Exposing the roots of the Arizona immigration law

[Dragoon68]

Well, for one thing let's end the failed "war on drugs". Not only has it been a huge failure it's been a huge disasterous failure. Giving us just the opposite of what it promised. Since we declared this "war" we've gotten more drugs and more powerful drugs, more gangs, more gang violence. These gangs have increased their wealth and power during this "war" and are able to buy things like police officers, drug enforcement officers, military personnel and even government officials! It's no different than the prohibition of the 20's and 30's when Al Capone had the people who were there to stop him in his pocket. ...

Let's say we end the "war on drugs" by ending all laws against making, transporting, selling, and buying drugs then how would the law address those who actually use drugs? Would they be punished if such use brought harm to another person? Would it be handled about like drunk driving? Would they be denied medical care at public expense if it brought harm to themselves? Would they be punished if they introduced drugs to an minor or other person not able to make their own rational decisions? Would we still outlaw the sale of drugs to minors?

Then, aside for the "complications" of the "war on drugs" do you think ending it would also end illegal immigration? Are the vast number of illegal immigrants here because of drug trafficking or is it for other reasons? Will those here all go home if we make drugs legal or will they start farming it locally? Will American transition to the drug marketing center of the world?

 

[Dragoon68]

... Beam explains how an interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with corporate media outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism. ...

My employer certainly pushes multiculturalism. They jump on every diversity bandwagon they see go by. They have an internal website where you can learn about everyone else but yourself. They cover every religion except Christianity. They cover homosexuality but not heterosexuality. They even have moving personal testimony from higher level management. It's a real hoot to read through the garbage! They think it will gain them favor in the marketplace and they don't even sell consumer goods or services!

 

[Revmitchell]

Well, for one thing let's end the failed "war on drugs". Not only has it been a huge failure it's been a huge disasterous failure. Giving us just the opposite of what it promised. Since we declared this "war" we've gotten more drugs and more powerful drugs, more gangs, more gang violence. These gangs have increased their wealth and power during this "war" and are able to buy things like police officers, drug enforcement officers, military personnel and even government officials! It's no different than the prohibition of the 20's and 30's when Al Capone had the people who were there to stop him in his pocket.

I've already give you a few reasons why we should end this failed policy of prohibiton. Shall I give you more?

Then there's globalization. Like I said big D first thing we need to do about it is wake up and realize the magnitude of this threat and who's actually behind it. Before we can even make a proposal to do something about it.

Other wise we might as well be chasing shadows around in circles while the noose is being drawn ever tighter around our necks.

While we are at it lets end the war on murder and lets end the war on stealing and lets end the war on...oh forget it lets just make everything legal and let everyone have a free for. Yea that's it!

 

[righteousdude2]

Every Amnesty Bill, Will Eventually Need Another...

... the first amnesty bill was under the dearly beloved Ronald Reagan. And, while I thought he was a very good president, I will always believe that he opened the door for the "easy entrance mentality" into America syndrome. My feelings toward President Reagan remain: "Thanks-a-lot-Ronnie-way-to-go!"

The next POTUS that allows amnesty to take place for another band of immigration breakers will only serve to make this syndrome alive and well, and probably permanent!.

Every time this nation rewards those, WHO KNOW THE LAWS, BUT STILL BREAK THEM, with another round of amnesty will probably prop-open the door to "the drive through mentality" of "quick-and-easy" legalization and naturalization of moving from illegal immigrant to American citizen through Amnesty.

Look, my hearts hurts for those who may have to be deported back to where ever they sneak here from. But, you can't tell me that they didn't know the laws of America. You also can't tell me that they didn't know that America has a history of doing nothing to those who enter and stay here illegally. THEY KNOW, and they're gambling - sometimes their life savings - that they'll be allowed to stay under some "bleeding heart conservative/liberal government leaders" who are willing to turn their eyes away when it comes to doing the "hard thing" (sending them BACK).

It looks more, and more like our government is about to open the door one more time for illegal, undocumented immigrants to remain here and become citizens on a fast track, no-holds-barred, amnesty bill.

