Immigration Law

Remove all ads!

I don't see it as immature to point out the logic flaws in an argument. I truly don't believe that the immigration law issue that came up in AZ was motivated by a general hatred of Hispanics in general. It came about as a legitimate response to a large number of illegal Hispanic immigrants -- extra emphasis on the illegal for a really good reason. There would be a similar response if the majority of illegal immigrants were white, black, purple, or whatever. The fact remains that there are a lot of them and many of them are breaking laws in the country they have illegally entered. The complaints of racism and unfairness are to me a smokescreen that minimizes real discrimination. They are BS and the silly tanning bed story with it's parallel logic illustrates that. Anyone willing to buy into the logic for the supposedly picked on Hispanics must, by logical extension, buy into the same logic here for the picked on whites. If you reject the argument in one place, you must reject it in both. At least, if you are intellectually honest.

 

Quite true, LKD, but how many politicians today are honest, intellectually or otherwise?

As for the rationale behind the tanning tax, it has been repeatedly expressed as a tax on a bad health practice (UV rays causing skin cancer and all, not to mention a whole host of other, less lethal negatives).

 

If you are really going to be intellectually honest, you would rightly concede that the possibility of racial profiling in the Arizona law is real -- but would rightly point out that the equivalent federal statutes allow for just as much racial profiling as the Arizona law. You would rightly concede that the Arizona law does in fact tread into areas that have classically been defined as falling under the purview of the federal government -- but would rightly argue that Arizona should have a right to protect its borders if the federal government will not, since the results of federal (non)enforcement are Arizona's to bear. If you were being intellectually honest, you would argue the relative merits of the law without going into bull**** comparisons between tanning bed taxes and racial profiling. On a legal basis, the argument about the Arizona law isn't about what Arizona is trying to do but how they are trying to do it. If we could stick to the actual details rather than ideology, real discussion is possible. If.

 

I find the racial profiling whining by people who are advocating the right of foreigners to enter a country illegally to be just as much bull<snip> as the tanning bed argument. Make no mistake, the tanning bed thing is utterly ridiculous. But it is just as ridiculous as the assertion that trying to keep illegal migrants out of a country is racism. One BS idea to illustrate the BS of another.

 

If they were actually advocating that, you'd have a point. Those opposed to the Arizona law aren't making the assertion "trying to keep illegal migrants out of a country is racism". They are asserting that ID checking people just because they "look" like an illegal immigrant (what does an illegal immigrant look like again?) swings the door wide open to racial profiling, potentially causing many legal immigrants and even American citizens to submit to undue scrutiny solely due to the color of their skin or their accent. Disagree with that position if you wish -- T2 has done so quite eloquently in this very thread -- but you cross the line when you misrepresent the position of those who oppose the law in the way you do.

 

Actually, Drew, a great many I've seen on news comment boards are advocating exactly what LKD said. They may be the idiotic masses, and not the eloquent political leaders, but they are the masses.

This would be an excellent argument, if that's what the law actually did. Thankfully, it's not.

 

How can you say that. Do you know? How? From official statements?

My point here is simple: That excellent argument identifies a loophole allowing for abuse large enough to drive a tank through, and you are content with: 'Ah, golly gee, yes, it would be an excellent point, and indeed they could abuse people under that law, but thankfully they don't.'

I am not as credulous, or trusting. You really need to meet a few real Orwellian ***holes IRL NOG, just to get some perspective. Not a pleasant experience, but necessary.

I have said it before, several pages back, not only is abuse a distinct possibility - it is likely that the law as written can only be implemented by racial profiling, so what is the distinct possibility then becomes a feature of the policy enacted in SB 1070.

 

By reading the law. The same way I know what the restrictions are on who can run for presedent: by reading the document that sets it up. The former isn't that long, even.

No, my point is that it isn't a loop-hole. People who do what you're suggesting are breaking the law.

