Explain to me why I am wrong

[pezDispenser]

I understand that I'm new here and posting this may arouse suspicion, but I've honestly flipped on this issue - and can't convince myself to flip back.

The Arizona SB 1070. Originally I was opposed to this bill because of the wording 'lawful contact', now that they have changed it to "lawful stop, detention or arrest", I'm not so sure I am opposed to it anymore. I don't think this is now a 'show us your papers' law, but a law to determine the correct residency status of someone believed to be here illegally. As they say, illegal is illegal.

Honestly, I'm not sure that we really have an illegal immigration problem, in fact I think its something that liberals should take a more active role. It seems to me that people who come here illegally to work cheap are being exploited. I don't want to debate that issue however, I want to know why I'm wrong in supporting the amended law in Arizona.

Let the beatdown on me begin!

[NYC_SKP]

1. I don't think anybody believes that the new law is anything short of ripe for abuse.

And we already put up with too much intrusion.

It's unnecessary legislation, it's designed to target people from south of the border, and it's just an oppressive right-wing xenophobic concept.

:patriot:

[pezDispenser]

9. If this happens, I'm all for shutting it down

However I think this needs to fall into the 'its happened' category before we claim its already happened.

[ThomWV]

41. It is not a matter of "if" its "when", simply a matter of time - and most likely very little time

Because everything that can be abused will be abused.

[saltpoint]

2. 1070 is a license to practice racial bigotry.

It's cowardly and mean-spirited.

Shame on Gov. Brewer or signing it. Shame on John McCain for not condemning it.

[Confusious]

46. now that they have changed it to "lawful stop, detention or arrest"

I don't think you caught that the first time through.

There is no more "Reasonable suspicion" in the bill.

[saltpoint]

48. I am up to date on the "change" in the bill.

I stand by what I typed.

[havocmom]

3. Since it was passed to appease racist yahoos, 'suspecious' would mean 'brown'

and that, my friend, is racial profiling.

Trust me, there is plenty of real crime for law enforcement to be worried about in AZ. They do not need, nor do most want, the responsibility of forcing brown people to carry proof of status in a state where plenty of brown people's families go back generations in that area.

The law forces people, mostly people of color beyond ivory, to be burdened with carrying proof of lawful existence in America. And it allows any racist yahoo to insist law enforcement make them show such proof. Sorry, that is NOT what America is.

[pezDispenser]

10. honest question

If I'm out walking around, am I not required to have some valid identification on me? I'm not sure about this one - this may be the thing that makes me flip back to where I want to be.

[havocmom]

14. Depends on local law. I know a chap in Tucson was walking and a cop demanded ID

The pedestrian had none and was arrested. I do believe it went to court. I KNOW it caused a huge ruckus. Not sure on outcome, but seem to recall no jail and a lot of policy review by the department.

In reality, how many of us carry papers when we walk the dog, take a run, ride a bike around for exercise, go for a swim? Plus, please consider that though we tend to carry papers when we go shopping, mos women do not have wallets in their pants, and a lot of women's clothing do not have pockets. While the gents usually have some id if they have their pants on, we ladies are frequently out in the hood sans wallet. Gents out for a run seldom seem burdened by wallets full of IDs.

Now, as to whether IDs are required: some places do require them, but since most people are never asked to prove they exist, it seems a moot point.

The AZ law enables harassment of people that other people THINK look like illegals. Let me tell ya, that is a racism enabling act, not a solution to a border security problem.

Joe Arpio is under investigation for a lot of shit he has been pulling. And Maricopa County has had to deal with some lawsuits because of his profiling and harassing of people who have done nothing wrong, save be a color Joe dislikes. This law seems to be an attempt to save the county some coin in lawsuits while a bad sheriff goes about violating civil rights.

If you step out on your lawn to fetch the morning paper, do you always have ID? If you are not the favored color in AZ, that might create some serious legal problems for you.

THAT is a class action/civil rights problem in the making. And it does not one thing to solve the problem of illegal immigration.