And if America's elected elect to turn their head, and close their eyes for a second time in less than 30 years, I guarantee, that the next round of illegal immigrants flooding into the United States will be just about everyone living in Mexico, South America, the Mid-East, and other places where citizens are tired, weary, and needing a change and a chance to turn their life around in a nation of laws that mean nothing when it comes to the liberal-bleeding heart of this nations leaders.

If the US isn't going to stop this invasion where it starts - at the border - than let's have a vote to rid the U.S. Constitution of Article 4 Section
4, that states the following: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Either remove all laws regarding illegal immigration, or, ENFORCE them. The future is waiting on your decision!

Shalom,

Pastor Paul :type:

 

[Dragoon68]

One group that gets madder than a hornet over the idea of amnesty are those who immigrated here legally. They made the application, waited, and, after being approved, they entered our country legally. They came from all around the world for various reasons but they followed the law. They don't care much for people who didn't follow the law now getting a free ride. Neither do I! I figure we're entitled to decide who can come in and when they can come it. We can be as generous as we like - we should be helpful where we can be - but we should not tolerate those who come uninvited in deference to our law. What kind of permanent residents or future citizens will they make? The objective of the screening process is to determine in an orderly manner who is most in need, who is qualified, who is sponsored, and who will likely become a productive resident or citizen. Without such a process we will all lose.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Despite my fears of the attack on American Liberty presented by this bill. My wife succesfully went to Arizona. Was not harrassed by Law Enforcement because of her hispanic last name. Was not asked to present "papers" affording proof of citizenship. Was not forceably deported to Mexico despite being an american citizen with a hispanic name. So. If this is how the law is implemented; I'm ok with it. My wife and daughter made it home safe and sound despite their last name and did not suffer prejudicial harrassment at the hands of this bills supporters.

 

[targus]

Despite my fears of the attack on American Liberty presented by this bill. My wife succesfully went to Arizona. Was not harrassed by Law Enforcement because of her hispanic last name. Was not asked to present "papers" affording proof of citizenship. Was not forceably deported to Mexico despite being an american citizen with a hispanic name. So. If this is how the law is implemented; I'm ok with it. My wife and daughter made it home safe and sound despite their last name and did not suffer prejudicial harrassment at the hands of this bills supporters.

Well, I am glad that your "feelings" about the law have changed.

Although I would be even more glad if you would have decided to eventually engage your intellect instead.

As has been pointed out to you many times now:

The law does not provided for harrassing someone because of their hispanic last name.

The law does not require "papers" - merely a driver's license.

The law does not authorize harrassment of people by the law's supporters - based on last names or anything else.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, I am glad that your "feelings" about the law have changed.

Although I would be even more glad if you would have decided to eventually engage your intellect instead.

As has been pointed out to you many times now:

The law does not provided for harrassing someone because of their hispanic last name.

The law does not require "papers" - merely a driver's license.

The law does not authorize harrassment of people by the law's supporters - based on last names or anything else.

My intellect is "engaged" lets look at the law again. Your contention

The law does not require "papers" - merely a driver's license.

is not valid as a driver's license is what is known as papers. It is similar to German citizenship Papers that were carried in 1936. Also not the bill itself

Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:

Ø A valid Arizona driver license.

Ø A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

Ø A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

Ø A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.

Each of these Item's fall under the distinction of "papers"

Again lets look futher at the provision that has me worried.

Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

This passage hinges around the term "lawful contact" which is determined to be

[L]awful contact is definitely different than reasonable suspicion in terms of the initiation of the contact. So lawful contact is essentially any interaction a police officer may have with an individual through the normal legal, lawful course of the performance of their duties. So it wouldn't just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer where through the course of that contact they are able to build reasonable suspicion and therefore inquire.

Note the nature of the contact. The person being in Contact with the LEO does not have to be in the act of committing a crime or suspision of commiting a crime. So the definition is broader than is being admitted to here. The lead attorney for advising the state of Arizona stated

MALDEF general counsel: "t's inaccurate to say that it only relates to someone who's guilty or accused of another offense."

So in reality this opens the door of who may be questioned. To included innocent bystanders. So Lawful contact can be almost anyone in many non-criminal situations. Unlike what has been suggested here. Note once lawful contact has been established then reasonable suspicion must next be established. How is this defined.

