that the detention will be brief and cannot be based on one's ethnicity, somehow, doesn't seem particularly comforting, nor do the seven mentions of e-verify in the bill, nor does the fact that the bill only partially targets the self-professed problems Arizona is having.

Heck, SCOTUS even says race can be used to identify suspects, although the Arizona law says it can't.




The article's entire point seems to be "don't worry... we'll be stopping EVERYONE at random and asking them for their papers." I didn't realize existing required you to have ID on you. It's going to suck to be under 16 in Arizona. Maybe they'll all have to go in and get special IDs... with added security features ;)

More fearmongering. SCOTUS has already ruled again and again and again that stopping people at random is not constitutional, and there's no evidence to support that Arizona is intent on challenging that. They are relying on established precedents, which, while certainly objectionable from a strictly libertarian POV, are already on the books today.

[MelissaWV]

Saying that those under 16 will need to go get IDs is fearmongering?

How is someone of that age going to prove they are citizens if they happen to be around day laborers? Here they hang out at the bus stops around citizens and youngsters going to school.

[orenbus]

Saying that those under 16 will need to go get IDs is fearmongering?

How is someone of that age going to prove they are citizens if they happen to be around day laborers? Here they hang out at the bus stops around citizens and youngsters going to school.

It's their fault for wanting to use a bus stop to go to school where day laborers congregate. Next time they should think about walking to school, back in my day we didn't have buses to take us to school so I don't want to hear them cry about getting arested when they knowingly hang around illegal immigrant locations. Send those stupid kids to mexico, that will learn them. :D

[angelatc]

Saying that those under 16 will need to go get IDs is fearmongering?

How is someone of that age going to prove they are citizens if they happen to be around day laborers? Here they hang out at the bus stops around citizens and youngsters going to school.

Maybe if Canada starts enforcing immigration law, the illegals won't hang out there any more.

As for the issue of minors - nothing is perfect. I suppose they'll cross that bridge when they come to it. But as always, I never put much credibility into arguments that are a derivative of "Think of the children!!!"

[John Taylor]

bad law!! the best way to avoid this law is boycott AZ. i wouldn't want police pulling me over because my wife is hispanic!! this is simply bad law!!

encourage everyone to wear bear suits!!

By all means, stay away from AZ. We don't like half a million illegals here clogging up our state.

[John Taylor]

It's their fault for wanting to use a bus stop to go to school where day laborers congregate. Next time they should think about walking to school, back in my day we didn't have buses to take us to school so I don't want to hear them cry about getting arested when they knowingly hang around illegal immigrant locations. Send those stupid kids to mexico, that will learn them. :D

Nonsensical babbling.

The law simply allows state law enforcement to enforce existing federal law which has been on the books for 50 years. This is just a common-sense approach to starting to remove the 11 million law-braking migrants we have within our borders right now.

[constituent]

The law simply allows state law enforcement to enforce existing federal law which has been on the books for 50 years.

Can you show me the text within the different laws that you're talking about in this sentence?

Thanks. :)

[John Taylor]

Can you show me the text within the different laws that you're talking about in this sentence?

Thanks. :)

I'm sure you have the time to look it up for yourself ;)

SB1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=1070&image.x=0&image.y=0)states:

A. In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is both:

1. Present on any public or private land in this state.

2. In violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

B. In the enforcement of this section, the final determination of an alien's immigration status shall be determined by either:

1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien's immigration status.

2. A law enforcement officer or agency communicating with the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

C. A person who is sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence or release on any basis until the sentence imposed is served.

D. In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order the person to pay jail costs and an additional assessment in the following amounts:

1. At least five hundred dollars for a first violation.

2. Twice the amount specified in paragraph 1 of this subsection if the person was previously subject to an assessment pursuant to this subsection.

E. A court shall collect the assessments prescribed in subsection D of this section and remit the assessments to the department of public safety, which shall establish a special subaccount for the monies in the account established for the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission appropriation. Monies in the special subaccount are subject to legislative appropriation for distribution for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.