[Berserker]

22. Why does anyone

walk around with NO ID? I don't and I have been here for 57 years. And by the way I am very brown looking.

[havocmom]

30. I see you are a man. Men's pants have pockets. Not all women's pants do

We tend not to carry wallets on our person and we do go outside without purses from time to time, hence no ID

Runners seem not to carry IDs.

We all grew up thinking this was the land of the free, and it seemed like it was OK to be here. Without papers.

Lots of people do not have driver's licenses and the poorer ones probably don't have easy access to get to DMV for the state ID. Lots of workers don't carry anything on their person at work and some of them (a lot of them being browner than ivory) work in landscaping. Gee, no chance of that becoming a problem, is there.

Fact is, some people DO go outside without papers. Silly us, we thought we had rights an all.

This law in AZ will probably not be a problem for my brother and sister, both of whom walk their dogs without carrying wallets, and both of them blond. People less blond, but just as legal should not have to live differently so some yahoos can demand cops make them provide papers.

And just which papers will satisfy? I keep thinking about Obama's birth certificate not being enough for some of the idiots out there. Well, what papers will they except as proof? Oh there are some problems ahead for a lot of innocent people regardless of whether they carry ID like you or sometimes don't like me.

[Berserker]

33. Do you really

think that if you go OUTSIDE you will be asked for and ID? Do you even think for one minute that YOU are jumping to conclusions?

[havocmom]

34. No, I don't. I'm a blue eyed blond. Like I mentioned bro & sis won't be asked either

But the several Hispanic families who also walk their dogs in my sister's neighborhood would likely to be forced to produce 'papers' were it not for the sanity of law enforcement in Pima County which has stated they aren't playing this racial profile game. Now, same people in Maricopa County are probably not gonna be as lucky.

Point is, this abomination would allow for it to happen; if one is out in public, one can be challenged. Does that sound Constitutional to you?

Sadly, there are racists and this law lets them sue law enforcement if they don't think the law is doing what they think should be done. Police are damned if they do and damned if they don't

[TalkingDog]

25. No. Absolutely not. There is no law requiring any citizen to carry ID.

If you are driving, you must be able to prove you are licensed to drive. That is a safety/liability issue.

If you are walking around it is highly unlikely that you could endanger someone without attempting to.


So, the question comes down to: If citizens are not required to carry ID, why would you stop someone to ask for an ID? If they are breaking the law, cite them or take them to jail. They won't do that because most people, illegal or not, don't do anything actionable in the course of walking to/from work/friends/store.

So they pass a law specifically to target one type of person....illegals. There are white illegals and I'm sure there are a couple in AZ, what are the chances they will be stopped and asked for their papers?

Edited for (flivver fingers and) this:

SCOTUS held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his correct name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity. Note that they did NOT say that any kind of identification papers could be required, nor did they say that police officers could ordinarily arrest someone for refusing to identify himself absent a state law permitting that arrest. There is no law making it illegal for anyone (even someone lawfully detained) to fail to have identification papers or to refuse to identify himself. At one point there was such a law, which was declared unconstitutional.

A person CANNOT be arrested just for failing to identify himself or failing to have ID, even with a lawful detention. It is NOT interfering with an officer. The only effect of not having ID occurs if a police officer has probable cause to believe an arrestee has committed a criminal offense. A police officer who could otherwise give an arrestee a citation to appear would instead take the person into custody to appear before a magistrate. But this is ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime--NOT just because the person did not have ID.

[pezDispenser]

26. but in this scenario

The person not carrying a drivers license does something that warrants a lawful stop. Aren't they at that point required to prove id?

[TalkingDog]

27. I think I answered your question with my edited post.

Short Answer: No

See above.

[havocmom]

31. Thank you for the citation. I know it was a ruckus when cop arrested that man for no id on his perso

And that was back in the early 90s, well before this #(@$#* law passed in AZ. I did recall it was a nasty legal fight, just tuned out the details of ending.