Ragusa, you're making a simple, but large, mistake here. The law, as written, can certainly be applied without racial profiling, and even must be. Trying to apply it 'as written' with racial profiling is actually impossible. Now, applying the law 'as intended', well, that all depends on what you believe the intent of the law is, doesn't it. I suspect that's what you mean.

 

And this is what the smear campaign is based upon. The law does not allow the police to just start harassing people. They are only required to question immigration status if they are investigating a crime and then have reason to suspect immigration status. They are not allowed to just round up people leaving a movie theater and question everyone, however if they pull someone over for going through a redlight and the driver doesn't have a driver's license and doesn't speak english that is a reason to suspect illegal entry.

 

What a cop bases his actions on and how he later justifies them are two separate issues.

That doesn't mean necessarily cops will be acting in bad faith. If a law is written in a way that it can only be enforced by stopping and checking people who don't speak English and look Hispanic - because of erratic driving, malfunctioning traffic lights or whatever else, so be it.

There are built-in incentives for that in SB 1070, especially the provisions that allows to sue a police department for insufficient enforcement and that iirc also provides fines for insufficient enforcement. One metric for what constitutes insufficient enforcement and what doesn't will likely be arrest quotas.

 

And this is what I meant by the smear campaign against SB 1070. You (and many others) are jumping to the conclusion that cops will be under a "Mexican Quota" very similar to a "speeding ticket quota". I read that provision and think that this is a "stick" to use against "sanctuary communities" that choose to disobey the law.

 

Since when is being pessimistic a 'smear'?

 

Flipping a rhetorical device is extremely powerful when it is actually pertinent or accurate. Flipping it just to flip it is just... annoying... and kind of a dick move. Read my point again:

NOG, under the law, officers will only be asking for papers from suspected lawbreakers who they have reason to believe are illegally in the country. You and I won't be asked to produce our papers. Jose with his thick accent and broken English will. Even if he's a legal immigrant. Even if he's a citizen. The Arizona law does not require police to check the papers of each and every individual with whom they have lawful contact, but only with those who appear to be illegal immigrants. In effect, any person who "appears to be an illegal" and runs a red light, speeds, or gets pulled over for a bad tail light can and probably will be required to show his papers or be detained under Arizona law. Whether or not this is OK is debatable. Whether it is racial profiling, however, is not.

 

I guess a question I have then is when a police officer is investigating someone don't they look for everything? If you get pulled over for speeding, they always check to see if there are any warrants out for you. When they arrest someone for a crime don't they always search the person and their belongings? Since being in the country illegally is a crime, I don't see how confirming this is a problem. To be honest it is probably something that the police should have been doing even before the AZ law.

 

A driver's license is not really "your papers," but proof that you paid the state to be able to drive a car, or that you passed a test to drive a car. They also ask for an insurance card, proof that you are paying the insurance companies, an inspection sticker, proof that you are paying the auto repair shops, and a registration, proof that you just paid the state even more to be able to drive your car.

 

And as I have already pointed out, cops already do this. In some cases, quite egregiously, as the police force in Maywood shows. I don't see how this law will change anything.

And why, exactly, did you leave out 'and don't have valid driver's licenses'?

I'll protest when they actually propose using arrest quotas. Until then, I'll assume it'll be based on a case-by-case analysis and innocent (as in, the city is innocent) until proven guilty, just like everything else.

Since they start presenting their worst-case scenarios as absolute fact.

And this is where pessimism becomes smear. Why do you assume (and yes, it is a blatant assumption) that the only criteria for 'reasonable suspicion' will be skin color and accent?

 

That's the theory, but as someone who used to process TX DL, there are plenty of "illegals" with a DL, at least here, and we probably have just as many - if not more illegals as AZ. Heck, you probably have more in CA. Do they have DLs in CA?

Good thing I live in Texas -- Everybody here just wants to be paid.

That's not the purpose of a driver's license, just as your SS card and SS# are "supposed" to be used for your retirement benefits.