The Glade 4.0

Harmed? How? By having to present their legally required green card to a LEO if they're pulled over?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Nothing poorly crafted by it. It's basically a mirror of the fed stuff that has been on the books for 60 years. Let's just cut through the BS. You and folks who agree with you don't like it on partisan grounds and that's it. Had a Dem come up with something to deal with this, you wouldn't be in such a tizzy. This is politics, nothing more.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Really? Requiring legal immigrants to obey a 70 year old law they are briefed on when they naturalize or receive residency documentation is poorly crafted policy? Did you HONESTLY just say that?

_________________

Police can already request identification from passengers if they suspect something is amiss. Not a new condition or situation.


You assume that things would not be applied evenly. However, they have a procedure in place already for dealing with drivers that fail to produce a license, and I would be shocked if they didn't continue this same procedure, just to avoid the problems you are listing.

There is nothing in this bill that alters powers already held by the local police authorities.

I'm fairly certain local cops have more demands on their time than pulling over every Hispanic driver they see.

Here, auto insurance is a requirement, yet something like 40% of the drivers are uninsured, and vast majority of those are of lower income brackets... I don't see cops profiling drivers of beat up junk cars for insurance violations (despite the costs such drivers place on sytem).

If I am in a city where a serial killer is actively removing people from the gene pool, and his description is buzz haircut, unkept facial hair, and a tattoo sleeve on his arm.. and I am not asked about it... I would kind of worry about their police department.

I would rather be questioned on it than autopsied because of it.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Just to be a dick... did you HONESTLY not remember that he has expressed this opinion that illegal immigrants should not have any repercussions for being somewhere illegally?

just figured I would bring that point up. A few members of the community have espoused that opinion. He has never been as severe as Monty was with the "they are noble people who should be worshiped because the white man is the debbil"

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

That's a specific, matching description, not racial profiling.

I don't think I've every said that. I don't think they should be subject to imprisonment, but I have no problem at all with deporting them.

How many illegals from Mexico have light skin?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Project much?

What am I projecting?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

If I only had a brain.

You're viewing the debate through a partisan lens, but assuming it's your opponents who are doing that. Personally, I couldn't care less what party suggested this law, and given that 70% of Arizonans approve of it, it doesn't really lend itself to a neat partisan divide anyway.

One side is trying to stem the tide of illegals and make sure 70 year old fed law is followed and the other is crying false tears about racism. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

For starters, it's not just when being pulled over. Legal aliens are required to have their documents on them at all times. And this law ups the penalties significantly if they don't. The federal law was a $100 fine and up to 30 days in jail. This law raises the fine to $3000 and increases the potential jail time to 7 months for a first offense, and for a second offense it's up to 3.75 years in prison plus a felony on your record. Pretty draconian for a person who forgot their wallet at home, don't you think?

In addition, many hispanic citizens will be harmed by being detained while their status is verified. In essence, hispanic citizens will be subject to a de facto requirement that they carry ID at all times to avoid the risk of detention, while non-hispanics will not be.

It alters the emphasis that they put on the issue, it alters the consequences to legal immigrants who just happen to forget their wallets on any particular day, and it alters the risk of innocent hispanic citizens being harassed.



The cops will either racially profile, or the law will be completely and utterly worthless for catching illegal aliens. And like I said, I really can't believe anyone honestly thinks race won't be a factor in who gets carded.

Draconian, or an incentive to make sure you follow the law. 7 months and $3,000 seems a bit steep for first offense, I agree. However, it could be worse. Failing to abide by the very federal laws that allows you to be in this country... well...


Again, all this already exists... it just isn't enforced much. So it appears you are back to why the specifics of this have you upset?

Look, let me try another approach. Anyone object to amending this law so the cops are required to verify everyone's immigration status following a lawful contact? Anyone really think the law would still have 70% support in Arizona if everyone risked being detained if they didn't have their ID on them at all times? Because that's precisely the situation hispanic Americans face under the law as written.

So you're in favor of racial profiling during random police contact in public places (as opposed to say, self-presentation at airport security). At least that's honest.

You are assuming it alters the consequences of forgetting your wallet, unless you are saying that no-one in AZ have ever forgotten their DL before, and the police don't know how to run a check on the tags and insurance to make sure the person is a legal driver? I'm sure DE can fill in specifics for Ohio, but here, they take down some personal information, go back to the car and run a check on the car tags against the information you provided. If it turns out you have a valid license, you get a ticket for not having it, and probably for whatever caused you to be stopped. If you don't, you get detained a lot longer, immigration papers or no.

And you assume the second as well. One could argue that if 70% of the population supports this law in AZ, there is already a lot of conflict pertaining to the issue, and such activity would already be documented. Is that the case? Or are you assuming that the current police officers are going to suddenly become racists?


Wow... Its an either or situation? Those are the only two outcomes?

Good thing the law is already written that way.

It's just common sense. When we worry about terrorist taking over airplanes, are you going to look at the pasty white grandma or the 20-30 year old middle eastern guy?

Look, you can try to make up for all the lib white guilt you seem to be chock full of...I'm not. If a group blows up some buildings and we have evidence that it's some skinhead group, does it make sense to question a bunch of brothers?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Has it been amended since the link Rorinthas provided on page 1 of this thread? As I read it, the law requires verification of immigration status only upon "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal alien (*wink wink nudge nudge* you know, if the dude's Hispanic).

RD:

You know that I am a firm believer in the right to travel, and I hold a philosophical belief that any government interference with natural rights are despotic at best, however the system we have currently is built around something despotic in nature, and if we are to perpetuate this system which redistributes and provides social safety-nets then you have to do things in a way which makes them sustainable.

This is how the system must be run if we are to have it, and if you want it to be affordable to those whom you burden with it's cost. I am well aware that it will lead to rights violations, but then I've been saying for years that the rights violations perpetrated by the implementation of these social systems will necessarily lead to more rights violations on the logical course of their existence. But then, no one complaining about this set of rights violations wants to see that logically, and understand how their own preferred politics lead us here through economic necessity. I wish there were a magic button somewhere that I could press, and enough wealth would be magically generated to provide middle-class American sustenance for every person on the planet, but there isn't, so we have to work within the confines of reality.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

It's not about the cops being racists. The fact is, Nitefox is right - the vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country, and particularly in Arizona, are Hispanic. Cops, like everyone else, will be inclined to cast their lines in the ponds where they're most likely to catch something. It'll be the same as it has been with drug enforcement - minorities are vastly more likely to get randomly stopped and searched on some pretext, not because all cops are racists, but because their "success rate" at finding something will be higher that way. In NYC, for instance, 84% of stop-and-frisks are on minorities.

Going back to your example about people driving without insurance, if the above is true, why don't cops profile people driving junkers? Because the public doesn't passionately care about nailing uninsured drivers, and the penalties to the perpetrator are barely worth the trouble of writing the person up and sending them to court in the first place. Not so for drug busts. And now, not so for immigration busts.

In short, the cops now have stronger incentives to bust people for immigration violations (public pressure and stiffer penalties), and they have a quick and easy indicator of where to go fishing for violators. Honest to god, it'll be Drug Wars 2.0.