F. This section does not apply to a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States.

G. A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that a violation of this section is:

1. A class 3 felony if the person violates this section while in possession of any of the following:

(a) A dangerous drug as defined in section 13-3401.

(b) Precursor chemicals that are used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine in violation of section 13-3404.01.

(c) A deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument, as defined in section 13-105.

(d) Property that is used for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism as prescribed in section 13-2308.01.

2. A class 4 felony if the person either:

(a) Is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section.

(b) Within sixty months before the violation, has been removed from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229a or has accepted a voluntary removal from the United States pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1229c. END_STATUTE

8 United States Code section 1304(e) states:

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

8 United States Code section 1306(a) states:

(a) Willful failure to register
Any alien required to apply for registration and to be
fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses
to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or
legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien
who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the
registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be
imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

There you have it champ.

[constituent]

I'm sure you have the time to look it up for yourself ;)


My question concerned whether or not you had even bothered... champ. ;)

..and your "50 years" statement, which is now clearly seen to be a falsehood on a number of levels. Thanks. :)

[John Taylor]

My question concerned whether or not you had even bothered... champ. ;)

Oh, ten thousand pardons....

I read a few of the draft versions of the law, the law itself a few times, and the corresponding federal law.

[John Taylor]

My question concerned whether or not you had even bothered... champ. ;)

..and your "50 years" statement, which is now clearly seen to be a falsehood on a number of levels. Thanks. :)

8 United States Code section 1304(e) states:

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

8 United States Code section 1306(a) states:

(a) Willful failure to register
Any alien required to apply for registration and to be
fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses
to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or
legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien
who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the
registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be
imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

These have been on the books for 50 years.

Waiting for your retraction in:

3...

2...

1...

[constituent]

Oh, ten thousand pardons....

I read a few of the draft versions of the law, the law itself a few times, and the corresponding federal law.

The question didn't concern the state legislation, but rather the fifty year old federal legislation you were attempting to lean on... champ.

[John Taylor]

The question didn't concern the state legislation, but rather the fifty year old federal legislation you were attempting to lean on... champ.

The federal law, is fifty years old.

[constituent]

These have been on the books for 50 years.

Waiting for your retraction in:

3...

2...

1...


Waiting for you to explain why you're being a dick in

3...

2...

1...

[constituent]

The federal law, is fifty years old.

Actually... I won't be wasting any more time with you John Taylor. Thanks again... champ. :)

[tropicangela]

So like MelissaWV keeps saying... what will AZ do about illegals that are applying for welfare, education, etc? Are they going to stop handing it out?

What will the State of AZ do to corporations that hire illegals?

[dannno]

No, they're Libertarians. They're open borders proponents

Liar, nobody here proposes open borders right now.




who would prefer to see the state crash under the unsustainable weight of the welfare burdens than encourage government to start tracking us.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-Ben Franklin

[constituent]

So like MelissaWV keeps saying... what will AZ do about illegals that are applying for welfare, education, etc? Are they going to stop handing it out?

What will the State of AZ do to corporations that hire illegals?

It's not really about welfare or corporations, most these folks just use those as easy cover. If the problem was welfare, they'd be going after the welfare.

First they'll say they're not opposed to immigration, it's just the "illegal" immigration they don't like. Then they break down and admit that "unfettered" immigration isn't very good either when "they" are clearly taking "our" jobs, and they come from a different culture anyway.

You good folks are wasting your time. :o

[John Taylor]

So like MelissaWV keeps saying... what will AZ do about illegals that are applying for welfare, education, etc? Are they going to stop handing it out?

What will the State of AZ do to corporations that hire illegals?

The 1982 supreme court case of Plyer vs. Doe makes it illegal to deny children of illegal immigrants the right to go to school, and the federal government has long prevented states from denying illegal immigrants social services.

Deport the illegals, convert the statists here in the United States, and seek a rebirth of individual freedom and the reduction and destruction of the welfare-warfare state.

