May I see your papers, citizen?

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
I'm a constitutional lawyer, good buddy.

Ha Ha , and I am an astronaut. What did you say you were again O'Bill?

Currently managing the business end of a law firm, but I'm NOT a lawyer myself. For someone as confused as this fool to make such a claim is really funny. My 21 year old secretary could take him to school on constitutional law.

0 Replies

@electronicmail,

electronicmail wrote:

Quote:
Ha Ha , and I am an astronaut. What did you say you were again O'Bill?
Signature Be White.

O'Bill said he's white, and he'll do the white thing, and you're an astronaut.

Yep. Krypton is calling you home. So's Mexico.

What precisely is the "white thing"?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

At the very least; you should have been able to recover actual costs and attorney's fees... and the official as well as every officer who's stops are later deemed unjustified should result in some form of disciplinary action.

If I'm not mistaken, the Arizona law provides for the recovery of costs and attorney fees by the victim of abuse.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

At the very least; you should have been able to recover actual costs and attorney's fees... and the official as well as every officer who's stops are later deemed unjustified should result in some form of disciplinary action.

If I'm not mistaken, the Arizona law provides for the recovery of costs and attorney fees by the victim of abuse.

I'm not at all familiar with Arizona Law, but I'd wager it's a very rare day indeed when the improperly stopped raises the issue at all, let alone gets compensated for the inconvenience, embarrassment, and humiliation. In Wisconsin when you get pulled over for Driving while black; you get "let off" if they find nothing wrong, and consider the stop justified if they do find something wrong. Terry is effectively used as an end-around the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches of vehicles. Since early magna carta it's been recognized that the purpose of a search cannot be to find out what crime may have been committed; but Terry effectively wiped this protection away when you're in a vehicle.

I don’t know why George’s firm wouldn’t have recovered their costs, but I’ve seen Judges go both ways on near identical frivolous motion hearings (as in some don’t care and some hammer them... so I'm guessing there's plenty of discretion.)

0 Replies

This is interesting.
Apparently, there is a county in Va that has an almost identical law as the Az law, and has had since 2007.

And guess what, they havent had any of the problems that the left is afraid of in Az.

http://www.kold.com/global/Story.asp?s=12524931

Quote:

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VA (KOLD) - For the last three years, a county in Virginia has remained under the radar in the immigration debate even though it has a law almost identical to Arizona's immigration law.

The ordinance in Prince William County was passed in 2007. It initially required police to check the status of detainees they suspected of being undocumented immigrants but one year later it was revised.

Officers now question all criminal suspects about their immigration status once an arrest is made.

In 2008, the University of Virginia conducted a survey to see what effects, if any, the Prince William County law had. It concluded initial fears about racial profiling did not happen.

It also show that schools saw a drop in English as a second language enrollment. There was also a drop in uninsured mothers giving birth and individuals turned over to immigration and customs enforcement

So why havent they had the problems that everyone thinks will happen in Az?

3 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

It's a line, "do the white thing". I thought that's where Brown got his signature "be white".

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Wow! That sounds like Ulysses' crew members trying to put the winds back in the bag after they opened it.

Are you aware of just how much an individual can be hurt by a false accusation?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

There is a difference in scale between a county and a state. The population of PWC is just under 380,000 while the population of AZ is more than 6,500,000.

According to the US Census Bureau, PWC in VA is 69% white with an Hispanic or Latino population of 19%, while blacks make up 20%.

Hispanics seem to be prosperous in the county, owning 12% of the businesses.

A total of 16% of the population uses another language at home.

It should also be noted that 31% of the PWC population holds a bachelor's degree.

AZ is more white as a state than the Virginia area is as a county: 86.5% of the folks in AZ are white. About 1/3 are Hispanics, but, remember that Hispanic is not a racial designation according to the census bureau footnote on both pages and people are self-identified for census purposes. Blacks are scarce in AZ, accounting for less than 5% of the population.

Hispanics own only 9% of the AZ businesses.

About 1/4th of the residents speak a language other than English at home.

Overall, only 23% of Arizonians have a first college degree.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

So, when considering the difference between AZ and PWC, we are dealing, in the case of the state, with a population that is about 19 times the size of that of the county and with a political segment that has more clout.

It is true that Hispanics represent a significantly larger percentage of the pop. in AZ, but, it also seems that they are less likely to be as prosperous as the VA residents of Hispanic descent. Consider that a smaller segment of the population is more likely to own a business. Consider, too, that the VA population is somewhat better educated.

