Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I fail to see why legal Hispanic citizens would be in favor of illegal immigration. It seems that illegal immigration would probably do more financial damage to them than any other subset of the population.

What I posted has nothing to do about Hispanics being in favor or not of illegal immigration. You know like I do, that the whole bill itself in Arizona did nothing more than targeted and profiled ALL Hispanics, as well as inspire xenophobia, so yes, a party that is trying to gain their support designing a bill to single out that same group of people is going to cause loss of support.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

What I posted has nothing to do about Hispanics being in favor or not of illegal immigration. You know like I do, that the whole bill itself in Arizona did nothing more than targeted and profiled ALL Hispanics, as well as inspire xenophobia, so yes, a party that is trying to gain their support designing a bill to single out that same group of people is going to cause loss of support.

The bill expressly says that race is not a factor in reaching probable cause.

We've been over that.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The bill expressly says that race is not a factor in reaching probable cause.

We've been over that.

2 words.

Bull and Shit.

"My ancestors"....we aren't ready for a pissing contest stretcting back 400+ years about who deserves to be here legally or illegally...because if I factor mine in...you would lose.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

"My ancestors"....we aren't ready for a pissing contest stretcting back 400+ years about who deserves to be here legally or illegally...because if I factor mine in...you would lose.

Why?

My ancestors were Dutch and Irish who settled in Indiana and Oklahoma, mainly. Family lore has my father's side homesteading in Fairview, Oklahoma as FOB Irish. My mother's side was Dutch, showed up in Cushing, Oklahoma by way of Indiana, where they built a furniture store, also had a homestead and built a church and had various real-estate holdings (not oil, unfortunately).

I don't really see how that makes my status here any less tenuous than anyone else whose ancestors came here legally.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why?

My ancestors were Dutch and Irish who settled in Indiana and Oklahoma, mainly. Family lore has my father's side homesteading in Fairview, Oklahoma as FOB Irish. My mother's side was Dutch, showed up in Cushing, Oklahoma by way of Indiana, where they built a furniture store, also had a homestead and built a church and had various real-estate holdings (not oil, unfortunately).

I don't really see how that makes my status here any less tenuous than anyone else whose ancestors came here legally.

I refuse to go there with you today.

I have one question tho...for those who were brought here against their will, are they legal or illegal immigrants?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why?

My ancestors were Dutch and Irish who settled in Indiana and Oklahoma, mainly. Family lore has my father's side homesteading in Fairview, Oklahoma as FOB Irish. My mother's side was Dutch, showed up in Cushing, Oklahoma by way of Indiana, where they built a furniture store, also had a homestead and built a church and had various real-estate holdings (not oil, unfortunately).

I don't really see how that makes my status here any less tenuous than anyone else whose ancestors came here legally.

You should have finished this post with a "run and tell THAT."

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't really see how that makes my status here any less tenuous than anyone else whose ancestors came here legally.

Because it doesn't matter how your ancestors got here. It matters about how you are here.

The provisions in Section 1 have been interpreted to the effect that children born on United States soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli, or "right of the territory"— does not exist in most of Europe, Asia or the Middle East, although it is part of English common law and is common in the Americas. The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship.

Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins[7] and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[8] Elk v. Wilkins established that Native American tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisdiction of the United States. Children born to these Native American tribes therefore did not automatically receive citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment if they voluntarily left their tribe.[9] Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier act of Congress, and all non-citizen Native Americans (called "Indians") were subsequently made citizens by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States[10] and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States.

Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:

* Children born to foreign diplomats

* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States

* Children born to Native Americans who are members of tribes not taxed (These were later given full citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.)

All other persons born in the United States were citizens.

You are of the exact same worth as any other citizen as far as your country is concerned.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The bill expressly says that race is not a factor in reaching probable cause.

We've been over that.

Then what are the factors for probable cause that police should use as instructive? Riding a burro while wearing a poncho?

The bill's provisions don't pass the smell test in the slightest.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Then what are the factors for probable cause that police should use as instructive? Riding a burro while wearing a poncho?

The bill's provisions don't pass the smell test in the slightest.

no id and can't speak english?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by starang21

no id and can't speak english?

1 - The tail wags the dog with the "no ID" portion, since generally American citizens who are not driving are under no compulsion to carry ID (see: why national ID cards have failed), and AZ's law seeks to change that.

1a - If it's a driving stop and the driver cannot produce ID, then obviously the police can proceed as they see fit . . . and they can already do that, so . . .