[John Taylor]

It's not really about welfare or corporations, most these folks just use those as easy cover. If the problem was welfare, they'd be going after the welfare.

First they'll say they're not opposed to immigration, it's just the "illegal" immigration they don't like. Then they break down and admit that "unfettered" immigration isn't very good either when "they" are clearly taking "our" jobs, and they come from a different culture anyway.

You good folks are wasting your time. :o

What a smear job.

This concerns more than laissez faire and freedom of human capital across international boundaries, it involves the capaicity of the American people to throw off the bonds of the welfare/warfare state.

[MelissaWV]

It's not really about welfare or corporations, most these folks just use those as easy cover. If the problem was welfare, they'd be going after the welfare.

First they'll say they're not opposed to immigration, it's just the "illegal" immigration they don't like. Then they break down and admit that "unfettered" immigration isn't very good either when "they" are clearly taking "our" jobs, and they come from a different culture anyway.

You good folks are wasting your time. :o

Earlier a lot of people were "suspicious" of me because I have family members whose English isn't up to par ;) That obviously makes one illegal.

I know it's a waste of time, but I'm multitasking. This is just extra time that would end up in a landfill, or somehow in Danke's dungeon.

[AuH20]

The 1982 supreme court case of Plyer vs. Doe makes it illegal to deny children of illegal immigrants the right to go to school, and the federal government has long prevented states from denying illegal immigrants social services.

Deport the illegals, convert the statists here in the United States, and seek a rebirth of individual freedom and the reduction and destruction of the welfare-warfare state.

Danno, in light of these indellible facts how do we shrink the welfare state? Dissolve the Supreme Court and rip up legal precedent? We're all ears. We clearly tried it your way and aside from a massive revolution, our hands are tied.

[dannno]

Danno, in light of these indellible facts how do we shrink the welfare state? Dissolve the Supreme Court and rip up legal precedent? We're all ears. We clearly tried it your way and aside from a massive revolution, our hands are tied.

Well AZ has a choice to make.

They can destroy the 4th amendment rights of everyone in their state, or they can fight an unconstitutional federal mandate.

Which course of action would Ron Paul recommend?

[John Taylor]

Well AZ has a choice to make.

They can destroy the 4th amendment rights of everyone in their state, or they can fight an unconstitutional federal mandate.

Which course of action would Ron Paul recommend?

What 4th Amendment rights are being violated? I haven't seen any, and I've read the bill a dozen times.

[AuH20]

Well AZ has a choice to make.

They can destroy the 4th amendment rights of everyone in their state, or they can fight an unconstitutional federal mandate.

Which course of action would Ron Paul recommend?

If the Arizona law in question stays in adherence with the 4th amendment, your grievance would significantly lessened I assume? I personally could not endorse a law which blatantly violates the precepts outlined in the 4th amendment, but from my understanding it does not.

[dannno]

What 4th Amendment rights are being violated? I haven't seen any, and I've read the bill a dozen times.

The law says the cops can ask a law abiding citizen for their papers if they suspect they are an illegal immigrant (don't argue this point, Melissa posted the text of the bill.. refute the text of the bill if you want to argue this point, don't dismiss it). There is no way of knowing if a person is an illegal immigrant, so lawful citizens will ultimately be illegally searched for engaging in lawful activity.

That's the 31st time I've explained this concept to you.

Like Melissa said, if a burglar leaves a residence limping, and he's about 6 feet, then a cop can stop a 6' limping guy and question them.

But like my analogy in the previous thread, you can't be pulled over because a cop suspects you for speeding just because you have a fast car. That is lawful activity.

This is sooooo basic.. so basic to understand, I'm pretty sure I could explain the concept to your average 10 year old and they would have a better understanding of the 4th amendment than you.

[John Taylor]

The law says the cops can ask a law abiding citizen for their papers if they suspect they are an illegal immigrant. There is no way of knowing if a person is an illegal immigrant, so lawful citizens will ultimately be illegally searched for engaging in illegal activity.

