What is Going On in Arizona?

[Gaspar]

Where did I say anything about a crime?

I was pointing out that having such large numbers of that demographic, who also happen to vote in large numbers, totally affects the political climate of the state.

That's profiling! 

[Red Arrow]

Unreasoning paranoia alert. 

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.   

[Conan71]

And that's where that pesky 'reasonable suspicion' thing comes into play. Considering the way I look I really don't think I would ever be questioned about my immigration status.

So do you really think everyone will be questioned the same? Not likely.

The truth of the matter is that racial profiling has, and will continue to be a problem regardless of this bill. It's a widespread police issue.

So do we quit policing and enforcing laws out of fear we might offend groups of people?

My understanding is cops won't be pulling people over for being Hispanic but if they violate a traffic law that constitutes grounds for a legal contact.  Not really any different than what they do now. When a cop pulls someone over at 2am for a burned out tag light he isn't after the tag light. It's an example of a lawful contact which has a decent liklihood of resulting in a DUI or drug arrest. Certainly we shouldn't profile people with alcohol problems. That's a disease and disability. Why are we making people with no regard for the law into victims?

If there becomes an issue with ethnic profiling over this then re-train the LEO's doing it or let them face losing their job. 

[Cats Cats Cats]

It will probably be something like.  If you pull somebody over and they can't speak English.  Then you ask.  That would be considered speachial profiling (yes I know speachial isn't a real word).  Of course illegal immigrants could just learn to speak English before coming over.  Either way it saves the state money.

[Conan71]

I thought of you when I boldfaced that..... I figured it also reflected your political views on how the "George Kaiser River Tax" was handled.... how's that hopey changey Tulsa Landing project thingy workin out these days-- you remember, the project that was going to happen regardless of whether the river tax passed?  

Boldfaced or bald faced?

Remember one thing: I'm never wrong, I'm just not always correct

Given the recent economic climate, I don't think Tulsa Landing would have progressed, regardless. It still would have required significant investment from the developer and commitment from key tennants. Now that the mayor has unveiled more regressive "fees" he'd like to add to shore up the balance sheet I'd say we are probably just as well it did not pass at the time. We still are getting many improvements without the tax slush fund. 

[we vs us]

So do we quit policing and enforcing laws out of fear we might offend groups of people?

My understanding is cops won't be pulling people over for being Hispanic but if they violate a traffic law that constitutes grounds for a legal contact.  Not really any different than what they do now. When a cop pulls someone over at 2am for a burned out tag light he isn't after the tag light. It's an example of a lawful contact which has a decent liklihood of resulting in a DUI or drug arrest. Certainly we shouldn't profile people with alcohol problems. That's a disease and disability. Why are we making people with no regard for the law into victims?

If there becomes an issue with ethnic profiling over this then re-train the LEO's doing it or let them face losing their job. 

Slippery Slope alert! 

We don't arrest people for having alcohol problems.  We arrest people when their alcohol problem causes them to break laws.  Crucial difference.  The point is it's not who they are that makes them eligible for arrest, it's their actions.  Which brings us back to the crucial question: how do you act like an illegal immigrant? 

[azbadpuppy]

So do we quit policing and enforcing laws out of fear we might offend groups of people?

My understanding is cops won't be pulling people over for being Hispanic but if they violate a traffic law that constitutes grounds for a legal contact.  Not really any different than what they do now. When a cop pulls someone over at 2am for a burned out tag light he isn't after the tag light. It's an example of a lawful contact which has a decent liklihood of resulting in a DUI or drug arrest. Certainly we shouldn't profile people with alcohol problems. That's a disease and disability. Why are we making people with no regard for the law into victims?

If there becomes an issue with ethnic profiling over this then re-train the LEO's doing it or let them face losing their job. 

All this is true, except it no longer states 'lawful contact' since that was too vague. It now states 'stop, detain or arrest' which definitely makes it clearer, at least from the officer's standpoint. 

What is different with the new bill is that it now requires LEO's to question, with reasonable suspicion, a person's immigration status after they have already been stopped for something else. So if I am white, with no accent (even though I may be an illegal from Canada) the cop is most likely not going to have reasonable suspicion that I am in this country illegally and will not ask me for my papers.

All that aside, the bill is still unconstitutional by requiring AZ officers to enforce laws that are only enforceable by the Feds. The oklahoma immigration law was struck down for this reason, and California had similar laws struck down for the same reason back in the 90's.

[Conan71]

I was not aware that HB-1804 was struck down. Are you sure about that?

Local and state law enforcement enforce federal law all the time. I don't think you can claim it unconstitutional on that basis.

If the re-worded the Az bill to state that LEO's must ask citizenship status of everyone stopped, arrested, or detained that ends the problem of any group being singled out for identification purposes so that should make everyone happy other than those who don't want immigration laws enforced.

Keep in mind, LEO's will still interpret how they want, that's a problem we see in enforcement of firearm laws now but that's a topic for another day and another thread.

[azbadpuppy]

I was not aware that HB-1804 was struck down. Are you sure about that?

Local and state law enforcement enforce federal law all the time. I don't think you can claim it unconstitutional on that basis.

If the re-worded the Az bill to state that LEO's must ask citizenship status of everyone stopped, arrested, or detained that ends the problem of any group being singled out for identification purposes so that should make everyone happy other than those who don't want immigration laws enforced.

Keep in mind, LEO's will still interpret how they want, that's a problem we see in enforcement of firearm laws now but that's a topic for another day and another thread.

Apparently 2 of the three provisions in HB-1084 are pre-empted by Federal law and were struck down. The 3rd part of the law was upheld and could go into effect, pending further legal action. That portion requires employers to use a federal computer system called E-Verify to check eligibility of job seekers. The provision only affects businesses that contract with government entities for physical performance of services, such as building roads or bridges.

Arizona already uses E-verify as well as several other states.

[custosnox]

I was not aware that HB-1804 was struck down. Are you sure about that?

Two sections of it have been in regional court.  Still hasn't hit higher courts so it's still an open ballgame.

[guido911]

60% of Americans are racist (40% strongly racist):

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532337

[azbadpuppy]

60% of Americans are racist (40% strongly racist):

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532337

In 1967, the year the U.S. supreme court legalized interracial marriage, about 72% of Americans opposed interracial marriage.

http://www.marriageequality.org/index.php?page=polls-and-studies

Were 72% of Americans racist in 1967?

[guido911]

In 1967, the year the U.S. supreme court legalized interracial marriage, about 72% of Americans opposed interracial marriage.

http://www.marriageequality.org/index.php?page=polls-and-studies

Were 72% of Americans racist in 1967?

I think you missed my snark.

[azbadpuppy]

I think you missed my snark.

Lol- and you mine.

[guido911]

Lol- and you mine.

touche (dammit). lol.