[KonaKane]

4. Ask yourself what criteria they will use as an excuse for stopping someone

and therein lies your answer as to whether this law is racist or not.

[sandnsea]

5. lawful stop = lawful contact

There's no difference between the two.

Ultimately, it's as you say. Workers are being exploited. So what kind of American supports a law that targets exploited people, instead of targeting the exploiters?

[pezDispenser]

8. I'm with you part way on that

Here is my problem. We already require large and small business to be the states tax collector. This is an expensive requirement to most business to stay in compliance. I'm not sure I'm willing to hoist another responsibility onto business. Also, from everything I've read, eVerify is very error prone. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 5%.

[sandnsea]

15. They want to hire illegal workers

You do understand that, right? They're the only ones who can stop illegal immigration. Don't hire them, they won't come.

[pinboy3niner]

16. There is a difference

The original "contact" language would have applied, for example, to witnesses and crime victims. Under the amended language, merely having contact in these circumstances does not meet the stop, detain or arrest criteria for enforcement.

There is one ADDITION to the stop, detain or arrest criteria. One provision of the amending bill EXPANDS enforcement to include persons involved in a municipal or county code violation. So, if a neighbor complains that your dogs are barking, your grass is overgrown, there are too many occupants in your dwelling, etc., enforcement of the law is authorized (if there is reasonable suspicion that you umay not be lawfully present in the U.S.).

[sandnsea]

19. In practice, there's no difference

They'll find things to make the stop, just like they would have to make the contact.

[pinboy3niner]

21. ANY law can be abused by authorities

There would not be any point in discussing what any law says and what authorities are LEGALLY PERMITTED to do if those things NEVER count for anything.

[sandnsea]

32. But aren't usually written with the explicit purpose

of abusing a specific minority.

[pinboy3niner]

35. And THERE we agree 100 percent!

We know why the law was passed, and we know who is to be targeted. We also know that the law is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce WITHOUT racial profiling.

I doubt that the law will actually go into effect. DoJ is looking at suing, there already are several individual lawsuits pending, and now a coalition of groups (the ACLU, Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC)) also is going to sue. Then, there's the boycott. Still, it doesn't hurt to be prepared, just in case . . .

[azmouse]

6. This horror of a law is spreading around the country.

It has to be stopped in its tracks.

[FLyellowdog]

7. Law enforcement will look for any and every thing with which to charge

anyone who looks like an immigrant...i.e., weeds too tall in yard, over-watering,cars up on blocks...things that may in fact be illegal, but aren't necessarily used for arrests. Officers customarily make decisions about which things to "look" for. They will begin to systematically target dark-skinned people for the specific purpose of having them deported...not for the things for which they actually initially stop them for.
This is not a good law, no matter how they couch the wording. Make no mistake about it, it is intended to use racial profiling with the intent to deport.

[EFerrari]

12. And the border towns get more than a quarter of their income

from shoppers from Mexico. They can't be happy. The Sheriff of Pima County (Tuscon, etc) calls this an anti-law enforcement law because it invites people to sue for non-enforcement. He says it adds nada to their ability to handle illegal immigration.

[depakid]

11. I'll let international human rights experts do that

A group of UN human rights experts* expressed on Tuesday serious concern over laws recently enacted by the state of Arizona, United States of America, that affect minorities, indigenous people and immigrants and potentially subject them to discriminatory treatment.

“A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin, and a law that suppresses school programs featuring the histories and cultures of ethnic minorities,” warned the UN experts on migrants, racism, minorities, indigenous people, education and cultural rights.

The Arizona immigration law requires state law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of individuals based just on a “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally, and to arrest a person, without a warrant, if the officer has “probable cause” to believe the person is an illegal alien.

It also makes it a crime to be in the country illegally, punishable by up to six months in jail, and dictates that undocumented persons are guilty of trespassing. The immigration law specifically targets day laborers, making it a crime for an undocumented migrant to solicit work, and for any person to hire or seek to hire an undocumented migrant.