That's the 31st time I've explained this concept to you.

Like Melissa said, if a burglar leaves a residence limping, and he's about 6 feet, then a cop can stop a 6' limping guy and question them.

But like my analogy in the previous thread, you can't be pulled over because a cop suspects you for speeding just because you have a fast car. That is lawful activity.

This is sooooo basic.. so basic to understand, I'm pretty sure I could explain the concept to your average 10 year old and they would have a better understanding of the 4th amendment than you.

It is NOT A SEARCH to be asked for identification.

This is basic indeed, and you're failing miserably.

[constituent]

What a smear job.

If the shoe fits... and it does.



This concerns more than laissez faire and freedom of human capital across international boundaries, it involves the capaicity of the American people to throw off the bonds of the welfare/warfare state.

Buddy, there's always an excuse.

"Throw off the bonds of the welfare/warfare state," save it for someone who buys this type of ridiculous platitude, 'cuz right now your weak rhetoric merely serves to prove my point.

Thanks. :)

[dannno]

It is NOT A SEARCH to be asked for identification.




Yes it is. Cops can only ask for ID if you are engaging in illegal behavior or suspected of.


...Now you are about to bring out the law that says immigrants must keep their papers on them....


but that is irrelevant because we are talking about ALL citizens. Not to mention, the fourth amendment applies to immigrants as well.. you still can't search an immigrant without probably cause. You can't ask them for their papers unless they are engaged in illegal activity, or suspected of.. but you can't "suspect" somebody of being an illegal immigrant for engaging in lawful activity.


Please go through this logic a couple of times before responding. It's not that difficult.

[John Taylor]

If the shoe fits... and it does.


Buddy, there's always an excuse.

"Throw off the bonds of the welfare/warfare state," save it for someone who buys this type of ridiculous platitude, 'cuz right now your weak rhetoric merely serves to prove my point.

Thanks. :)

The shoe does fit, you're wrong here.

You are of the opinion that letting millions upon millions of soon to be pro-redistributionist voters into the country (turning "libertarian" states like New Mexico from Gary Johnson electing places to liberal Bill Richardson places), must be done before we can get rid of the welfare state (as an aside, I'm sorry you didn't include the warfare state).

I think that because we lack the politcal power to dismantle the welfare/warfare state, we must at the very least, while it is still possible, restrain from moving here those most likely to further exacerbate the decline of property rights and our American mores.

[John Taylor]

Yes it is. Cops can only ask for ID if you are engaging in illegal behavior or suspected of.


...Now you are about to bring out the law that says immigrants must keep their papers on them....


but that is irrelevant because we are talking about ALL citizens. Not to mention, the fourth amendment applies to immigrants as well.. you still can't search an immigrant without probably cause. You can't ask them for their papers unless they are engaged in illegal activity, or suspected of.. but you can't "suspect" somebody of being an illegal immigrant for engaging in lawful activity.


Please go through this logic a couple of times before responding. It's not that difficult.

Of course, no one has maintained that police can merely stop and ask anyone for their ID without some form of reasonable suspicion.

Under your logic Danno, when and how could police officers determine the legal status of an illegal?

[MelissaWV]

The shoe does fit, you're wrong here.

You are of the opinion that letting millions upon millions of soon to be pro-redistributionist voters into the country (turning "libertarian" states like New Mexico from Gary Johnson electing places to liberal Bill Richardson places), must be done before we can get rid of the welfare state (as an aside, I'm sorry you didn't include the warfare state).

I think that because we lack the politcal power to dismantle the welfare/warfare state, we must at the very least, while it is still possible, restrain from moving here those most likely to further exacerbate the decline of property rights and our American mores.


YouTube - Family Guy - Stewie - Say WHAAAAT!? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad3Hzsy1-20&feature=related)

[John Taylor]

YouTube - Family Guy - Stewie - Say WHAAAAT!? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad3Hzsy1-20&feature=related)

Uh, yeah. That's patently obvious.

