::spit take:: You don’t know the MCSO, buddy.
So when (notice I don’t say “if”) this law is shown to have been grossly abused, you’ll come out against it?
This should be enough to ensure your objection, all by itself. If the backers of this legislation were concerned at all about possible abuse of the law, they’d have included specific language regarding what constitutes valid proof of citizenship.
Stop being a lawyer for a moment, and be a person. Then tell me you don’t find the law problematic.
And surely all the teabaggers, who so eagerly flash their copies of the Constitution at their gatherings, will rally to the defense the victims when such injustices occur. Won’t they?
Why, whatever have you heard? Oh, I know there are rumors floating, about how the methods aren’t exactly in line with what lily-livered liberals would want, without all the coddling and stuff…
I didn’t read the law, but from the NYT article I read it suggests that they can just stop you based on a subjective assessment without another reason to stop you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22immig.html
From that it seems that you could just look a little too brown and they can hassle you.
I didn’t say “…and nothing else,” but as a matter of fact, I do believe that the intention is to legitimize racial harrassment and ethnic cleansing. That’s what I honestly think.
Yes. It does not have to be in conjunction with any other stop. “Suspicion” that you are in the US illegally (i.e. observing that an individual has brown skin) is grounds, in itself, for stopping someone and demanding to see their papers.
Jiminy Cynic, Jiminy Cricket’s evil twin, suggests to me that its even more venal than that. That they know damned good and well that this will not fly, Constitution wise. So they win. They got out there and did their damndest, by gum, but those liberal justices just can’t see things clear like a hard-headed realist does. Win.
Latino outrage only encourages them, they want to fan the racism without seeming as if they are. So they don’t rag on Latinos, they snooker the Latinos into ragging on them, the poor dears. Win.
And if, by some malign miracle, the Supremes give this their official kosher stamp, well, then its Katy bar the door, now, isn’t it! Yeee-haw, win! win! WIN!
(Yeah, I see and hear crickets, and they talk to me. So?)
Still having the acid flashbacks, eh? Toldja to stay away from the brown tabs, but did you listen to me? Nooooooooooooo.
:eek:
And while I’m at it, :smack:
I won’t deny that such will be a frequent outcome, and I won’t deny that many of this law’s supporters will consider that outcome to be a happy side effect of its implementation, but there’s a train to Der Trihsville leaving soon, and an assertion like that makes me think you’ve got a timetable in your pocket, bud.
Have a nice trip. I hope it’s just for a visit.
Doggyknees will get off in Hooterville…
But that just begs the question of defining what was so “out of control” about the 1980s. Were there riots or rebellions or widespread crime of some sort attributable to illegal immigrants? If not, then what were the negative effects of illegal immigration in the 1980s? What are the effects now? What was the negative result of Reagan granting amnesty? If there wasn’t one, doesn’t this suggest that illegal immigration is simply not that big of a deal?
Personally, I’m of the opinion that a law that serves no purpose is useless and should be abolished. It’s a simple enough question - what is the purpose of existing immigration law and the new Arizona law? What problem is the law supposed to be addressing? It’s simply not enough to say “illegal is illegal” and I don’t get why you don’t seem to get that. By default, I would think, a government must prove a law is necessary before imposing it, and if a law is too strict or unjust or serve no purpose, a citizen has the moral obligation to fight it.
As for “serving our needs”, why not let the marketplace do that? If there are too many immigrants, wages will fall and the U.S. will be a less attractive market for their labour. I don’t think they go to the U.S. because of some romantic notions about American exceptionalism - they go where the work is.
Just a personal note, no data offered. But a man who is willing to go and live like a fugitive for the chance to work his ass off, and about half a chance to be ripped off or otherwise fucked with, lives with 6 other guys in a motel room, scrapes by as best he can to send money to support a family he cannot even yell at…
If thats the not the kind of man we want for a citizen, I’d like to know who is.
Thank you. I’ve always believed that one should fight unjust laws, too. So you’ve finally help me make a decision on this subject. I’ve been ambivalent for so long. I now have no problem with illegal immigrants. And will push for there to be a way for foreigners to get jobs here so they don’t have to do it illegally.
Wages have fallen, and this has hurt millions of working Americans.
Absolutely. That doesn’t prove I’m a citizen. Neither does a driver’s license or a social security card. (Hijack below.)
In regards to the justification for a police stop, my understanding of the bill is that it makes reasonable suspicion on the part of a police officer that one is an illegal immigrant a primary offense. It’s unclear to me just how the definition of reasonable suspicion will go. That’s what worries me, and it should worry you as well. It opens the door for police to harass and annoy anybody, including you, including me.
[hijack]
A SSN is required to be claimed as a dependent on taxes, and for various other purposes. These days newborns have a SSN applied for before they’re even out of the hospital. I suppose there are some gaps through which people in special circumstances could fall, but for all intents and purposes, they are effectively required for U.S. citizens. But they’re also effectively required for most aliens, and they don’t prove citizenship.
[/hijack]
Arizona does not have the power to make it a separate crime to reside in Arizona without legal national residence. There may be other ways in which the law could survive constitutional review, but that ain’t one of them. I’m not gonna quote caselaw to you in the Pit, but if you wanna bring it to the GD thread, I’ll take you through it.
How many of those Americans do you actually like? How many foreigners do you like? Why do you care?
What the fuck kind of name is “Arpaio” anyway? Sounds like a dirty fucking spic, dego wetback to me. Looking at pictures of this scumbag, well he looks like a dirty Mexican to me. He’s all swarthy, not at all like a decent white man. Has anyone seen his papers? Can I make a citizen’s arrest?
Thank God for the second amendment, every law abiding citizen should resist with lethal force if law enforcement officials dare ask for proof of citizenship, that’s what our guns are for after all, resistance to tyranny.
These details being so germane to the topic, perhaps you could compose a “DO U LIKE?” list of every American and every immigrant, so that he may check “Y” or “N” for each one. See you when you get back.