“The law may lead to detaining and subjecting to interrogation persons primarily on the basis of their perceived ethnic characteristics,” the UN independent experts noted. “In Arizona, persons who appear to be of Mexican, Latin American, or indigenous origin are especially at risk of being targeted under the law,”

The UN independent experts stressed that “legal experts differ on the potential effects of recent amendments to the immigration law that relate to the conditions for the official detention of suspected illegal aliens,” and expressed concern about the “vague standards and sweeping language of Arizona’s immigration law, which raise serious doubts about the law’s compatibility with relevant international human rights treaties to which the United States is a party.”

“States are required to respect and ensure the human rights of all persons subject to their jurisdiction, without discrimination,” they said. “Additionally, relevant international standards require that detention be used only as an exceptional measure, justified, narrowly tailored and proportional in each individual case, and that it be subject to judicial review.”

The immigration law was adopted around the same time as the enactment of a law prohibiting Arizona school programs that “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group” or that “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

The state superintendent of schools, the primary state official who promoted this legislation, has repeatedly stated that the law is aimed at eradicating particular existing ethnic studies programs that provide instruction featuring the history, social dynamics, and cultural patterns of Mexican-Americans in the United States.

The independent experts noted that “such law and attitude are at odds with the State’s responsibility to respect the right of everyone to have access to his or her own cultural and linguistic heritage and to participate in cultural life. Everyone has the right to seek and develop cultural knowledge and to know and understand his or her own culture and that of others through education and information.”

While the independent experts recognize the prerogatives of States to control immigration and to take appropriate measures to protect their borders, “these actions must be taken in accordance with fundamental principles of non-discrimination and humane treatment.” Furthermore, “States are obligated to not only eradicate racial discrimination, but also to promote a social and political environment conducive to respect for ethnic and cultural diversity”

The UN human rights experts urge the State of Arizona and the United States Government “to take all measures necessary to ensure that the immigration law is in line with international human rights standards and to devise and carry out any mechanism to control migration with due regard of the rights of people to be free from discrimination and to have access to their cultural heritage”

“Every measure must be taken to promote maximum tolerance and appreciation for ethnic and cultural diversity in the educational system, to allow it to remain free from racial discrimination in any form,” stressed the independent experts.

(*): The Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Jorge Bustamante; the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Githu Muigai; the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya, the Independent Expert in the field of cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Vernor Muños Villalobos, the Independent Expert on minority issues, Gay McDougall.

Check the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cmw.htm and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/Media.aspx?IsMediaPage=true

[ultracase24]

13. The issue is about cheap labor

Cheap labor advocates and those that rip them off and profit off of them and abuse them will win out. This law isnt intended to do anything about that. Its intended to divert attention to the fact that most are Hispanic and they play off people's racism to abuse and discredit them further.

The real way is to fine all employers $100,000 each time they are caught hiring immigrants who have not obtained citizenship. Do nothing to the immigrants and leave them alone. Fine the employers heavily.

[havocmom]

17. Yep

make those who profit from exploiting (and too often, abusing) desperate people (who will work cheap, take abuse, not report criminal activity and safety violations)go to jail and forfeit a lot of coin.

[ultracase24]

18. and then they will say

well, we need the cheap labor, we cant compete. Bullshit, it means they cant make 5000% profit off of them. I always find it funny chamber of commerce types who say the same thing about outsourcing too. "well, look how cheap things are". Bullshit. A shirt made by someone who is being paid 40 cents an hour should cost 90 cents, not 20 dollars as it still is. Know where that extra money is going? Its going into the owners pockets as pure profit. Ain't shit being "passed" onto the consumer but a bunch of garbage ass lies.


People arent asleep anymore.

[havocmom]

23. True story about cheap labor republican in AZ

I used to do tailoring and worked outside a nice country club neighborhood. Most clients were great. Some were frustrated plantation owner wannabees who lament that they have to pay any workers for anything.

