Ronnie Jane Devo

Seems to me the bigger issue is how much of a chance people get to present their papers before action is taken. If they're given a reasonable amount of time, i.e. a week, to get their documents in order, they don't have much of an excuse for flaking out if they do.

Also, the government could do more to hold employers accountable for who they hire.


Yes, I know. Racial profiling bad. I get it already.

So?

I addressed the issue of time frame above. As long as someone is able to produce papers within a reasonable amount of time, they shouldn't have reason to be afraid of the cops.

How does this hinder 'essential police activities'? Are you saying cops will get shot more often? That neighbors won't be testifying against each other as much? Please be more specific instead of repeating yourself and giving me this 'how do you not understand this' crap.

You make it sound like being on 'good terms' with a community is a requirement for the police to be able to enforce the law in that community. That sounds like a gross exaggeration to me, but I don't see the point of going back and forth over how important you or I think it is to be a 'nice cop', so we probably shouldn't bother with this item of the debate.

__________________
Last.fm

someonecompletelyrandom

Okay.. before we go further with this. What are we debating, exactly? Are you defending the law or what? Because you brought out some points that would require the law to be amended, which is fine with me.

First, that's not even in the bill. They have to show their papers right then and there or face being arrested. Under this law, it could become illegal for Mexican Immigrants not to carry their papers with them at all times. Guess what? That means any Mexican American or anyone who even "looks suspicious" (mexican) can face legal discrimination from the police force.

Second... that's still asking someone to prove they're legal based on the way they look. That's profiling.

I'm just going to ignore that you took my statement out-of-context (I was explaining why there might be animosity between Mexican Americans and police, not lecturing you on why profiling is bad).

Same as above. If people know somebody who's been deported, they may act with animosity towards the police force who deported that person. It's not rocket science.

It could be either of the above. But more likely this could mean less cooperation in tracking down suspects - making Mexican American communities great hiding places for criminals of Mexican American descent... thus worsening crime in those areas.

That would be one example.

Any police officer will tell you they need the respect, cooperation and trust of the communities they protect. After all, they are to protect them... not bully them. It's not simply a matter of "oh we'll they're illegal anyway so what does it matter?"... if the Mexican American community and the Mexican Immigrant as a whole (legal or not) distrusts the police, you're going to have problems.

Ronnie Jane Devo

I probably don't support the Arizona law as is, since I would prefer that it prohibit racial profiling and give suspects sufficient time to produce papers.

Let's assume for a minute that the law actually included those provisions. Would you still oppose it on the grounds that it would undermine trust between police and hispanic communities? Honestly I could not care less how much of said trust there is, because a police officer pretty clearly does not need anyone's trust to walk up to someone's house and demand identifying papers from them, or to later return with an arrest warrant if they have not complied with the demand. If illegal immigrants decide to respond violently, well hey, they're committing an even more serious crime.

Again, you seem to be suggesting that if it's sufficiently 'difficult' to enforce a law, the police simply shouldn't bother trying, and instead hope that the community will voluntary assist the police in enforcing the law -- which is absurd. People in a community with illegal immigrants are not going to be helping to turn in their friends/family/neighbors to the police.

__________________
Last.fm

crash_override

I don't see what the big deal is about this. This law is cracking down on ILLEGAL immigrants, which means against the law. These people are criminals against federal and state laws, and they are often hidden and protected by other Mexican/Americans whether they are legal or not. So how else do we find them before they move north, assume a false identity and continue this illegal behavior? I'm sorry but the time for amnesty is through. Action should be taken NOW. The only problem I see with this bill, is that California, Texas, and New Mexico have not enacted similar laws. Making it a joke to the real smugglers and illegals who now just have to side-step Arizona in the process of invading our country.

Federal immigration reform is a touchy subject that fearful politicians have been afraid to touch for years, but now a relatively small state who has had enough of being bullied and taken advantage of by these CRIMINALS has taken action to take their state back and make it legal and SAFE for it's citizens.

You don't see any of this drama when someone who fits the profile of a murderer get brought in and questioned, so why the big deal with this. I'm sorry but if you fit the profile of a CRIMINAL, you should be questioned. It's not pretty, but neither are the immigration policies on the other side of the border.

p.s. What is with all you people undermining the fact that these people are CRIMINALS? You act like they have rights, some immunity or untouchable status... I don't understand that.

__________________
My MB music journal

Ronnie Jane Devo

Just for the record, I do not want to be associated with the above guy in this debate

__________________
Last.fm

Freebase Dali

Is anyone here worried about the possibility of police officers using "suspected illegal immigrant" profiling to unjustly pull over citizens?
As it currently stands in the U.S., a citizen is mostly protected from frivolous stops if that person is doing nothing wrong either on the road or as a pedestrian or otherwise. Profiling citizens based on a suspicion that only has to be justified in the mind of the enacting officer is, to put it mildly, a concern.

I can see this new power spilling over into areas that do not warrant it, and there's not much that can keep that from happening.
But, I'm not sure of all the details... so if someone has any insight into that particular aspect, I'd be interested in hearing it.

__________________

bungalow

i don't think there is actually any consensus over what power exactly this new law gives to police officers because the wording of the law is sort of ambiguous..it's something like "if while making lawful contact, a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a person is not a lawful citizen he may request proof of citizenship" and of course you are subject to arrest if you can't provide the documentation. what's confusing there is the term "lawful contact" because the wording seems to imply that a police officer, while stopping a person for some unrelated reason, has reasonable suspicion to believe that person is an unlawful citizen he can request proof of citizenship. that's kind of what it reads like anyway, but the term lawful contact is just confusing. and it would be easy to see how, even if that is the intended use of the law, it could be abused to racially profile latinos.

and crash_override is just crazy. if you want to cut down on illegal immigration, crack down on huge, american multinational corporations that employ (and actively pursue) illegal mexican workers, who will work for low wages and in poor conditions, so those companies can continue to cheaply provide you the things which make your life convenient. these companies get a pass and instead the police arrest, jail and deport individual workers who are being exploited, and the companies turn around and hire another batch. not to mention the fact that going around and forcing people to produce papers or risk arrest is unconstitutional and gestapo-like. you can't justify possibly violating a lawful citizen's constitutional rights in the name of deporting illegals. there are just too many reasons why your mind is warped on this issue...

Freebase Dali

Ah! Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of that specific wording, however ambiguous it is.
It seems to me that "lawful contact" might be a gray area in situations for pedestrians and police on foot. It's lawful to pass someone by in the street and notice the color of their skin or the language they're speaking and make assumptions about it, so I can only guess that a police officer doing it could use that contact as a means of generating suspicion of illegal status and demand proof of citizenship.
If that's allowed and unquestioned, it stands to reason that there would be a possibility of officers intentionally making false assumptions about legal status as a basis of lawful contact for other intent, such as illegal search and seizure of drugs, weapons, record-checking for warrants, tickets, etc...

I don't think the rights of citizens should even be made available for free violation, much less actually violated. The principle should be looked at from more angles than they're currently viewing.

__________________

duga

Is there anything specific thing that happened that may have prompted this law? Is there a large amount of illegal residents in Arizona? Have they been causing a lot of problems? The article provides a couple numbers, but how much worse is that compared to other states? I want to have an opinion on this law, and my initial instinct is to disagree with it, but I think I need more specifics first.

Either way you cut it, though...having ambiguous language such as that is only going to cause more problems than it solves.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Neapolitan

Quite frankly I don't see how or why cash_override is crazy, that is the purpose of the bill, You are acting like there is nothing in the bill for employers, did you even read SB1070, or you just winging it? Because if you are... that's just crazy.

__________________