We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct
which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot
and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the
course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable
inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear

Also a very general view. So for almost any reason a Cop comes in contact with a civilian and with in the broad view of reasonable suspicion we can see almost anything the Officer determins to be of a nature suspicios the LEO can require papers. The provision in the law

Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.

is ridiculous because as we have seen almost any action betwen Police and civilian can lead to almost any reason to uspect suspicous but how is an officer to accomplish this without some action of profiling? There is no logical way of attempting this unless everyone is profiled to some extent.

 

[targus]

Feelingstuff, your instance on the use of the word "papers" indicates to me that you are in fact still operating on an emotional level in regards to this issue.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Feelingstuff, your instance on the use of the word "papers" indicates to me that you are in fact still operating on an emotional level in regards to this issue.

Any identification document is "papers". Just because you personally don't define it that way is irregardless. I actually did some research and as can be seen by the post most recently posted on this topic. I've discussed this Law with friends who live in Arizona. I've discussed this with LEOs. People both pro and con. I this have a problem with this provision.

 

[Revmitchell]

Feelingstuff, your instance on the use of the word "papers" indicates to me that you are in fact still operating on an emotional level in regards to this issue.

No doubt that it is meant as a pejorative to indicate what has been law for years.

 

[targus]

Any identification document is "papers". Just because you personally don't define it that way is irregardless.

Prior to the controversy over the Arizona law I have never heard anyone refer to a drivers license as "papers".

It is a word that was deliberately chosen to bring forth images of doors being kicked in and people dragged off in the middle of the night.

I actually did some research and as can be seen by the post most recently posted on this topic. I've discussed this Law with friends who live in Arizona. I've discussed this with LEOs. People both pro and con. I this have a problem with this provision.

That you have talked about something does not mean that you have engaged the topic on an intellectual level.

One can talk about something without ever getting past the emotional level.

Your descriptions of possible scenarios between police officers and individuals which are in direct opposition to the wording of the law indicate that you are dealing more with your imagination than with fact.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Prior to the controversy over the Arizona law I have never heard anyone refer to a drivers license as "papers".

It is a word that was deliberately chosen to bring forth images of doors being kicked in and people dragged off in the middle of the night.



That you have talked about something does not mean that you have engaged the topic on an intellectual level.

One can talk about something without ever getting past the emotional level.

Your descriptions of possible scenarios between police officers and individuals which are in direct opposition to the wording of the law indicate that you are dealing more with your imagination than with fact.

When you say

It is a word that was deliberately chosen to bring forth images of doors being kicked in and people dragged off in the middle of the night.

is true I do want to convey that image. Any assault on liberty should be portrayed that way. However, the discriptor used is also no less valid despite the images it conveys.

Unfortunately for you my last post on this topic was devoid of emotion. I was dispasionate. Not only did I cite the Arizona General council, the legal terms defined and understood by the Arizona legal system only serves to confirm my worst fears. That 1) this bill was not well thought out. 2) it paves the way for infractions of civil liberties in one provision 3) because of the past two analysis one can determine this bill was written as a Knee-jerk reaction by the government of Arizona and as much emotion as I may have displayed has been equally displayed by that government. In order for this bill to hold muster with me. Lawful contact must be strictly defined and limited only to incidents of detainment. Which the term as I've shown does not. It must be defined in this bill to a greater extent than Lawful contact. Reasonable suspicion is also a little loose. In order for the provision to avoid "racial profiling" Reasonable suspicion must be further defined to include specifics of determination. Otherwise, we have non working definition when considered with the anti-profiling provision.

 

[poncho]

Let's say we end the "war on drugs" by ending all laws against making, transporting, selling, and buying drugs then how would the law address those who actually use drugs? Would they be punished if such use brought harm to another person? Would it be handled about like drunk driving? Would they be denied medical care at public expense if it brought harm to themselves? Would they be punished if they introduced drugs to an minor or other person not able to make their own rational decisions? Would we still outlaw the sale of drugs to minors?

Then, aside for the "complications" of the "war on drugs" do you think ending it would also end illegal immigration? Are the vast number of illegal immigrants here because of drug trafficking or is it for other reasons? Will those here all go home if we make drugs legal or will they start farming it locally? Will American transition to the drug marketing center of the world?

You ask some very good questions that I'd like to try and answer big D but this thread is getting close to it's ten pages so if you wouldn't mind I'd like to start a fresh thread on "illegal immigration & the war on drugs".