2 - You're not arguing what you think you are - saying "no ID" is probable cause to ask for proof of citizenship (essentially, ID) is circular at best. Upon what basis did the officer even STOP the person? That's the problem with "reasonable suspicion" clauses. The officer can't know there is no ID until after the stop.

3 - Americans are under no compulsion to speak English in general. An officer stopping somebody because they are not speaking English is a farce. Once the stop is made, if the person is unable or unwilling to communicate, obviously the officer can proceed from there - but we're talking about probable cause to even get to that point.

If the law only requires documentation for people already subject to criminal/traffic stops, then it is not even worth enacting because it does nothing. The original wording seems to go far beyond this, allowing police to make stops based on "reasonable suspicion" . . . which seems awful at best.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

1 - The tail wags the dog with the "no ID" portion, since generally American citizens who are not driving are under no compulsion to carry ID (see: why national ID cards have failed), and AZ's law seeks to change that.

1a - If it's a driving stop and the driver cannot produce ID, then obviously the police can proceed as they see fit . . . and they can already do that, so . . .

2 - You're not arguing what you think you are - saying "no ID" is probable cause to ask for proof of citizenship (essentially, ID) is circular at best. Upon what basis did the officer even STOP the person? That's the problem with "reasonable suspicion" clauses. The officer can't know there is no ID until after the stop.

3 - Americans are under no compulsion to speak English in general. An officer stopping somebody because they are not speaking English is a farce. Once the stop is made, if the person is unable or unwilling to communicate, obviously the officer can proceed from there - but we're talking about probable cause to even get to that point.

If the law only requires documentation for people already subject to criminal/traffic stops, then it is not even worth enacting because it does nothing. The original wording seems to go far beyond this, allowing police to make stops based on "reasonable suspicion" . . . which seems awful at best.

HB2162 covers that i believe.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

1 - The tail wags the dog with the "no ID" portion, since generally American citizens who are not driving are under no compulsion to carry ID (see: why national ID cards have failed), and AZ's law seeks to change that.

Probable cause doesn't mean you have to have to be 100% sure a crime is going on, there just has to be reasonable suspicion. If the police officer began his investigation based on that one item, the judge would likely throw out anything he found. But that item and other things? No license, can't speak English, acting nervous, won't make eye contact? Add a few together and you have probable cause.

[quote]1a - If it's a driving stop and the driver cannot produce ID, then obviously the police can proceed as they see fit . . . and they can already do that, so . . .

2 - You're not arguing what you think you are - saying "no ID" is probable cause to ask for proof of citizenship (essentially, ID) is circular at best. Upon what basis did the officer even STOP the person? That's the problem with "reasonable suspicion" clauses. The officer can't know there is no ID until after the stop.[

3 - Americans are under no compulsion to speak English in general. An officer stopping somebody because they are not speaking English is a farce. Once the stop is made, if the person is unable or unwilling to communicate, obviously the officer can proceed from there - but we're talking about probable cause to even get to that point.

If the law only requires documentation for people already subject to criminal/traffic stops, then it is not even worth enacting because it does nothing. The original wording seems to go far beyond this, allowing police to make stops based on "reasonable suspicion" . . . which seems awful at best.

My understanding is that the law requires that the suspect has already been detained for some other offense.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

My understanding is that the law requires that the suspect has already been detained for some other offense.

Yes, and the creators of that law specifically listed violations to target poor Hispanics. (See above.)

Also the police have a well documented history of racial profiling anyway.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

My understanding is that the law requires that the suspect has already been detained for some other offense.

That's my understanding too - I was asking somewhat rhetorically, but I suppose I can be more specific.

Essentially, the law gives local police the authority to do something that would eventually happen anyway (determine citizenship of criminals) - only for non-criminals as well (since, as you noted, "probable cause" is not legally defined as "crime in progress" and for good reason). Is that really a good plan? Does this really provide adequate disincentive for immigration on the whole? Will streams suddenly be sent across the border?

Additionally, I'm basically categorically against any increase in subjective authority to determine probable cause in real time - I can't imagine why others wouldn't be as well, but I'm willing to listen I guess?

[starang21]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

What I posted has nothing to do about Hispanics being in favor or not of illegal immigration. You know like I do, that the whole bill itself in Arizona did nothing more than targeted and profiled ALL Hispanics, as well as inspire xenophobia, so yes, a party that is trying to gain their support designing a bill to single out that same group of people is going to cause loss of support.

a speculative argument at best. one that shows your own personal bias. it's not the laws fault that 5 out of every 6 illegal immigrants are hispanic.

just because we have a colonialistic history, doesn't mean we need to rescind the laws of today.