Immigration Law

Remove all ads!

That would be any large number of Americans born here.

 

...and he doesn't mean that sarcastically. There are many legal immigrants and citizens who have poor command of the English language. It's a failure of our educational system, and profiling on that basis falls under the purview of racial profiling.

Having no drivers license depends on the circumstance. A lot of elderly Americans have no drivers license. People that live in cities where driving is impractical, former drunk or wreckless drivers, and people with certain seizure disorders or other medical problems also would not have a license. Many of them get a standard, state-issued non-driver ID instead. Many also do not, particularly the elderly, and they are not required to do so by law. If we wish to mandate that everyone possess a photo ID, I'm not against it, but it'll need to happen at the federal level to actually mean anything.

 

It certainly does.

 

"... one DWI, which was a bogus charge, cause it turns out they were stopping every driver, traveling down that particular sidewalk. And that's profiling. And profiling is wrong!"

 

Why? Even legal immigrants often don't speak good English at first, and many people do not have a driver's license, for what may be perfectly valid reasons.

You might enjoy carrying around your ID like branded cattle, but don't be surprised if others object. Subjecting citizens to ID checks amounts to nothing more than harassment. No brown citizen should ever have to step outside their house clutching their ID papers, out of fear that they might be arrested for not doing so.

What sort of crime, exactly? Well, let's see.

So all that was initially required in order to demand proof of citizenship is for a police officer to 'suspect' that someone is an alien. Now they have amended the law so that the individual must first have been stopped, detained or arrested.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201005170009

Any other law or ordinance could span from a minor infraction (suspected traffic violation) to murder.

Ie. Under this law, a police officer is well within then rights to stop someone for a minor traffic violation and then demand proof of citizenship because they suspect them to be an 'alien'. Ever been pulled over by the cops for a traffic violation, NOG? Well, let's hope that you aren't brown, and your papers weren't stolen from your car the night before, or you might be treating like subhuman scum.

The law gives police officers the power to arrest people simply for not carrying prima facie proof of identification.

Nope, sorry, you are wrong. A driver's license is not necessarily enough to 'prove' citizenship. A brown truck driver was arrested under this new law for not carrying a birth certificate on him. His commercial driver's license, insurance, registration and social security information on him, but all of these were not considered adequate proof of his citizenship.

http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/04/video-rachel-maddow-on-arizona.html

What I am putting forward isn't 'thought experiment'. It's reality. The law is already been abused, and it has only been in effect for a brief period of time.

The law itself isn't racist. However, it is highly likely to be enforced according to racial stereotypes. I always hear Americans whining about those damn border hopping Mexicans, but never the Europeans who overstay their Visas. Coincidence? I think not.

 

That is it in two sentences.

 

Yes. Yes it would.

How can it be racial profiling if you admit it impacts all races?

And, more to the point, there's a difference between using race in a profile and using race as a profile. One is a perfectly legitimate investigative tool, the other is a crime.

I agree with this, except for the 'it must happen at a federal level'. It should happen at a federal level, but if Arizona wants to issue it's own ID cards, it can. And since I'm betting the vast majority of out-of-state visitors will be drivers, I'm betting the vast majority will have driver's licenses.

You know, in most other first-world nations in the world, requiring citizens to carry an ID is no big deal. I'm honestly surprised it is here.

Umm, if I'm driving, I should probably have my driver's license. And if I don't, I expect to be pulled in whether I'm suspected of being an illegal or not. And lastly, even if I am an illegal, I shouldn't be treated like 'subhuman scum', and if I am I can sue on abuse.

And crooked cops don't need that. They'll drop an ouce of coke in your pocket, 'find' it, and arrest you on drug trafficing charges. That's why this arguement is a dead end.

Can't watch it at the moment, but I thought this didn't go into effect until August?

 

In most first-world nations, restrictive gun control legislation is perceived by many to be 'no big deal'. If you like being treated like cattle, fine. But I suggest you remain consistent in your slavish views and surrender your guns to the government.

Do you keep your birth certificate in the car? Because as the news article I posted demonstrates, a driver's license (+ registration + insurance + social security) may not be enough to meet the ridiculously high standard of proof when it comes to demonstrating citizenship.

And yet people are quite willing to deprive illegals of their human rights simply for having the audacity to try and find a better life for themselves. You are not one of those people, but there many out there (including law enforcement) who treat *suspected* illegals like garbage.

So your argument amounts to: "Well, cops can abuse the powers they already have, so let's give them even more powers which they can abuse!" Do you know how ridiculous that sounds, NOG?

