May I see your papers, citizen?

@Thomas,

There is talk among brown skinned US citizens about refusing to carry their licenses as a way of opposing the law.

Let the police spend the time and money for each arrest they have to make when they pull over a "reasonably suspected" illegal alien, only to find out they were a US citizen.

I mean, there is no reason why we should make racial profiling easy, is there?

3 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

I mean, there is no reason why we should make racial profiling easy, is there?

good luck with that. We live in a society where it is difficult to convince people to drive another 1/2 mile to get a different hamburger, I don't see a lot of people willing to blow half their day dealing with the cops in order to make a statement about immigration policy.

Let's not forget that we also have multiple examples of rouge prosecutors. Giving the police an excuse to dig into our lives, and pissing them off, is a dangerous road.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Actually, there is extra draconianism in a provision that wasn't in the version of the bill that CNN linked to. It must have been slipped in just before it passed.

Code:

20 Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by

21 adding section 13-1509, to read:

22 13-1509. Willful failure to complete or carry an alien

23 registration document; assessment; exception;

24 authenticated records; classification

25 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF

26 WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLETE OR CARRY AN ALIEN REGISTRATION DOCUMENT IF THE

27 PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

28 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS

29 MAY BE DETERMINED BY:

30 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL

31 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.

32 2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED

33 STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION

34 1373(c).

35 C. A PERSON WHO IS SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS NOT ELIGIBLE

36 FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE, PROBATION, PARDON, COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE, OR

37 RELEASE FROM CONFINEMENT ON ANY BASIS EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 31-233,

38 SUBSECTION A OR B UNTIL THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE COURT HAS BEEN SERVED OR

39 THE PERSON IS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE PURSUANT TO SECTION 41-1604.07.

40 D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL

41 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE

42 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:

43 1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.

44 2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE

45 PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

Oh well ....

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

There was also talk of a Mayday demonstration that involved protest instead of going to work. Good show. Unless my timeline is off, I think that was the death of McCain - Kennedy.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Thanks, Irishk! So now we can answer Joe Nation's question. His New York state driver's license would qualify under #4 if he were stopped in Arizona. If he were stopped in New York State, and if the law were adopted there as he assumed in his hypothetical, Joe's license would qualify under both #1 and #4. How outrageous is that? Not very, I submit.

I think a definite part of the problem with this bill is the language authorizing the cops to demand proof of citizenship from people who 'look illegal.' In the South, this just means they look Hispanic. A more neutral wording would have stated that 'any and all people can be stopped at any time and be asked to provide proof of ID' without any mention of the way people looked.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

That's not how I understand the bill. I don't see where the bill would authorize the police to conduct fishing expeditions for illegal aliens. The bill only makes a practical difference after the police has pulled you over for breaking the law in some other way, after it has asked you to provide the kind of identification IrishK cited, and after you failed to provide it. Only then can the police "reasonably suspect" you of being an illegal alien.

ebrown p wrote:

I mean, there is no reason why we should make racial profiling easy, is there?

Other than the fine for driving without a license? No.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think a definite part of the problem with this bill is the language authorizing the cops to demand proof of citizenship from people who 'look illegal.'

Could you please point me to the part of the bill containing this language? For your convenience, here is a URL for the version of that bill that passed.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think a definite part of the problem with this bill is the language authorizing the cops to demand proof of citizenship from people who 'look illegal.'

Could you please point me to the part of the bill containing this language? For your convenience, here is a URL for the version of that bill that passed.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

I will look - I was going off of reports, so in all fairness it may not have that exact language.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Okay, I've read the bill and I can't find that exact language, so I retract my earlier comment. The most that it says in that area is law enforcement may not use race solely as their basis of judgment, except for the extent allowed to do so under the Constitution.

Is that the final version of the bill? Sections of it are marked up in caps and some are stricken out.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Let's just issue a national ID card while we're at it, right?
Why not? I find the typical American objection to a national ID card, as opposed to the many different state versions, to be largely irrational.

Personally, I have no objection to a national ID card. I think it would simplify a great many things.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of many folks who support the new Arizona law, but oppose a national ID card. It's some kind of doublethink, where they believe the only folks who will ever be asked for their proof of legal residency are illegal aliens; that the police will somehow magically know who is a citizen and who is an illegal alien.

0 Replies

I find it interesting that neither here nor in the press is there much said about how this law is unconstitutional, because at the end of the day that is the only thing that will change things. The Political class of Arizona has listened to their people, have done what was asked of them, and a lot of whining from outsiders about how bad this law is will mean nothing to Arizona citizens. Arizona citizens have thought and argued a long time about this problem, no arguments made against this law are going to be something that has not already been thought of and considered. All of this outrage to them looks like a lot of talking down to them by a nation that has for a long time been too weak to act on the immigration problem. I lived in Arizona for five years, I promise you that they are not impressed.

The Federal Government was asked to do something about this problem, the previous solution of increased border control has not worked, and the Federal Government when faced with the failure of the border control solution hung out the "out to lunch" sign rather than consider the next step.

Arizona's actions here are fully with-in their rights, and are completely reasonable.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

There are lots of people explaining why the bill is unconstitutional.

Here is the ACLU analysis (who will certainly be part of the lawsuits that are already being drawn up).

http://acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%20By%20Section%20Analysis%20of%20SB1070updated%204-14-10.pdf

Add to this the political action that this bill is facing, from civil disobedience to using this in elections-- all of this done by US citizens who are also acting in our rights.

The bigots behind this bill, and the national political party we will tie them to, will pay in multiple ways.

3 Replies

@ebrown p,

... and it is a strange irony that this bill makes a Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill more urgent and more likely.

I am not saying that it will definitely happen this year... but it is certainly more likely to happen this year thanks to Arizona.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

the ACLU thing is a laundry list of things that don't like, which will mean nothing to most Arizona citizens, and grounds that they hope to get the law thrown out on. There is however no convincing argument, nor even the attempt to make one, that this law in unconstitutional.

0 Replies

@mm25075,

Be careful there. Before you know it, and if you're lucky, you will someday be a retired senior citizen --- ugh.

Unless of course you're one of the noble youths who plan on committing suicide at age 30.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

I agree. We should end the war on drugs by making them all legal and having the States tax and regulate their sale.

Whether legal or illegal there will be addicts, at least if drugs are legal the violent criminal element will eliminated, and we can collect tax revenue to fund addict treatment programs.

Despite what fools like ebrown allege, Arizona has come to this point because they are faced with a very real problem and not because white Arizonians hate brown skinned people and want to see them harassed into leaving the state.

Illegal aliens are by definition criminals and if you don't want them treated like criminals, change the laws that make them criminals.

Unfortunately there are inextricably meshed components of drug trafficking and violence within the border problem.

I'm not entirely comfortable with this attempted solution, but they are facing a problem that very few of their critics have to deal with.

The answer can't be: "Just buck it up you racists!" or "Just open the borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come in."

There is no "human right" to live in America and benefit from its social programs.

This notion is a favorite of people like ebrown who can't be bothered to consider the practicality of their sanctimonious demands.

There is certainly no reason why Americans should tolerate criminals who enter our country illegally to prey on us, and certainly not because to do otherwise is to suggest we hate people with brown skin.

5 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Unfortunately there are inextricably meshed components of drug trafficking and violence within the border problem.

this has something to do with why Arizona is at "ENOUGHT!" right now. The Mexican government has been unable to deal with the drug thugs, and so violence on the Mexican side has been out of control for a couple of years. Mexicans are now coming accross not for the land of opportunity, because opportunity sucks right now, but to escape the violence. But they have brought the violence with them, as drug mafia members also relocate to the US in the attempt to stay alive.

I find the level of debate about the Arizona law distressing, as almost no one seems to have any clue about the situtation on the ground. The arguments against the law are so detached from reality as to sound like they come from people who are trapped in their fantasy life.

0 Replies

Several years ago, I can't remember just how long ago it was, there was a case in LA concerning a black man who was stopped ....basically because he was walking in a upscale neighborhood. The officers who stopped him asked him for ID, he replied (very nicely) that unless the officers had some suspicion of a crime, some probable cause, for stopping him, he was not required to provide them with any information on demand. He could, of his own volition, share his thoughts on the weather and how well he thought the Angels would do in the coming baseball season, but, in these United States, the innocent were not required to expose anything about their identity.
The cops then tried to arrest him for not having any ID, he said to them "It is lawful for me to resist any arrest unless you tell me the statute I am in violation of."
There was some stammering.
===
I forget how that all turned out. I wonder if the law has changed.

Some days I run in shorts which have no pockets.
No pockets, no ID.

Joe(I carry my keys only.)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Be sure to carry that big wad of keys on a nice, stout key lanyard. The combination is a dandy instrument of self defense.

As long as the black man in your story wasn't driving or riding on city roadways, he was probably right. Not sure I would be brave enough to defend the position in LA. LAPD already knows about key lanyards.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

There is certainly no reason why Americans should tolerate criminals who enter our country illegally to prey on us, and certainly not because to do otherwise is to suggest we hate people with brown skin.

Here is the problem Finn,

Tell me that it isn't an example of "hate" to equate people whose only crime is to cross a border or overstay a visa with people here "to illegally prey on us".

My friends are decent people-- they come to work and to provide a better life for their families. They contribute to their families. The study to better themselves. They are generous and caring.

Sure, they broke a law when they crossed a border or overstayed a visa. I will admit there is a legitimate debate about what the consequences of this should be-- but come on! The laws you have broken haven't made you a "criminal".

It is the defamation, the extreme rhetoric, that makes this about hate. It is taking a few cases of crimes committed by individuals to slur an entire group of people (most of whom are decent people) that make this an example of prejudice.

We are all against rapists and murderers and muggers. Being an immigrants whose only crime is to lack permission to be here is not the same thing at all.

1 Reply

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know