On Hardball yesterday, host Chris Matthews asked Rep. Brian Bilbray, a Republican from California, to give a "non ethic" example of how Arizona cops will be able to identify undocumented immigrants once the state's new "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" is signed into law. Bilbray, who supports the law, gave the host an array of criterias from shoes to "behavior things", [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-BlskNRJ7c"]YouTube - Rep. Bilbray can spot immigrants by their clothing[/ame] This is exactly what is WRONG with this soon-to-be law in Arizona. This bill allows warrantless arrests of anyone who raises "reasonable suspicion" about their immigration status. It legalizes racial profiling. The bill allows police to go after anyone on the notion that undocumented immigrants dress different than legal immigrants. Of course well known Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona has already put this vague concept into practice, he said his officers use “the speech, the clothes, the environment, the erratic behavior†of a “suspect†to determine if theyre “illegalâ€. This is the guy that has 2,700 lawsuits and is currently under investigation by the DoJ after complaints of discrimination and racial profiling buy his office And hes got a bunch of neo-nazi fans. A real class act to say the least. Bilbray heads the House Immigration Reform Caucus, a group of mostly Republican representatives founded by none other than Tom Tancredo. I think we all know his history with immigration and undocumented immigrants. Before Bilbray was elected to office, he was paid $300,000 by the anti-immigrant hate group Federation for American Immigration Reform to be a lobbyist for them in congress. Kinda funny seeing that his mother is an immigrant from Australia. And that hes "carved out exceptions" that would apply to him and his family in all the bills the he has written and backed. The ACLU points out that this bill unconstitionally allows the state to regulate immigration. It also states that the bill will "exacerbate racial profiling" and it will "rewrite the Constitution by turning the presumption of innocence on its head."
whats wrong with racial profiling in this case? same with airport security fuck political correctness, and fuck brian bilbray
At my last two jobs I knew of a few legal immigrants that dressed... somewhat decently. And I'm assuming when Bilbray talks about behavior, he means running around, acting wild or some shit like that. I don't even know why they'd bother making this a law, there's never going to be a complete stop to racial profiling anytime soon.
It's not an issue of presumption of innocence as persons are already required to identify themselves to law enforcement officers upon request. Reasonable suspicion has been established, for example in anti-gang activity enforcement, to include things as broadly as excessive loitering or engaging in otherwise suspicious activity or being around persons who are engaging in suspicious activity. The circumstances in which a person can legally avoid identifying themselves to law enforcement are incredibly slim. As such this law is merely addressing the type of identification presented to the LEOs, and what the LEOs may do with the information. I'm glad to discuss the bill on its own merits, legal or policy wise, but launching personal attacks against people associated with the bill is a strong indication that your arguments against the merits of the bill are weak. A state can most certainly empower its LEOs to detain persons for violating federal immigration law. Since the language of the bill is clear that a pre-requisite of checking status is "lawful contact" (an important legal threshold), it seems pretty clear that basic constitutional thresholds are probably being met. This is basicly on par with LEOs doing a warrant check on a person. The real key provision of the bill is the banning of sanctuary cities, cities that have policies that intentionally ignore/break state and federal laws regarding immigration enforcement. That, ultimately, is what will produce the most significant results.
Its not a personal attack, its what HE said. And i was using Sheriff Arpaio as an example, he has already takin many of the principles in the bill and has applied them to his area.
You can make insinuations about Arpaio all you want, he is irrelevent to the law in question. Further he has not been charged or convicted of any crime. He has continued to win re-election by landslides. It's what the people want. Like it or not (and I rather don't, as I feel that this type of enforcement should be done primarily by sealing the border and mercilessly punishing the employers who are exploiting immigrants who are often only seeking a better future and the American Dream), the people of Arizona want Arpaio-style approaches taken. In arizona illegals are believed responsible for some 60% of the murders, have produced the highest kidnapping rate in the nation, have significant elevated property crimes and assault crimes, and so on. For whatever reason, illegal aliens with bad intentions are drawn to Arizona at a highly increased rate. Until we as a nation are willing to address the root causes of this problem (which can only effectively be done at the federal level), tough state enforcement will likely be the only viable option for those who are being preyed upon by those illegal aliens who come here with criminal intent. EDIT: Some might suspect I'm being disingenous about my above immigration position. I'm not. I am very sympathetic to the plight of our illegal aliens and am very opposed to the way they are exploited.
maybe if our government officials did something in the first place, when all the conservatives were screaming at the illegal immigration rate, while liberals did nothing but slander conservatives labeling them "greedy" and "racist", now we have more problems and still cling to the same insults to degrade and invalidate others perspectives, GO OBAMA PARTY!