Then we'll all be able to discuss this important issue more better.

What do you say will you join me in another thread?

 

[targus]

When you say is true I do want to convey that image. Any assault on liberty should be portrayed that way. However, the discriptor used is also no less valid despite the images it conveys.

"Papers" is far less descriptive (an intentionally so) than the words "drivers license" when referring to a drivers license.

And it conveys exactly the image that you seek to convey - hence your unwillingness to use the more accurate words "drivers license".

Unfortunately for you my last post on this topic was devoid of emotion. I was dispasionate. Not only did I cite the Arizona General council, the legal terms defined and understood by the Arizona legal system only serves to confirm my worst fears. That 1) this bill was not well thought out. 2) it paves the way for infractions of civil liberties in one provision 3) because of the past two analysis one can determine this bill was written as a Knee-jerk reaction by the government of Arizona and as much emotion as I may have displayed has been equally displayed by that government. In order for this bill to hold muster with me. Lawful contact must be strictly defined and limited only to incidents of detainment. Which the term as I've shown does not. It must be defined in this bill to a greater extent than Lawful contact. Reasonable suspicion is also a little loose. In order for the provision to avoid "racial profiling" Reasonable suspicion must be further defined to include specifics of determination. Otherwise, we have non working definition when considered with the anti-profiling provision.

The Arizona law states that it must be in compliance with Federal law.

Where has your concern over these issues been since the 1950's?

Why are you not calling for the overturning of Federal laws which mirror the Arizona law?

Reasonable suspicion is well established law.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"Papers" is far less descriptive (an intentionally so) than the words "drivers license" when referring to a drivers license.

And it conveys exactly the image that you seek to convey - hence your unwillingness to use the more accurate words "drivers license".



The Arizona law states that it must be in compliance with Federal law.

Where has your concern over these issues been since the 1950's?

Why are you not calling for the overturning of Federal laws which mirror the Arizona law?

OH, I have problems with certain Federal Laws as well. However, this thread is about the Arizona law not Federal. I believe we no longer live in a Democratic Republic economically guided by Capitalism, but have given ourselves a socialist state that auspiciously uses limited democracy for its representative rule allowing for a measure of Capitalism. As for the 1950's I wasn't even a sparkle in my Father's eye

 

[targus]

OH, I have problems with certain Federal Laws as well. However, this thread is about the Arizona law not Federal. I believe we no longer live in a Democratic Republic economically guided by Capitalism, but have given ourselves a socialist state that auspiciously uses limited democracy for its representative rule allowing for a measure of Capitalism. As for the 1950's I wasn't even a sparkle in my Father's eye

Does an increasing large population of illegal immigrants from Mexico move us closer to a Democratic Republic or a socialist state?

I vote that it moves us closer to a socialist state.

 

[poncho]

"Papers" is far less descriptive (an intentionally so) than the words "drivers license" when referring to a drivers license.

And it conveys exactly the image that you seek to convey - hence your unwillingness to use the more accurate words "drivers license".



The Arizona law states that it must be in compliance with Federal law.

Where has your concern over these issues been since the 1950's?

Why are you not calling for the overturning of Federal laws which mirror the Arizona law?

Reasonable suspicion is well established law.

Actually probable cause is the well established law in the USA, reasonable suspicion otoh is an atempt to over write the fourth amendment and loosen the restrictions it imposes on government.

It may sound like a good thing but when in history has it ever been a good thing to give a body of men prone to tyranny and coruption ever more power?

 

[Dragoon68]

You ask some very good questions that I'd like to try and answer big D but this thread is getting close to it's ten pages so if you wouldn't mind I'd like to start a fresh thread on "illegal immigration & the war on drugs".

Then we'll all be able to discuss this important issue more better.

What do you say will you join me in another thread?

Yes, I sure can as time permits!

 

[carpro]

The Arizona bill was written by more than one or two people and it was passed by more than one or two people.

Instead of speculating on the motives of those who wrote and passed it why don't you comment on the actual content of the bill itself?

Follow the link to another thread started for that very purpose.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=65831

I would be more interested in your thoughts on the actual bill rather than your continual accusations about racism.

Liberals just love to play the race card. The real truth doesn't matter at all.