One must also remember that your analogy is rather poor, given that planting coke on someone is *illegal*, whereas thanks to this new law, arresting someone for not carrying their birth certificate is *not* illegal. If you are stopped for a minor traffic violation, you can *lawfully* be asked to produce evidence of citizenship. And if you can't show it, you can *lawfully* be arrested.

You are essentially in support of a law which allows a police officer to arrest anyone they stop, simply because they are unable to produce a high standard of prima facie evidence that demonstrates citizenship. Aren't you embarassed, even just a little?

Isn't it? If the law isn't in effect, then we can see the inevitable result.

 

That's exactly right, but it appears to be where we are headed.

 

Cue the violins! Quick! Quick! We need the melodrama music ASAP!

 

We need "devil trombones" for that one.

 

As has already been noted, the law specifically deals with this:

As you can clearly see, even out-of-state licenses will work, because they are "valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification".

No, my arguement amounts to: we aren't actually giving them any more power (practically). Legally, they gain more power, but limited more power. If they intend to break the law, though, we haven't given them any more power than they already have. That's just logic.

And again, a driver's license is *lawful* evidence of your citizenship. And also, they have to first stop you for an *illegal* action. What you're really protesting is that cops may act *illegally*. My point to you is that they already do. Those that follow the law will follow this law and not use racial profiling. Those that break the law will break this law and do things illegally. Nothing will change.

You are essentially in support of a law which allows a police officer to arrest anyone they stop, simply because they are unable to produce a high standard of prima facie evidence that demonstrates citizenship. Aren't you embarassed, even just a little?

I checked it earlier today. It's set to go into effect on the 29th, but may be suspended thanks to the court case. If they're 'enforcing' it now, then they're breaking existing law, which they were probably doing before, since the situation hasn't changed yet.

On a further note, I've watched the video now. Aside from Maddow's typical paranoid fantasies (and some idiocy from a Republican), there's nothing there. I see no accounts of people being arrested on whims, just Rachael's fear that they may. And again, the left (through Rachael Maddow) comes out with the ridiculous claim that this law forces police to stop people on made-up charges because they look illegal!

Oh, and in answer to her question at the beginning: "...how can you tell which of these people you should reasonably suspect is in this country illegally?" The correct answer is: "Simple. You know nothing about any of them, therefore have no reason to reasonably suspect any of them are in the country illegally." If, in the investigation of a crime, you uncover some information or evidence that leads you to reasonably suspect it, then you can act on it, but that doesn't come until later. Just looking at a bunch of people hanging out on the corner, you shouldn't reasonably suspect any of them. This is another common flaw in the left's attack on this law. Police are not being forced to determine who's legal and who's illegal without sufficient information. In fact, by the wording of the law, they must assume everyone is here legally until they have a 'reasonable suspicion' otherwise.

 

Of course. Case closed.

 

So you are saying the above encounter never happened?

---------- Added 0 hours, 7 minutes and 33 seconds later... ----------

Of course, they deny that he was "racially profiled," but how many people are asked to show birth certificates? So hispanics have to carry BC and the rest of us don't. And that's not racism?

http://www.azfamily.com/news/91769419.html

I think he was also pointing out [in his opinon] that Rachel has "paranoid fantasies" and the "idiocy" of the Republican in question [again in his opinion].

 

Sorry, I didn't watch a video, [this is an old story, I read about it sometime ago] but I was looking at this text. Are still denying it happened?

BTA - I will post it again, and quote myself.

"Of course, they deny that he was "racially profiled," but how many people are asked to show birth certificates? So hispanics have to carry BC and the rest of us don't. And that's not racism?"

 

My only comment to this is that the new law actually will change this, and for the better. An Arizona driver's license is now enough on it's own.

I don't actually believe Rachel has paranoid fantasies. I'm not saying I'd be surprised if she did, but I suspect it's more partisan exageration and BS, ala Sean Hannity. My point was that many of the claims she made were just wrong, and the questions she asked were loaded, i.e. "How do you tell who's illegal?" when the answer is, "You don't." The Republican in question, though, was being an idiot. Shoes? Haircuts? Really?

 

No, it won't. The Feds are not bound by any law Arizona passes. This was a federal encounter and some suspect that it happened because of the criticism of the feds "not doing enough," since no one complained about this before the new law was passed.

The point can be made that it is not the new law that caused this, but it is a consquence of the debate surrounding the new law and the situtation in Arizona. Nevertheless, for Hispanic citizens to have to carry their BC is certainly racist. This is why I think it's time for an ID that is fair to everyone, since the state and the Feds have different standards and have raised the bar for Hispanic citizens.