The millions of migrants are predisposed by their education, by their poverty, and by their contacts in groups like La Raza here, to support redistributive policies (like those maintained in Mexico) here.

[constituent]

You are of the opinion that letting millions upon millions of soon to be pro-redistributionist voters into the country (turning "libertarian" states like New Mexico from Gary Johnson electing places to liberal Bill Richardson places), must be done before we can get rid of the welfare state (as an aside, I'm sorry you didn't include the warfare state).

Wow, after reading this silly s*, I'm thinking that you couldn't possibly be more wrong.... but I'm sure you're going to continue and surprise us all.



I think that because we lack the politcal power to dismantle the welfare/warfare state, we must at the very least, while it is still possible, restrain from moving here those most likely to further exacerbate the decline of property rights and our American mores.

Hahah!


American mores.

Name five uniquely "American mores."

[MelissaWV]

Uh, yeah. That's patently obvious.

The millions of migrants are predisposed by their education, by their poverty, and by their contacts in groups like La Raza here, to support redistributive policies (like those maintained in Mexico) here.

What makes LEGAL immigrants renounce such views and oh so different? Are you trying to say everyone in La Raza is illegal, or are you implying we should just cut off Mexico from all immigration whatsoever?

[MelissaWV]

Name five uniquely "American mores."

These are from an article I found on the ever-reliable internet:


For people who have never left their home, or the area where they grew up, this post will be a bit shocking. It’s about missing things that were taken for granted when they were too obvious to observe. After living in China for seven months, I was surprised at what I missed most about America.

I missed the food. American food is truly the most versatile, and perhaps for that reason we are the second most overweight country in the world (the first being the Philippines). I miss the availability of Mexican food, Italian cuisine, German brats, French cafes, Indian buffets, Chinese delivery, hamburgers, Mac & cheese and especially walking down the isle of the grocery store and realizing that every isle is the ‘imported foods’ isle, as America is composed of so many ethnicities that we benefit in that we see more of the world’s cultures in our grocery stores than most people in the world see in a lifetime.

I missed the people. American people are an independent and stand-offish lot to a newcomer. But to a veteran of the country, they are seen as stubborn because they are proud, closed-minded because they are determined, and most importantly– they are forward looking. Perhaps because American history extends back only a few hundred years, we have not had to live through massive defeats that left the nation in shambles. We are an optimistic, fun-loving, humorous and above all, an analytic people.

I missed green. In China and Central Asia there are massive open spaces– but they are called deserts. In America we have massive fields of grass or growing grains. We have national parks, mountains, streams, and openness in the geography that makes us feel small and yet empowered. A thunderstorm in Illinois is somehow more beautiful than anything in the Louvre.

I missed the air. We take our lack of air pollution for granted. The rest of the world suffers from pollutions that cripple their lungs and darken the skies. Smoking is not seen as a health hazard in China, for example, because at least smokers have filters for the local air. Living in China, seeing the sky was a luxury. Living in America, I could stare at the blueness of the sky for hours without being bored. Clouds have so many shapes!

I missed the culture. Americans are friendly, perhaps owing to Christianity and a fear of Hell if one does not try, with every moment, to attain the rights to heaven. Nevertheless, in American people open doors, pull out chairs, say hello or nod to acknowledge your presence, give seats to the elderly, and have ramps for the disabled and offer vegetarian selections on their menus. Though not a veggie lover myself, all of these small kindnesses add up to a place wonderfully easy to live in. These things we call manners are really cultural quirks, and do not exist everywhere.

Well, when I lived abroad those were the things I missed, and when I returned to America they were the things that made me smile on a daily basis. Wherever you call home, find something simple and taken for granted to smile about today.

http://www.abandonthecube.com/blog/top-five-things-youd-miss-about-america/

[John Taylor]

These are from an article I found on the ever-reliable internet:



http://www.abandonthecube.com/blog/top-five-things-youd-miss-about-america/

Better say goodbye, we're turning this American hellhole into a Mexico-City-like paradise!!!!!

