Are you pro or con Arizona's new Law on Immigration?

I can't believe America is against immigrants, when it solely was created by immigrants:(((

The act is scheduled to go into effect on July 28. Referendum requires filing 76,682 voter signatures.

I think the law sounds similar to a law under Nazism that required Jews to always carry documentation with them and allows them to be punished even if they haven't done anything wrong.

Do you carry a drivers license?

There is nothing wrong with documentation. It is what the government uses it for that separates the good from the bad.

Any police officer can ask anyone he suspects of being an illegal (aka anyone Hispanic) and if they don't have documentation on them he can detain them as a criminal, whether they are or are not illegal. So even legal residents who are suspected of being illegal immigrants are subject to this....is that a good use?

Great! If you have nothing to hide--what's the problem?

Being detained unjustly, is the problem. You've just opened a can of worms. I've heard the same fallacious argument to justify extreme government surveillance, or unwarranted police invasions of the home. If you have nothing to hide, then what's the problem?


See how you exaggerate? They are talking about suspicions found within the practice of daily law enforcement. We are not talking about "extreme government surveillance." If that was so, I would be on your side. Neither are we talking about "police invasions" either.


The new law WILL be abused, this I can guarantee you.

Where there is human decision and authority--there is abuse. Does that mean we should eliminate law enforcement?


If you're a police officer, you can harass just about anyone you want if you know they're not in a place where they have access to such documents, especially if you have personal or racial reasons to do so.

See how you exaggerate? They are talking about suspicions found within the practice of daily law enforcement. We are not talking about "extreme government surveillance." If that was so, I would be on your side. Neither are we talking about "police invasions" either.

Where there is human decision and authority--there is abuse. Does that mean we should eliminate law enforcement?


If you're a police officer, you can harass just about anyone you want if you know they're not in a place where they have access to such documents, especially if you have personal or racial reasons to do so.
I am not a police officer and most do not waste time harassing people. Although, we both know it happens. The best you can do is regulate it.


I am not a police officer and most do not waste time harassing people. Although, we both know it happens. The best you can do is regulate it.

The point I am making is that "If you have nothing to hide--what's the problem?" is a very poor justification.

This is a minor inconvenience give the emergency of the situation. keep in mind, Arizona is only attempting to enforce a new law that enforces an old law that the Liberals have purposely encouraged politicians to ignore. We have had fixed maximum numbers of aliens to be permitted in the country for decades. And these numbers corresponded by country. And, these numbers concerned LEGAL immigration and certainly not illegals.

Why would this be a valid argument in this case but an invalid argument in the examples I gave?

You gave rhetoric not examples.

It wouldn't. In debate if I can use your argument to support other absurd conclusions, I have destroyed your reason for your current conclusion.

As usual, you have first exaggerated your effectiveness ( "destroyed" ) an secondly, offered a vacuous response lacking any credible content.


The new law WILL be abused, this I can guarantee you.

Cops giving out traffic tickets can be abusive. Does that mean we should dismantle the highway patrol? For that matter, priests abuse their authority through child molestation. What would you suggest here?



The problem don't you see is that there is no specific requirements for enacting such a sweeping power.

That's just wrong. Every new law comes with pages of restrictions and guidelines. There has never been an exception. You are relying on tabloid information or your friends are misinformed.


To enter a person's home you need a warrant, to give someone a speeding ticket you need to see them speeding.

Again---no one is entering anyone's home. Where do you get this? In order to have raised suspicion, you also have to "see." You don't have a clue how this works--do you? This is very basic criminal law.


For all this law all you need is "suspicion" !? Pretty easy to detain people when all you need is suspicion. I wouldn't talk back to the officers in Arizona, they might suddenly become suspicious of my citizenship.

The point I am making is that "If you have nothing to hide--what's the problem?" is a very poor justification.

Why would this be a valid argument in this case but an invalid argument in the examples I gave? It wouldn't. In debate if I can use your argument to support other absurd conclusions, I have destroyed your reason for your current conclusion.

The new law WILL be abused, this I can guarantee you.

The problem don't you see is that there is no specific requirements for enacting such a sweeping power. To enter a person's home you need a warrant, to give someone a speeding ticket you need to see them speeding.

For all this law all you need is "suspicion" !? Pretty easy to detain people when all you need is suspicion. I wouldn't talk back to the officers in Arizona, they might suddenly become suspicious of my citizenship.

I think the law sounds similar to a law under Nazism that required Jews to always carry documentation with them and allows them to be punished even if they haven't done anything wrong.

I can't believe America is against immigrants, when it solely was created by immigrants:(((

I think the law sounds similar to a law under Nazism that required Jews to always carry documentation with them and allows them to be punished even if they haven't done anything wrong.

Any police officer can ask anyone he suspects of being an illegal (aka anyone Hispanic) and if they don't have documentation on them he can detain them as a criminal,

Honey, there were here first.

ossobuco wrote:

Honey, there were here first.

I know. That doesn 't count. That 's Y thay had to sneak in.





David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

ossobuco wrote:

Honey, there were here first.

I know. That doesn 't count. That 's Y thay had to sneak in.





David

no comprende senor. if they were here first how did they sneak in?