Show Us Your Papers

[Ninjafoo 0]

http://azbikelaw.org/articles/TucsonID.htmlnope you dont ever have to have or show i.d. in Az....http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2R/bills/SB1070S.pdfThis is the actually bill, pretty clear to me they can't just run around willy nilly asking everyone for papers

[hblask 1]

I wish I could have known they brought in so much money that they could have paid for my car. Honestly you think they stimulate the economy? http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationn.../caillegals.htm

I've seen these studies, and they only count the costs, not the benefits, such as paying taxes under false SS numbers and never collecting, or all the sales taxes they pay, or the fact that they make your groceries affordable, or that they increase profits of businesses which then pay a large portion of each state's tax. Heck, if I could only count your costs and none of your benefits, I could show what a parasite you are, too.

I agree with you a lot do show up ready to work, and are very hard working. You forgot, however, how many show up ready to steal your car, collect welfare, or rob gas stations. If you think they dont do that, I gladly invite you to come to Az for a couple weeks.

Ah, so brown people crossing the border are lazy thieves? Nice.There is likely a large criminal element crossing the border due to the insane war on drugs. Eliminate the incentive for criminals to come here, and they won't. It's easier to steal a car in Mexico and get away with it than it is here, so the notion that that is a primary reason for anybody to come here is laughable.

I think that if you want to be in this country so damn bad the least you could do is learn the language. And yes I do have the right to choose who I do business with.

Studies show that the current batch of immigrants learns the language just as quickly as all previous immigrants, including your ancestors, so don't be so arrogant, and just consider yourself lucky that there weren't as many people like you when they got here.

I really wish the illegals were white people so it wouldn't be such a racial thing. They would still be a problem but, wouldn't be bailed out because people of the same color could get offended by having to carry some i.d. with them. If illegals were mostly white, you'd never hear about racial profiling

Uh, yeah, because people didn't makes laws against them when it was mostly white people. Hmmm, all the white people who want can come here, but as soon as we get some darker skinned people, suddenly immigration laws are a matter of national security? And we're supposed to believe there's no racism (*) involved? Don't make me laugh.Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of non-racist people are worried about immigration laws, but anyone who is honest and non-racist should be willing to admit that, like all wars on voluntary consensual behavior, the prohibition itself is a bigger problem than what was outlawed. Give honest immigrants a way to be part of our society and pay into the system and they will jump at the chance. Make them into criminals and you just end up reinforcing stereotypes.(*) I actually prefer to call it xenophobia rather than racism, because I think it is a more accurate word in this instance, but it's sort of just a matter of degree.

[Ninjafoo 0]

It's easier to steal a car in Mexico and get away with it than it is here, so the notion that that is a primary reason for anybody to come here is laughable.

Easier is opinion, I will bet money there are a lot more "easy" to steal Honda's here than there. You really can't say that no immigrants commit crimes, that's laughable.

Give honest immigrants a way to be part of our society and pay into the system and they will jump at the chance. Make them into criminals and you just end up reinforcing stereotypes.

I completely agree with this. We do have a way for them to do that though, it's called citizenship.

[rjkdb8 1]

http://azbikelaw.org/articles/TucsonID.htmlnope you dont ever have to have or show i.d. in Az....

I never said the state cannot require identification under any circumstances. You seemed to have forgotten the following claim of yours, despite the fact that I've quoted it several times already:

our police (I live in az) have the right to ask for your i.d. no matter who you are for any reason, we are required to carry i.d.

You claimed state law mandates that Arizona citizens must carry identification at all times and that police can demand it from anyone at any time for no reason at all. Then, apparently as support for this claim, you posted the link to some random municipal ordinance that purportedly requires cyclists to provide identification if an officer observes a traffic violation. If police can articulate the basis for reasonable suspicion, then they are vested with all kinds of power they don't otherwise enjoy. This is basic stuff. Compulsory identification statutes (meaning laws that make silence a crime independent of the one being investigated at the time of the demand for identification) do not violate the 4th amendment if reasonable suspicion exists, although this was not settled until 2006. You've conveniently ignored the 5th amendment implications I mentioned. Information about basic 4th and 5th amendment precedent is not hard to locate.

[Ninjafoo 0]

Ah, so brown people crossing the border are lazy thieves? Nice.

Illegals have done all of those, but all you hear is brown people are lazy thieves. Yet if you hear a white guy did it you'd say throw them in jail or deadbeat. When a brown guy does it, it is just racial profiling, to me that's racist. I have a very brown friend sitting next to me who agrees.

[Ninjafoo 0]

You claimed state law mandates that Arizona citizens must carry identification at all times and that police can demand it from anyone at any time for no reason at all.

I will admit I used poor wording, I should have said when you are dealing with police for any reason.

[slink 1]

I have a very brown friend sitting next to me who agrees.

.

[slink 1]

I have a very brown friend sitting next to me who agrees.

[Ninjafoo 0]

lol

[Dagata 0]

Not sure why people think its all about keeping mexicans/hispanics out, there are lots of people i'd like to keep out until we can put them through a proper legal method.As far as people bitching about "Oh we came and took over indians land and cruely forced them into reserverations" illegals are completely within their right to attempt to do the same to us, if they want to take us over and put us on reservations. Feel free to try.Btw I think two wrongs dont make a right fits in nicely here.But uhh, this is more than keeping mexicans out, don't kid yourselfs to think that you are that important.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

More and more often I see debates where BOTH sides look completely ridiculous to me - where I wouldn't want to be associated even with the individuals on "my side". This is a perfect example. Do I allow the racist xenophobes speak for me against the emotional dramatic demagogues? I have to assume that this is how I have appeared when engaging in some of the more classic debates in the past. Clearly I have been on the "extreme" side of debates (and likely will find myself there again in the future). I am forced to wonder if this is a signal of some sort of shift in my personal positions and or style - perhaps "maturity"? Whatever, I just know that this debate is making both sides look foolish and biased.Bottom Line: I am anti ID Requirements for citizens, pro ID Requirements for Visitors. If a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion regarding an individual's status, s/he should be able to investigate the legal status of an individual, including the legality of being in this country. This is not an unreasonable expectation. If that makes people who are here illegally uncomfortable - too bad. If it makes some who are here legally uncomfortable, well that is the price paid for addressing what I feel is an important problem of illegal aliens. To argue that immigrants provide or don't provide value is moot. Frankly even the term "illegal immigrant" is a non-starter. Illegal is illegal. Visa overstay and illegal entry are crimes. If you believe in full open borders, goody for you. Go work and change the law. But that is a different debate and a smoke-screen to the topic being discussed.

[El Guapo 8]

I have not read everything in this thread, but from what I can gather on my limited research, this law is almost verbatim the Federal Law, just applied to the State of Arizona. Basically giving local and state authorities the ability to police illegal immigration, instead of relying on the Feds.

[CaneBrain 95]

If it makes some who are here legally uncomfortable, well that is the price paid for addressing what I feel is an important problem of illegal aliens.

We will make legal Mexican-Americans uncomfortable in Arizona because that is a small price to pay to combat illegal immigration. We will make peaceful Muslim-Americans uncomfortable at airports because that is a small price to pay to combat terrorism.It sure is nice that all of us white people are so adept at figuring out what is an acceptable price for brown people to pay to help American combat its major issues.

I have not read everything in this thread, but from what I can gather on my limited research, this law is almost verbatim the Federal Law, just applied to the State of Arizona. Basically giving local and state authorities the ability to police illegal immigration, instead of relying on the Feds.

which according to past court precedent is still not ok. Immigration is the province of the Federal Government. The hilarious thing is that Arizona is just making a point with this law.....ultimately, it will be overturned......and they will spend precious tax payer dollars defending it that they cannot afford to spend....all while pissing off lots of people.They tried this in California when I was a kid. It.....did not go well.

[Balloon guy 158]

I have not read everything in this thread, but from what I can gather on my limited research, this law is almost verbatim the Federal Law, just applied to the State of Arizona. Basically giving local and state authorities the ability to police illegal immigration, instead of relying on the Feds.

If there is one thing that I can't stand it is attempts by government to enforce laws on the books that also deal with national security.I mean, come on, their job is to figure out how to write the check so we can all get free stuff.Not protect our borders!!!!

[hblask 1]

Easier is opinion, I will bet money there are a lot more "easy" to steal Honda's here than there. You really can't say that no immigrants commit crimes, that's laughable.

Police are corrupt, gangs rule the streets in Mexico. I don't think someone taking a car is high on their priority list.I didn't say no immigrants commit crimes. But honest people don't suddenly turn into thieves because they cross the border. Most of the crime from immigrants is due to the Insane War on Drugs. End the drug war and criminals have little to no reason to cross the border.

I completely agree with this. We do have a way for them to do that though, it's called citizenship.

Except that it's not. There is no way for the vast majority of immigrants to become citizens, ever. Don't play pretend games like it is. I'm calling BS on that right now.

[hblask 1]

Illegals have done all of those, but all you hear is brown people are lazy thieves. Yet if you hear a white guy did it you'd say throw them in jail or deadbeat. When a brown guy does it, it is just racial profiling, to me that's racist. I have a very brown friend sitting next to me who agrees.

If both whites and minorities were stopped in equal proportions to their percentage of the population, then it would not be racial profiling. But that's not what's happening is it? C'mon, be honest here. I refuse to play pretend over this issue.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

We will make peaceful Muslim-Americans uncomfortable at airports because that is a small price to pay to combat terrorism.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but care to be specific on this? Is there a policy in place (other than useless "watch lists" and general racist stupidity) that profiles Muslim Americans making them uncomfortable at the Airports?

[hblask 1]

Bottom Line: I am anti ID Requirements for citizens, pro ID Requirements for Visitors.

You do realize this makes no sense, right? That it's impossible?Cop: "Prove you are a citizen."Suspect: "I'm not carrying an ID, therefore I must be a citizen."Cop: "Ha, that's proof you are not a citizen!"

If a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion regarding an individual's status, s/he should be able to investigate the legal status of an individual, including the legality of being in this country. This is not an unreasonable expectation.

Except that it will always be the same people targeted, no matter how honest and legal they are. But it's nice to know you aren't concerned about my son's prospects of being pulled over every time he drives anywhere.

Illegal is illegal.

That only makes sense if "legal" is a realistic possibility. Make breathing illegal. Would you breathe?Make feeding your family illegal. Would you feed your family? That's what current immigration laws do to millions of people -- they make it a crime to take their best chance to survive. That's immoral. We should strive to be a moral country.

[CaneBrain 95]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but care to be specific on this? Is there a policy in place (other than useless "watch lists" and general racist stupidity) that profiles Muslim Americans making them uncomfortable at the Airports?

It's actually having a similar name to one on the watch list that is the absolute worst. I think HBlask knows someone with this problem and it is a recurring travel nightmare. That is in addition to the general profiling which is supported in legal filings and anecdotally and the fact that the TSA was created and given fairly broad powers.Side note: don't ever complain too stridently to an airline employee anymore. If they are in a bad mood, they can keep you off the flight and you can't do a thing about it.

[SweetDee 0]

Make the penalties on businesses not worth the risk and actually enforce said penalties and this conversation isn't happening.

[hblask 1]

This issue is really very simple. Do you believe that individuals have inalienable rights and that governments are instituted to ensure those rights, or do you believe that individuals only have rights that governments dole out to individuals on an ad hoc basis?If it's the latter, why are you here? There are lots and lots of countries that are run on this latter belief, and few that are run on the former. Why destroy one of the good ones? Seriously, you could just cross the border to the south and high five all the freedom lovers coming north; you'd both get your way.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

You do realize this makes no sense, right? That it's impossible?Cop: "Prove you are a citizen."Suspect: "I'm not carrying an ID, therefore I must be a citizen."Cop: "Ha, that's proof you are not a citizen!"Except that it will always be the same people targeted, no matter how honest and legal they are. But it's nice to know you aren't concerned about my son's prospects of being pulled over every time he drives anywhere.That only makes sense if "legal" is a realistic possibility. Make breathing illegal. Would you breathe?Make feeding your family illegal. Would you feed your family? That's what current immigration laws do to millions of people -- they make it a crime to take their best chance to survive. That's immoral. We should strive to be a moral country.

You know what... horse shit. Your demagoguery and histrionics are tiring. I sincerely thought you were more rational than this.You come to this country illegally you are a criminal - I don't care if "it's about the children". However if you do it legally, like millions of others have figured out how to do it, then please participate in the dream. If you think it is somehow immoral to have barriers to entry and limit the participation (like EVERY other country on the planet) then you have a different definition of "moral" than I do. Again goody for you. I don't find it the least bit "immoral" to build the best country on Earth and put rules in place how others will participate in it. I don't see the World as some sort of Zero-Sum-Game where our success is somehow responsible for someone else's failures. Me having a full fridge while others go hungry isn't immoral. And limiting who I allow to eat from my kitchen is no less moral.And also again, this part of the conversation is irrelevant to the law in AZ - you are using it as an emotional argument to combat the AZ decision. Don't like the immigration and drug policies? Fine, work to change them. But until we reach a consensus on what is good policy, we have policy that is in place and part of the system.I haven't played this card yet, but I am getting a little tired of you and others assuming certain things about my ethnicity. My own father has been kicked off of beaches at resorts in Mexico because the beaches are "not for the locals". He bears an uncanny resemblance to Hugo Chavez. My grandmother on my mother's side used to call us "The Spics". So get off your high moral horse for a moment. Have you read the legislation? To jump to the conclusion that every Hispanic looking person is going to get hassled (or is in "danger" of being hassled) when they go to AZ is nothing short of hysterical.

[CaneBrain 95]

Make the penalties on businesses not worth the risk and actually enforce said penalties and this conversation isn't happening.

I think most of the people against the law in this thread would wholeheartedly support an immigration law that focuses on the demand side of this issue. Of course, the odds of Republicans passing a law that penalizes businesses for anything are a billion to 1....

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

This issue is really very simple. Do you believe that individuals have inalienable rights and that governments are instituted to ensure those rights, or do you believe that individuals only have rights that governments dole out to individuals on an ad hoc basis?If it's the latter, why are you here? There are lots and lots of countries that are run on this latter belief, and few that are run on the former. Why destroy one of the good ones? Seriously, you could just cross the border to the south and high five all the freedom lovers coming north; you'd both get your way.

So George Bush was right, we did have a moral imperative to invade Iraq to depose a Dictator and impose our definition of rights into their society? Thanks for clearing that up.

[hblask 1]

You know what... horse shit. Your demagoguery and histrionics are tiring. I sincerely thought you were more rational than this.You come to this country illegally you are a criminal - I don't care if "it's about the children". However if you do it legally, like millions of others have figured out how to do it, then please participate in the dream. If you think it is somehow immoral to have barriers to entry and limit the participation (like EVERY other country on the planet) then you have a different definition of "moral" than I do. Again goody for you. I don't find it the least bit "immoral" to build the best country on Earth and put rules in place how others will participate in it. I don't see the World as some sort of Zero-Sum-Game where our success is somehow responsible for someone else's failures. Me having a full fridge while others go hungry isn't immoral. And limiting who I allow to eat from my kitchen is no less moral.

So you think that interfering in the voluntary consensual transactions of others is moral? Can I apply that rule to you? Let me follow you around for a month, and for anything you do that I don't approve of, whether it harms me or not, I get to harass you for a half an hour and take some of your money. Deal? What? Oh, it's only OK if it applies to others? OK, just wanted to be clear.

Have you read the legislation? To jump to the conclusion that every Hispanic looking person is going to get hassled (or is in "danger" of being hassled) when they go to AZ is nothing short of hysterical.

So it's OK, as long as the number of Hispanics being harassed is less than 100%? Or is it, say, 95%? How many times is it OK for them to handcuff my son without him having ever done anything wrong? Please, give me a number.