[MelissaWV]

Better say goodbye, we're turning this American hellhole into a Mexico-City-like paradise!!!!!

You didn't answer my previous question about why legality removes that awful tendency you spoke of earlier?

[constituent]

What makes LEGAL immigrants renounce such views and oh so different? Are you trying to say everyone in La Raza is illegal, or are you implying we should just cut off Mexico from all immigration whatsoever?

I will refer you back to my earlier statement.


It's not really about welfare or corporations, most these folks just use those as easy cover. If the problem was welfare, they'd be going after the welfare.

First they'll say they're not opposed to immigration, it's just the "illegal" immigration they don't like. Then they break down and admit that "unfettered" immigration isn't very good either when "they" are clearly taking "our" jobs, and they come from a different culture anyway.

You good folks are wasting your time. :o

Which I would like to remind you that John Taylor reflexively responded to with the following.


What a smear job.

Although his statement later helped prove its validity, and that in the case of John Taylor the shoe most certainly fits. You just smell the hysteria wafting out of the post quoted below.



You are of the opinion that letting millions upon millions of soon to be pro-redistributionist voters into the country (turning "libertarian" states like New Mexico from Gary Johnson electing places to liberal Bill Richardson places), must be done before we can get rid of the welfare state (as an aside, I'm sorry you didn't include the warfare state).

I think that because we lack the politcal power to dismantle the welfare/warfare state, we must at the very least, while it is still possible, restrain from moving here those most likely to further exacerbate the decline of property rights and our American mores.

[speciallyblend]

Of course, no one has maintained that police can merely stop and ask anyone for their ID without some form of reasonable suspicion.

Under your logic Danno, when and how could police officers determine the legal status of an illegal?

but john that is the point ,they can stop you with no reasonable suspicion and they have already arrested a us citizen who produced identification!!!

danno wins this, you seem to ignore the point .have you not watched the 4409 video or understand if i am a cop i can stop and ask you for your papers and you give me your id,but i decide your not american and arrest you. they can do this and already have when the law is not even in effect yet!!! i see dannos point and i know you have a brain but why can't you get this point or are you refusing to see the reality of it!!

john taylor you could scream your an american all day long and if they feel your id is not legit. they will and can arrest you ,no matter what you say!! it has already happened to a us citizen, of course he wasn't white either!! this is insanity

[constituent]

These are from an article I found on the ever-reliable internet:


Not even close, and wrong on so many levels. Although, I get the feeling that this was exactly your point. :p

[MelissaWV]

Not even close, and wrong on so many levels. Although, I get the feeling that this was exactly your point. :p

Yep and it went right over John Taylor's head ;)

As he's talking about how Mexicans are corrupting our American mores (until he answers the question of what makes them lose this innate characteristic once they become legal, it's a valid statement)... one of the things listed is specifically Mexican food.


I miss the availability of Mexican food.

Corrupt hussy!

[orenbus]

Yep and it went right over John Taylor's head ;)

As he's talking about how Mexicans are corrupting our American mores (until he answers the question of what makes them lose this innate characteristic once they become legal, it's a valid statement)... one of the things listed is specifically Mexican food.



Corrupt hussy!

YouTube - Borat - Throw the Jew Down the Well!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo)

[heavenlyboy34]

No, they're Libertarians. They're open borders proponents who would prefer to see the state crash under the unsustainable weight of the welfare burdens than encourage government to start tracking us. There's something to be said for that, but that system isn't working.

People are being murdered, kidnapped, the drug cartels are out of control...the governor has the responsibility to protect the citizens who don't want to live in anarchy.

I'm a libertarian and I don't agree with that approach. Don't be so hasty in your generalizations. ;)

[MelissaWV]

I'm a libertarian and I don't agree with that approach. Don't be so hasty in your generalizations. ;)

Yeah, but nobody listens to Bunchies.

He was even removed from the Smilies!

[torchbearer]

I'm a libertarian and I don't agree with that approach. Don't be so hasty in your generalizations. ;)

you are a contradiction. you hate the state unless it is using force against people who live in a different location on the planet.