One of the latter brought in a big bunch of clothing she just purchased. None of it fit and she wanted me to make it all fit. I am good at what I do, but I do expect compensation for time, effort, skill, like any other professional. My rates were not high at all, but they were also non-negotiable.

She was so please with the fitting (which took over two hours, it was a lot of clothes) but her face fell when I tallied up what the charges would be. She asked if I couldn't do better than that. I remarked that since she didn't buy clothes that fit, it would take time and money to make them fit. She grimaced and complained that since she bought some of it on sale, I should reduce my fees to alter them and that the people in other countries who made the garments got only a tiny fraction of what she paid for them anyway, so I should give her a break.

Told her I had to pay rent in Tucson, not some Third World economy, so if she wanted my services, the rates were what they were. She teared up! Really. And patted my hand, pleading "Please, with the economy the way it is right now {it was the late 80s} she had already had to cancel two of the five cruises she had planned to take.

Yeah, there are a bunch of people who just don't think they should have to pay for what they want done. I could fill a book with stories like that, or the guy with the Mazarati who yelled because I charged him $3 to sew a patch on a camo vest he wanted to wear. "But, I'm a VET!" Yeah, one who drives a very expensive car, that'll be $3.

All those people I tangled with re fair fees ran businesses. I swear a lot of people think a business license is a Get Labor Free card. No amount of profit is ever enough. They simply do not think other people are entitled to make a living.

[ultracase24]

28. Thats how Capitalism works

Its funny that people can see the evil that Capitalism brings when its healthcare, for example, but when its stuff like clothing, no one cares. Thats what Bush was talking about when he said the ownership society. People should be paid what their labor is worth, not what some business owner thinks its worth. Its a race to the bottom and the Capitalism will not be happy until everyone is making as little as possible while paying as much as possible.

Its sad.

[pezDispenser]

24. thats a very good point

about $0.25 shoes. You can't tell me it costs $39.74 to get them from Asia to Kohls. Damn good point sir.

[ultracase24]

29. thanks

[Berserker]

20. I am not new here

And I agree with you. BUT "It seems to me that people who come here illegally to work cheap" That is not true in all cases and I am sick of that bullshit. Ask any construction worker. They make lots of money AND take lots of jobs. That same whine is perpetrated here day in and day out. Good for you being new and speaking up. The law has not taken effect yet and all I read is how bad the police will treat anyone that is brown. What a crock of shit.

[sandnsea]

36. How much, lots of money

Skilled construction workers make around $25 hr here. Illegal and day labor get paid $10.

[Biker13]

37. K&R

Good discussion.

[seabeyond]

38. i would be pissed if i were stopped because of color of skin. havent done anything wrong

and i have to stop what i am doing ot prove i am a citizen. that is bullshit. and you would be pissed and many many others would be pissed.

taking kids to school, i am pulled over to prove i belong here, and kids are late. i am pissed

why should citizens have to put up with that shit because there are others breaking the law.

[mmonk]

39. Imagine being stopped for a broken tail light and being taken

to jail. Imagine someone giving an officer a false tip based on their own speculation and/or prejudice and you are traveling. Imagine you can't put your hand on your bith certificate when being approached on "reasonable suspicion". Why is it that someone might single you out for "reasonable suspicion"? etc....

Any questions?

[havocmom]

42. and imagine you are just a passenger in that car

and you do not happen to have your drivers' license or birth certificate on you, what with just being a passenger and all....

Oh, so many ways this will be used to abuse innocent people just based on some idiot racist's hate and pressure on local cops.

[mmonk]

45. Yep.

[Toots]

40. How about the part in the Law that allows individuals to sue the Police if

they feel the Police are not being active enough in arresting undocumented persons? Is that designed to force Police to start being extremely active on stopping people and asking for their papers?

[pezDispenser]

43. agreed 1000%

This provision is just welfare for law firms.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. "I'm not sure that we really have an illegal immigration problem"

but what the heck, let's harass all those brown people anyway.

[rug]

47. The only possible basis for suspicion of illegal immgiration is ethnicity or race.

It makes de facto racism de jure racism.