Arizona governor signs immigration bill

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

My point is that I could easily be mistaken for an illegal and if I was stopped, so what.

Other than the possible unconstitutionality of it?

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Other than the possible unconstitutionality of it?

It's only a piece of paper.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Other than the possible unconstitutionality of it?

MC, did you follow the 10th Circuit's handling of Oklahoma's anti-immigration efforts?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

MC, did you follow the 10th Circuit's handling of Oklahoma's anti-immigration efforts?

Not really -- what I know is based on what you posted.

I was thinking more of Ghostwriter apparently thinking that if, because of his looks, he was stopped because he was "mistaken for an illegal, so what?" I take my contitutional rights a little more seriously than that.

And ASUADPi, I won't flame you and I understand your frustration. And I completely understand that illegal alien means illegal, as in criminal laws have been violated. But there are right ways to go about trying to address the problem and there are ways that aren't right. I fear Arizona has opted for the latter, and Arizona's efforts won't help at all if the law is found to be unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Other than the possible unconstitutionality of it?

Not so sure it is unconstitutional. Isn't that the point to all this? One would have thought that Kelo vs. New London would have been deemed unconstitutional but it was upheld and all that land was taken. Has anyone seen a mall, shopping center, etc. on this land? Nothing was built and the land owners and taxpayers were the real losers. You just never know on these things.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_108

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Not so sure it is unconstitutional. Isn't that the point to all this? One would have thought that Kelo vs. New London would have been deemed unconstitutional but it was upheld and all that land was taken. Has anyone seen a mall, shopping center, etc. on this land? Nothing was built and the land owners and taxpayers were the real losers. You just never know on these things.

True.

But I was responding specifically to what I understood you to be saying, which was that you saw no big deal in being stopped if, based on your looks, you were mistaken for an illegal immigrant. Did I misunderstand you?

That's what I was talking about as unconstitutional -- not the Arizona law per se, but the claim that it's not a big deal being stopped just because you look like you might be an illegal alien.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

True.

But I was responding specifically to what I understood you to be saying, which was that you saw no big deal in being stopped if, based on your looks, you were mistaken for an illegal immigrant. Did I misunderstand you?

That's what I was talking about as unconstitutional -- not the Arizona law per se, but the claim that it's not a big deal being stopped just because you look like you might be an illegal alien.

Thanks for explaining. You are correct in that I view it as no big deal.

From my prospective: If I am stopped for speeding, broken taillight, running a stop sign etc. I would not care if the officer asked me for my documentation. According to what I have read there must be a mitigating circumstance for the person to be stopped and questioned in the first place. It is also my understanding that all legal immigrants/aliens must have their "green" card/Visa with them at all times as a form of documentation. I know that I have to carry my Passport and Visa with me when I visit other countries. I understand the fear some may have but think it is probably unfounded. We will see.

I sympathize with the border states as the Feds have been negligent in securing our borders. If it wasn't so politicized the Feds would have the border under control and they would be enforcing laws already on the books. Bush pandered to the President of Mexico and Obama is pandering to the illegals for future votes.

Btw, you probably already know this but it is a felony, punishable by 2 years in a Mexican prison, to be in Mexico illegally. I have been there and have seen how they set up road blocks and stop cars to root out the illegal imigrants coming into Mexico from Central America. But isn't it Mexico that is squealing the loudest about our trying to do something about their citizens coming illegally into the U.S.?

Every illegal alien knows that if you are stopped at the border you won't get into the U.S. They also know that once they get into the U.S. they more than likely safe as we do not put alot of time and money into pursuing illegals. That is why they keep trying. Risk vs. reward. How do we stop it if the Feds will not?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Thanks for explaining. You are correct in that I view it as no big deal.

From my prospective: If I am stopped for speeding, broken taillight, running a stop sign etc. I would not care if the officer asked me for my documentation. According to what I have read there must be a mitigating circumstance for the person to be stopped and questioned in the first place. It is also my understanding that all legal immigrants/aliens must have their "green" card/Visa with them at all times as a form of documentation. I know that I have to carry my Passport and Visa with me when I visit other countries. I understand the fear some may have but think it is probably unfounded. We will see.

I sympathize with the border states as the Feds have been negligent in securing our borders. If it wasn't so politicized the Feds would have the border under control and they would be enforcing laws already on the books. Bush pandered to the President of Mexico and Obama is pandering to the illegals for future votes.

Btw, you probably already know this but it is a felony, punishable by 2 years in a Mexican prison, to be in Mexico illegally. I have been there and have seen how they set up road blocks and stop cars to root out the illegal imigrants coming into Mexico from Central America. But isn't it Mexico that is squealing the loudest about our trying to do something about their citizens coming illegally into the U.S.?

Every illegal alien knows that if you are stopped at the border you won't get into the U.S. They also know that once they get into the U.S. they more than likely safe as we do not put alot of time and money into pursuing illegals. That is why they keep trying. Risk vs. reward. How do we stop it if the Feds will not?

See that's where you are wrong. The new law says that all they need is suspicion that the person is an illegal immigrant. If all this law said was that law enforcement could check immigration status on someone accused of a crime, I don't think I'd have an issue, but that's NOT what this is saying. Police can stop someone presumably minding their own business on a street corner just for seeming to be an illegal immigrant. Now ask yourself what would make someone suspicious as an illegal immigrant then ask yourself how that won't result in racial profiling.

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

See that's where you are wrong. The new law says that all they need is suspicion that the person is an illegal immigrant. If all this law said was that law enforcement could check immigration status on someone accused of a crime, I don't think I'd have an issue, but that's NOT what this is saying. Police can stop someone presumably minding their own business on a street corner just for seeming to be an illegal immigrant. Now ask yourself what would make someone suspicious as an illegal immigrant then ask yourself how that won't result in racial profiling.

Yes. Thank you. Perfect explanation. Dumb law, no, WRONG Law.

As an aside to this discussion: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Does that sound familiar? "unreasonable search and seizure..." or am I confused?

No one seems able or willing to define "seeming to be an illegal immigrant" in constitutional terms. When that happens, I'll listen.

Or is it (the definition) like pornography ("I can't tell you what it is but I know it when I see it" - and I'll send a Starbucks gift card to the first GCer who tells me the source of that quote)?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AzTheta

Yes. Thank you. Perfect explanation. Dumb law, no, WRONG Law.

As an aside to this discussion: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Does that sound familiar? "unreasonable search and seizure..." or am I confused?

No one seems able or willing to define "seeming to be an illegal immigrant" in constitutional terms. When that happens, I'll listen.

Or is it (the definition) like pornography ("I can't tell you what it is but I know it when I see it" - and I'll send a Starbucks gift card to the first GCer who tells me the source of that quote)?

Oh I know about that...Congress had a long inquiry into the porn industry at the behest of the religious right in the early 80s, but the RR was disappointed when they didn't outlaw pornography. Lots of congressmen did spend lots of time "researching" by watching porn!

[agzg]

Originally Posted by AzTheta

Or is it (the definition) like pornography ("I can't tell you what it is but I know it when I see it" - and I'll send a Starbucks gift card to the first GCer who tells me the source of that quote)?

Wasn't it Brennan? Seems like it would be. His decisions are a hoot to me.

Ha. Apparently not. There was something to do with something pron he had a decision in though and I remember giggling at what someone wrote about it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AzTheta

No one seems able or willing to define "seeming to be an illegal immigrant" in constitutional terms. When that happens, I'll listen.

Answer: Brown.