[Danke]

If you are asked to show ID and are not free to continue on your way without showing ID, you are in fact, under arrest.

[MelissaWV]

You didn't answer my previous question about why legality removes that awful tendency you spoke of earlier?


What makes LEGAL immigrants renounce such views and oh so different? Are you trying to say everyone in La Raza is illegal, or are you implying we should just cut off Mexico from all immigration whatsoever?


I'm sorry... I must have missed the answers?

[phill4paul]

There are many reasons that America is in the state that it is in with regards to jobs,wages, crimes and welfare.

The focus should be on federal government and what it has done to create these problems not an ethnic group nor immigrants legal or illegal.

Individuals or groups of individuals did not create the problems that the government would have us find scapegoats for.

International trade agreements, prohibition laws without weight of Constitutional amendments and out of control vote pandering have created this problem.

Don't lose sight of the brass ring.

[dannno]

If you are asked to show ID and are not free to continue on your way without showing ID, you are in fact, under arrest.

Well that's good, I feel more secure in my person and property already!

[heavenlyboy34]

bad law!! the best way to avoid this law is boycott AZ. i wouldn't want police pulling me over because my wife is hispanic!! this is simply bad law!!

encourage everyone to wear bear suits!!

It seems counterproductive to hurt the regular people and businesses who had nothing to do with the law. It makes more sense to boycott the State government. :cool:

[speciallyblend]

It seems counterproductive to hurt the regular people and businesses who had nothing to do with the law. It makes more sense to boycott the State government. :cool:

honestly . i wouldn't visit az if someone tried to pay me to visit.

[Rock Sexton]

but john that is the point ,they can stop you with no reasonable suspicion and they have already arrested a us citizen who produced identification!!!


Cops have always been able to stop someone for "reasonable suspicion" .... This is not new. What is new is the fact that the police will now be given responsibilities that only immigration officers had up until this point.

[Rock Sexton]

honestly . i wouldn't visit az if someone tried to pay me to visit.

........and that's pertinent information because?

[phill4paul]

Cops have always been able to stop someone for "reasonable suspicion" .... This is not new. What is new is the fact that the police will now be given responsibilities that only immigration officers had up until this point.

Citations for "always." Please.

[Danke]

Well that's good, I feel more secure in my person and property already!

You should. Learn to use it against them and go after their bond and/or property and money. No one should be subject to false imprisonment.

[Rock Sexton]

Citations for "always." Please.

Everyone loves to play the game of semantics.

[phill4paul]

Everyone loves to play the game of semantics.

Semantics are of great importance when dealing in law.;)

[Rock Sexton]

Semantics are of great importance when dealing in law.;)

Would it matter if Reasonable suspicion and probable cause only existed 1 year? How about 10? What about 50? The fact is it exists NOW. In an attempt to derail the conversation, we'll just argue about how long it's existed..... lol

[phill4paul]

Would it matter if Reasonable suspicion and probable cause only existed 1 year? How about 10? What about 50? The fact is it exists NOW. In an attempt to derail the conversation, we'll just argue about how long it's existed..... lol

Yes it actually would matter. If we look at laws based on time lines then we can get back to the basis of the Constitution.

I wasn't trying to derail the conversation nor be flippant.

Just an honest question. Seems to me concepts such as "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are fairly recent (in our nations history) rulings.

[Deborah K]

You just made our point, actually. First, the law doesn't even go into effect until July, so this is really has nothing to do with that.

Additionally, the driver presented 2 documents that should have been accepted. He has now has grounds for a lawsuit, and the cops will hopefully be reprimanded.

Nothing is perfect, but this is a step in the right direction.

That driver sure had a thick accent for being born in San Jose, CA. Just sayin.

[Don't Tread on Mike]

bad law!! the best way to avoid this law is boycott AZ. i wouldn't want police pulling me over because my wife is hispanic!! this is simply bad law!!

encourage everyone to wear bear suits!!

+1 for the south park reference.