It is a reasoned response. Very carefully reasoned, so it could be parsed very finely. I have not read the full text of the bill, and frankly would probably not be able to understand it properly even if I did, legislative writing is incredibly tortured. I rather suspect the neither the reality of enforcement, nor the spirit, match this guy's parsing. The idea that it doesn't demand racial profiling in actual practice, for instance, is simply ludicrous.Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Defending use of stupid slang by saying we can just "google" it and find out what it means is actually one of the more moronic ideas you've ever posted, and that's saying something.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
But legal visitors are required to have something, and before I had a Drivers License, I had a State of Maine ID (cause I wanted to be able to do things, like open up checking accounts, get booze, etc.)
I'm still not sure what the resistance is here. This is not a 'Where are your Papers' issue. If I was doing something that attracted the attention of the police, and I failed to provide ID, they could just as well detain me until they can verify I'm not on the run from the law.Federal law already requires resident aliens to carry registration documents. SB 1070 makes it a state crime to violate the federal law. The law doesn't apply to "those born and raised in the Grand Canyon State" because they are obviously citizens. The law also lists documents that provide a presumption of citizenship oneof which is a Driver's License. There is no need for citizens to carry their birth certificate or passport.
Or are you against that as well?
Which states do "citizenship checks" at the DMV, whether it's a driver's license or photo ID? And no, the police can't legally "detain" you for attracting attention but not having ID.
Even if I'm pulled over for speeding but don't have my driver's license in possession, they're only legally allowed to give me a summary citation, and I have something like ten days to show a court my license--to prove I wasn't driving without a license, nothing to do with the speeding fine itself--they're not allowed to haul me off to jail.
Florida started late last year, part of the Real ID Act. Been in the news for sometime for the halfday waits, lines, and how people sometimes have to come back 2, 3, times before getting an ID or license.
Its GGT, the user we had to explain the Punch Bug game too...
I believe most states do now due to federal mandate (if they wants the federal fundz...) Maine I thinks is gonna ask for more than my old DL to renew...pretty sure they want my birth certificate (too make sure I'm not a terrorist)
But they can detain you on the spot (yer waiting in your car) while they run your name in the database to verify there is the possibility that you do have a license or if it is suspended.
Granted, depending upon the tech in the cop car, they may or may not get a pic with that.
Edit: What OG said.
Ahh, I wasn't aware that you were the yardstick we should use as to whether or not a person should be carrying a valid ID on them. What about the people who manage to open a bank account using forms of ID that people don't usually carry on them, and are old enough not to get carded for booze, etc...?
I'm still not sure what the resistance is here. This is not a 'Where are your Papers' issue. If I was doing something that attracted the attention of the police, and I failed to provide ID, they could just as well detain me until they can verify I'm not on the run from the law.because the potential "doing something that attracted the attention of the police" in this instance is pretty much going to be looking hispanic and doing stuff illegal immigrants do...which also happens to have some overlap with what regular people who aren't here illegally do.
. . .
Illusions found the rabbit hole!
Then I'd just use the bus and pay bills in cash. If finding employment meant they check my status, that would just drive me underground. Or I'd find day jobs with employers who are "sympathetic" and pay me cash. As far as I know, working as a maid or lawn guy doesn't require a homeowner to check for citizenship.
That's why the bill is only good for one thing....bringing immigration and naturalization to the forefront as a national issue.
Otherwise, all it's doing is presuming guilt from everyone, instead of innocence first.
I'm not the only one who didn't know the term. We should just call you Ominous Googler now.Its GGT, the user we had to explain the Punch Bug game too...
Good gods Illusions, I didn't say I was the yardstick. I just used myself as an example of how you may have ID without having a DL.
Okay you don't trust the police, as they are racist and their gonna do the driving while black routine.
I'm leery of the federal government as they are incapable in some cases (man power) or unwilling (political hot potato) to enforce the law.
So what do we do?
As soon as the cops start detaining people that are here legally and can not show probable cause this will get buttoned up right quick. And again, the law is supposed to be mimicking the Federal law.
How does the Fed determine if someone is here illegally...mind reading? No they go looking for your papers please.
So why don't we make it easier to come here, whether as legal visitor, worker or resident, instead of making it harder?
lack of political will
But, I'm gonna put forth that even if all you had to do was show up at the border, with a passport, we would still have the same problem we do today.
Edit: But probably to a lesser degree.
Cross-over with the dual citizenship thread.Mexico is reporting a huge number of border immigrants applying for dual citizenship for their US born kids.
Since it's fragmented, nobody knows who's checking what, or using which criteria. Airlines, employers, hospitals, schools, state DMV, cops?
And I don't really buy this "immgrunts are causing the crime". What's Chicago's "excuse"?
Community Organizers.
Gangsters, mobsters, banksters. It's the American Way.Community Organizers.
So, you only advocate deportation for the illegal activities you don't partake of.
Got it.
I saw it, and it's irrelevant. Which you would know if you weren't a fucking idiot. But I do enjoy the irony of a pot-smoker making a "just follow the law" argument.