We can not deduce much from percentage of non-English language speaking. The census information did not specify what languages were spoken but PWC has a larger percentage of Asian immigrants than AZ does and, I would suspect that Asian languages would be more widely represented in VA.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

"All criminal suspects" is quite a bit different from the AZ law. Questioning everyone would certainly avoid charges of racial profiling.

If the AZ law called for questioning everyone then I'd have less of a problem with it.

Edit: Also "all criminal suspects" is less broad than the AZ law. Still looks like a 4th Amendment violation, though.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Wow! That sounds like Ulysses' crew members trying to put the winds back in the bag after they opened it.

Are you aware of just how much an individual can be hurt by a false accusation?

How many laws are there that cannot be abused by law enforcement officers? The only way to be absolutely certain that such abuse will not occur is to not establish any laws.

When a doctor botches an operation and a patient loses the ability to walk would you counsel the patient not to bring suit against the doctor because it would just be like trying to put wind back in a bag? Or would you advise him beforehand not to have the operation because the doctor could botch it?

I'm aware of how an individual can be hurt by certain false accusations, but I guess I'm not aware of how much an individual can be hurt by a police officer asking them for identification papers. Perhaps you can explain it.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The only way to be absolutely certain that such abuse will not occur is to not establish any laws.

That is a silly argument. The obvious answer is to look at the benefits of the law, against the likelihood of damage when it is abused. Laws against murder are absolutely necessary to our society. There is a very small risk that these laws will be abused.

The Jim Crow laws included a law that said you couldn't vote unless you could pass a "literacy" test. There is nothing "inherently" racist about a literacy test... but everyone knew the purpose of this law was to prevent black people from voting. So in the case of the Jim Crow law the chance of "abuse" was very high indeed.

I think it is safe to assume that we agree on the basic principle that some laws are reasonable, and that some laws (at least historically) are unreasonable.

The Arizona law is a similar farce. The goal of this law is to make it easier to stop and question people when they aren't committing a crime (other than existing inside the border). There is very little benefit to society in this, and the risk of damage to minorities is clear.

Your argument that since we reject this one law, we have to reject all laws is laughable. By the same law I could say that since you support this one law, you have to support all laws. The debate is on this specific law that will instruct police to (among other things) investigate and possibly detain rape victims.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

The Jim Crow laws included a law that said you couldn't vote unless you could pass a "literacy" test. There is nothing "inherently" racist about a literacy test... but everyone knew the purpose of this law was to prevent black people from voting. So in the case of the Jim Crow law the chance of "abuse" was very high indeed.

If I recall my history courses correctly, the big problem with the literacy tests is that they were unevenly enforced. Black voters were held to a much higher standard than white voters were.

This law will suffer from the same defect. Folks with darker complexions will be requested to show proof of legal residency and be detained at a much higher rate than fair-complexioned folks.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

If I recall my history courses correctly, the big problem with the literacy tests is that they were unevenly enforced. Black voters were held to a much higher standard than white voters were.

This law will suffer from the same defect. Folks with darker complexions will be requested to show proof of legal residency and be detained at a much higher rate than fair-complexioned folks.

I will go further then you are going DD. "Uneven enforcement" is not an unintended "defect" of these laws. It is the purpose of these laws.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

Obviously. To assume otherwise would be a very sad reflection upon the democratic processes of which we are all so proud.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
If I recall my history courses correctly, the big problem with the literacy tests is that they were unevenly enforced. Black voters were held to a much higher standard than white voters were.

This law will suffer from the same defect. Folks with darker complexions will be requested to show proof of legal residency and be detained at a much higher rate than fair-complexioned folks.

I will go further then you are going DD. "Uneven enforcement" is not an unintended "defect" of these laws. It is the purpose of these laws.

And as such should be found to violate the equal protection clauses at the court's first opportunity.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

This is interesting.
Apparently, there is a county in Va that has an almost identical law as the Az law, and has had since 2007.

And guess what, they havent had any of the problems that the left is afraid of in Az.

Oh, I dunno---maybe the scope of Prince William County has something to do with it? Your own link sheds some light on it;

http://kold.images.worldnow.com/images/12524931_BG2.jpg

I apologize that liberals are not screening every silly law in every tiny county. I'm sure conservatives are doing better, and we will eventually catch up to them.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Is it really a silly law ? Do the lander police in Germany have the right to verify the residence status of aliens? I believe they do: same goes for the local police in France.

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know