I'll even give it to you:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
And one other thing:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37240022/ns/world_news-asiapacific/
Why should we care if Kim Jong Il stays in power? I really don't like the tone of that article. Him losing control should be great news,not a fear we have.
Oh boi, I seem to have struck a nerve.
And I quote:
Page one (1) lines twenty (20) through twenty six (26):
B. For any lauful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.
This causes a neutral observer (and I am one; I am not particularly swayed by the arguments for amnesty--these people have broken laws--but I am not ready to remove the human rights of these people) to wonder what qualifies as "reasonable." Once lawful contact has been made (which is, to my limited knowledge, as trivial an issue as a greeting on the street) the Officer now has unlimited freedom to initiate the witch hunt. I would not be suspected of being an illegal; I am the whitest kid evah. (You've seen the pictures on Facebook.) But what about a hispanic kid that has been raised in a dual-language home? They will look just like their (hypothetical) First-generation Mexican parents, and will share that accent. It may be different in Arizona, but I promise that here in Nebraska we do not carry documents with us proving that we are legal citizens. We should not have to. You may point to the Drivers License, but that is not at all a universal possession. I do not have one. In fact, I would be absolutely incapable of proving my age if pressed, let alone my nationality.
The same will be true of most citizens. (A drivers license isn't proof even if you have one; ids can be faked very easily.) It seems a sad day when citizens of the United States have to prove their innocence before a police-judge.
(Also, didn't you demand less government intervention in our lives not three days ago?
Originally posted by truejedi
I would say I have gone decidely anti-government. I am no longer imperialistic. They all annoy me. A lot.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Oh boi, I seem to have struck a nerve.And I quote:
This is the only place in the text where the phrase "reasonable suspicion" is found. It is not defined anywhere, nor is a precedent cited for such a definition.
This causes a neutral observer (and I am one; I am not particularly swayed by the arguments for amnesty--these people have broken laws--but I am not ready to remove the human rights of these people) to wonder what qualifies as "reasonable." Once lawful contact has been made (which is, to my limited knowledge, as trivial an issue as a greeting on the street) the Officer now has unlimited freedom to initiate the witch hunt. I would not be suspected of being an illegal; I am the whitest kid evah. (You've seen the pictures on Facebook.) But what about a hispanic kid that has been raised in a dual-language home? They will look just like their (hypothetical) First-generation Mexican parents, and will share that accent. It may be different in Arizona, but I promise that here in Nebraska we do not carry documents with us proving that we are legal citizens. We should not have to. You may point to the Drivers License, but that is not at all a universal possession. I do not have one. In fact, I would be absolutely incapable of proving my age if pressed, let alone my nationality.
The same will be true of most citizens. (A drivers license isn't proof even if you have one; ids can be faked very easily.) It seems a sad day when citizens of the United States have to prove their innocence before a police-judge.
(Also, didn't you demand less government intervention in our lives not three days ago?
Don't you see a contradiction here?)
That is only racist if you think like one Red. They can suspect ANYONE of being an immigrant. They can ask ANYONE for their papers. If they racially profile is up entirely, to the officer, and that is true in every instance for every crime. You need to stop playing the race card. If this said to check Hispanics only, you would have an argument. You don't with the snippet you quoted.
In response to the last part:
Hopefully you would be smart enough to start carrying documentation around with you before July 29th, i mean, if you haven't gotten full warning by NOW, what would it take?
And what contradiction? We are talking about the Federal government trying to stop a STATE from enacting a law. I am anti-large Federal government, and me having a problem with this is a contradiction? The Federal Government needs to get its nose out of state business.
Originally posted by truejedi
That is only racist if you think like one Red. They can suspect ANYONE of being an immigrant. They can ask ANYONE for their papers. If they racially profile is up entirely, to the officer, and that is true in every instance for every crime. You need to stop playing the race card. If this said to check Hispanics only, you would have an argument. You don't with the snippet you quoted.
I can't help but laugh at the eagerness with which you and DS want to paint me as the racist. Your argument is that since [my position] tries to prevent or counteract racism, then it is racist itself. This is laughable. Recognizing and combating evil does not make one evil. Reacting to a problem is not the same as causing the problem. It is disingenuous to assert otherwise.
In response to the last part:
Hopefully you would be smart enough to start carrying documentation around with you before July 29th, i mean, if you haven't gotten full warning by NOW, what would it take?
I am not required to prove my innocence.
And what contradiction? We are talking about the Federal government trying to stop a STATE from enacting a law. I am anti-large Federal government, and me having a problem with this is a contradiction? The Federal Government needs to get its nose out of state business.
you
[Arizona's law] is exactly the same as a Federal Law on the books.
Originally posted by Red NemesisI'm not playing the race card. I am looking at the effects of the law proposed. This isn't some ideological fanfare touting the evils of whitey. I love whitey! I am whitey! I cannot and will not, however, ignore a law that expressly allows (and even mandates) the selective and unconstitutional (see below) infringement on human rights by the government.
I don't see where it mandates any such thing. This is the second thing you have brought up that seems a little racist. Because policemen will be checking immigration status, you assume they will check based on skin color. Why? Do you think that there are more hispanics who will seem illegal than whites or blacks? Why do you feel that way? That's quite an assumption based on skin color.
The other thing was when you tried to say hanging Obama in effigy was racist, but hanging Bush or Palin wasn't. It is changing the rules based on skin color, and it is simply the very definition of racism.
I can't help but laugh at the eagerness with which you and DS want to paint me as the racist. Your argument is that since [my position] tries to prevent or counteract racism, then it is racist itself. This is laughable. Recognizing and combating evil does not make one evil. Reacting to a problem is not the same as causing the problem. It is disingenuous to assert otherwise.
Except that this is the United States of America. The Bill of Rights has this nifty part where "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That is from the Fourth amendment.I am not required to prove my innocence.
We aren't talking about search and seizure. We are talking about Identification. This can be asked for, and MUST BE PROVIDED at the request of an officer, at ANY TIME. This is nothing new. I have been asked for my identification by a police officer 5 or 6 times in my life, and never did I start screaming about my consititutional rights, I handed the man my DL.
TJ, this is some major cognitive dissonance. You're gonna have to face it at some point. [/B]
Its really not. Its not even close. You are either misinterpreting what I'm saying, or you are trying to discredit my entire argument by purposely smearing it.
I don't see how the Federal Government can begin to call a State Law unconstitutional when that very law is already on the books of the federal government.
The Federal Government has a god complex, and its annoying as hell.
Originally posted by truejedi
I don't see where it mandates any such thing. This is the second thing you have brought up that seems a little racist. Because policemen will be checking immigration status, you assume they will check based on skin color.The other thing was when you tried to say hanging Obama in effigy was racist, but hanging Bush or Palin wasn't. It is changing the rules based on skin color, and it is simply the very definition of racism.
none of that is at all racist 😐
"racism" is the belief that one race is inferior to another. ... thats it.