They probably couldn't even do it for that (but, sure they'll probably try anyway). I was just pointing out that needing an ID to drive a car is not quite the same thing as needing an ID to be out in public.They had to wait until you were standing still, and ask for your ID for loitering?
Other than the fact that a driver's license is accepted as proof of legal status, I don't see how any of what he said makes any difference. Unless his point is that AZ is trying to make itself as bad as the feds... and if it is, I can agree with that.
Like Fuzzy said, all that B.S. nitpicking and hair splitting is going to fall by the wayside as a result of meeting with reality, and that reality is going to be racial profiling and "driving while black"-style law enforcement. Yippie!
Everyone in this country is a criminal. In fact, the SCOTUS said as much in striking down a recent federal law that made it a felony to check the news at work. And frankly, I can't wait until you get caught violating some bullshit law you didn't even know existed, and end up in prison.
Give it a couple years, and I'm sure we'll discover that 87% of all jaywalking citations in AZ were issued to Latinos, as a pretense to check them for documents. It's exactly like "driving while black," because regardless of the intentions of the law (which aren't exactly noble anyway), we know what's going to happen - de minimus violations will be used as an excuse to stop and search the people targeted by this law, namely Latinos.
Nope.
Led by Maine in early 2007, 25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing the implement the Bush-era law which many expressed concerned about privacy, funding and more. While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void.
So it looks like it's 50/50.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
But that's sort of circular. Almost all of the illegal immigrants and likely illegal immigrants in Arizona are likely Hispanic and don't speak much English at all. It's sort of hard to avoid asking about citizenship status when you're next to the Mexican border and you stumble upon someone who looks Mexican and can't speak English.
Obviously the dynamics would play differently in a place like DC, NY, LA, etc. But the concept of stopping people for a reasonable suspicion isn't a demand for racial profiling.
Sounds like profiling right there.
You know, I seem to remember your being convinced that my grass-cutting Mexicans are illegals, even though I never said they were. Don't act like you don't profile, please.Sounds like profiling right there.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
That's the thing, it's circular. The state is next to a border with a particular country and has tons of people from that country. There's no way to avoid the fact that most people who get stopped will be from that neighboring country.
You missed the point. Many (if not most) of the legal residents will "look Mexican", as you say. Some may not speak English. Then you say most who get stopped (by police for illegal activity) will be from across the border? Uh, no.
Considering that you need to pass an English test to become an American citizen and most second-generation kids speak English, yeah a police officer probably has reasonable suspicion to stop most people who don't speak English in Yuma, Arizona.
I wonder what the ratio is of visitors to illegals (that don't speak english, of course)?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
I recall we discussed cheap manual labor, how you refer to your grass cutters as My Mexicans, and that most home owners don't check immigration status of people who do manual labor around their house. Like the guys who come to shovel snow here. I never claimed to be blind to peoples' skin color or language.
Most second (or even third) generation citizens BORN in the US don't necessarily speak English; that's why the schools have ESL classes.
edit: It's also NOT reasonable suspicion to stop most people who don't speak English in Yuma, Arizona. That's clearly against the law. Language is also not a good enough reason to move to the next step of detaining people on presumption that they're illegal.
Last edited by GGT; 04-29-2010 at 03:10 AM.
I'm not the one insisting that they won't be profiling, they are. If the situation makes profiling tautological, then it is, as I said, ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Yeah....thats profiling, and I don't see why its so hard not to act on it
Maybe I'm seeing this differently because of Cuba, but deciding not to give up your native language for English doesn't mean jack shit Dread.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/644/engl...sage-hispanicsYeah....thats profiling, and I don't see why its so hard not to act on it
Maybe I'm seeing this differently because of Cuba, but deciding not to give up your native language for English doesn't mean jack shit Dread.
And, once again, my point is that you have to speak English to take the citizenship test, which is why a police officer on the beat in Yuma, AZ could reasonably suspect that a group of people who could not speak any English might not be legal immigrants.
Which is not the only way to be a legal immigrant, nor is it even the objective of many legal immigrants.
And, given that there's a 10+ year backlog on that test, and it takes a minimum of 2 years of legal residence (and usually at least 5) to even qualify to take that test, I don't see how language (or lack thereof) is any reasonable indicator of immigration status. (Especially when you can hop the border, plop out a kid, and have a legal US citizen whose whole family doesn't speak any English... reducing the odds that he'll learn any.)
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
A survey of 14,000 Hispanic adults from 2007. Fine. That doesn't make NOT speaking English a valid reason to suspect a person is illegal.
It would be interesting if every multi-lingual person just refused to speak English when the cops stop them for loitering, or jaywalking or whatever, even if they could speak English.
Profiling at the airport is (apparently) one thing. Then if your name is Abdul or Mohammed, expect a grilling.
But just being in Arizona, with brown skin and speaking Spanish is enough to be considered "suspicious" when the cops have an interaction with you?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote