Printable View
If they are illegal, they are illegal, if the majority of the illegals are of any particular race, this does not mean profiling anymore than looking for cokeheads more so than potheads during an anti-narcotic campaign. The bias is legality vs. illegality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
This is the real issue at stake, and one that cannot be swept under the rug,,,
Why are the rules different for people sneaking across the southern border????
Please in all your self righteous ideals, just explain that to my Grandparents, on both sides.....Why did they have to "Become Citizens" the legal way????
TY Kelly for making it a clear as can be...
Maybe we should look at the actual wording of the law before parroting some journalist's ranting about racism/profiling, etc. Nazi Germany, Gestapo and everyother incendary word or historical reference they can look up to sensationalize the issue...
First, paraphrased the law states that when a law enfocement officer is lawfully engaged with a person, (this means that the law enforcement officer must have made contact with a person for a lawful purpose, i.e., traffic violation, disorderly conduct, suspicious circumstances, interview as a principal or witness to a crime or suspected crime, etc.), and there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien, (this might be the inability to speak english or, if driving a car, and stopped for a violation, the inability to produce a driver's license and lack of command of the english language), that the law enforcement officer shall make reasonable measures when practical to determine the citizenship of the person. Reasonable suspicion is defined as sufficient facts to make a reasonable person, (meaning Joe avergae, not the police, not judge...just a common everyday man or woman), believe that a crime is, has been or is about to be committed by a certain person or persons. In other words, the standard is this, if you or I read the officer's report, we would come to the same conclusion as he/she did because it was a logical conclusion apparent to any person...that is the standard.
Other than that, the state specifically states that it is a crime to be in the State of Arizona illegally. Imagine that, but, really that is already a Federal crime, so essentially, all Arizona is doing is making it a State crime as well! Pretty radical...
So, the police work by colors rant is a bit premature, and comparing the lawful inquiry based on probable cause as defined in the above is nothing akin to the killing of 6-million jews farroted out by the Gestapo...that is factless, inflamatory B.S.
No, that is not the "real issue". The original question was why (and I am paraphrasing)are people upset about the new law in AZ which allows police to stop and detain anyone they suspect is an illegal immigrant. The "real issue" is not the illegals at all. The "real issue" is the new freedom granted to police by the law in question to violate the civil rights of American citizens who (probably will) happen to be of hispanic desent. Glenster, if your grandparents get a deep tan, I'd advise them to stay out of Arizona until the law is repealed. Because if they don't carry proof of citizenship, they may be detained by the police in Arizona if they look like Mexicans. And that wouldn't be very nice for them now would it?Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
To all those who have expressed doubts about whether this new law will be applied "to the letter" versus enforced in a less-than-even-handed way by the Great State of Arizona:
How can anyone seriously doubt that Arizona wouldn't act in a proper and sensitive manner when it comes to issues related to race? It's not like it was one of those states that resisted recognizing Martin Luther King's birthday, or anything like that...
From Wikipedia:
<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">
</sup> "Sen. John McCain (Republican of Arizona) voted against the creation of the holiday to honor King, and later defended Arizona Republican Governor Evan Mecham's rescission of the state holiday in honor of King created by his Democratic predecessor. After his opposition grew increasingly untenable, McCain reversed his position, and encouraged his home state of Arizona to recognize the holiday despite opposition from Mecham.<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference">[9]</sup>
In 1990, Arizonans were given the opportunity to vote to observe an MLK holiday. McCain successfully appealed to former President Ronald Reagan to support the holiday.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference">[10]</sup> Prior to that date, New Hampshire and Arizona had not observed the day. Throughout the 1990s, this was heavily criticized. Following the failure of the 1990 proposition to recognize the holiday in Arizona, the National Football League moved Super Bowl XXVII from Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California.<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference">[11]</sup>
...and the "dog who be chilly" is back with a vengeance! :D
Kelly, Glen, your posts are spot on, and thanks hardblues for the actual wording of the law and the way it is to be interpreted by the enforcers of said law.
Mr. Jeff:
With all due respect, I don't get you. It seems, not surprisingly, based on the general theme of your post history that you're opposed to this new Arizona law because you feel it, in your opinion, will regulate and interfere with the lives of certain minority groups.
Yet you also seem based on your post history to be an ardent supporter of big government and the current administration. Bigger government absolutely regulates and interferes with people's lives in an escalating manner.
Opposed to regulating and interfering with the lives of minorities but in favor of increased regulation and interference with the lives of all U.S. citizens? At least I give you marks for being fair.
These are just my observations and maybe they're completely incorrect in regard to your convictions.
Having any kind of law on the books that doesn't really mean anything or is largely ignored by the government expected to enforce such a law is one of the many problems we have in this country and such occurrences are insult and injury to the citizenry.
Chris L
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
How unfortunate for Martin Luther King.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
Sorry Brad and Billy Jeff but the law hasn't even gone into effect so the PROBLEM precedes it...
Now once again, which one of you wants to explain it to my Grandparents, why were they subjected to these unfair practices when they had to become legal citizens, and had to learn English, and study the US Constitution to be become citizens... They would like your answer please .... Why were they discriminated against like this????? Why couldn't they just come and work here and send the money back to the old country??? and make sure that things said press one for English and 2 for *** why is that???? Please explain why ????
End of rant...as you can see this is a huge pet peeve of mine so I will bow out now...
Well guys, as a Mexican Citizen who lives in Mexico (and intend to be here for the rest of my life), all I can say is: It's the law of their land, and if they don't want me to go there because I in some way will be harrased, discriminated or in some way bothered, then is simple at least for me and I will (respectfully) never go to the state of Arizona and any other states / countries where I am not accepted, even if my skin color is "hispanic" or "latino".
On the other hand I partially understand the reactions of the northern side of my border, because all of the drug traffic and violence in that zone.
But anyway I think that we can all still be friends!!!!
JVG