This is what I would tihnk of as a step in the wrong direction... It combines giving the authorities more power and less to answer for with institutionalised racism, justified by an anti-immigration mindset - three things that I'm not fond of one bit. I don't think Arizona is my kind of scene...
Your right, 70% of Arizona voters favor the new state measure. That doesnt mean that its right. Its not really a suprise the number is that high, Arizona is ground zero in the immigration fight. Its the same state where a nine year old girl and her father were shot and killed by anti-immigrant Minutemen vigilantes last summer. Tensions are running high in that state and the southwest in general. The National Employment Law Project has pointed out that smaller-scale anti-immigrant ordinances have cost indvidual localities millons of dollars. The Perrymen Group estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs. The Immigration Policy Center noted that, "with Arizona facing a budget deficit of more than $3 billion, Gov. Brewer might want to think twice about measure that would further imperil the state's economic future." Plus as i stated earlier, it allows the state to regulate immigration, a power which the Constitution assigns to the federal government. Also a provision of the bill grants police officers authority to conduct warrantless arrests of anyone who cannot immediately produce documents. Such action has already been deemed invalid by the Ninth Circuit Court. Now Rasmussen may suggest that Arizonians support SB-1070 (the bill), but it has generated very strong and vocal opposition. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police firmly opposes it for fiscal and public safety reasons. Mesa Police Sgt. Bryan Soller, who is president of the Mesa and Arizona Fraternal Order of Police, has expressed similar concerns, saying that the bill "will bankrupt our city." Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have asked Gov. Brewer, a Republican, to veto the bill and are pressuring President Obama to either warn of federal pre-emption of the law or threaten Arizona's federal funding. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) has called for a national boycott of his state until it disavows its "fundamentally racist" immigration bill. In Arizona, several 24-hour candle light vigils have been held and nine students were recently arrested after chaining themselves to the old State Capitol building. As of Monday, Brewer's office had recieved 1,356 calls, e-mails and faxes in favor of SB-1070 and 11,931 against the bill. This bill goes as far as to fine those who allegedly seek work through a "gesture or nod."
No doubt the radical special interests, various pro-democrat unions, and organized astro-turf mobs are trying to drown out the voice of patriotic Americans who are tired of having their women raped, their property destroyed, their lives taken, and their jails filled by the illegal alien criminal elements who are preying on Americans like wolves prey on sheep. Your post does an excellent job illustrating that. It also illustrates that we have real problems with lazy union police officers who don't want to enforce the laws (and who recognized that lower crime rates mean less police officers) acting against the public interest in favor of their own personal interest, that Democratic race-baiting politicians resort to typical thuggery tactics of threatening pre-emption, defunding, or other economic damage if a state enforces its laws, when faced with the possibility of the laws of the land being enforced properly (and large groups of future voters in a post-amnesty America not being there to keep the Democrats in power). The panic that the Democrats are exhibiting in the face of Americans standing up for America is a strong indication, in my view, that this is probably an excellent law that will greatly benefit the people of the State of Arizona. The Arizona statehouse may also wish to take up the issue of education reform, if the corruption teachers/professors of the state institutions are teaching students in such a way that 9 of them think unlawful civil disobedience is the correct course of action when they don't get their way. In my view the economic arguments are largely irrelevent, in the first part because of the wide margin of error involved in evaluating the economic cost/benefit of illegal aliens, and in the second part because I do not attach a price to stopping the exploitation of illegal aliens by various entitities. The greater good of preventing the exploiting is many thousands is certainly worth any temporary financial setback. The issue of 'warrantless arrests' is a red herring, as warrantless arrests occur all the time. Police officers only need reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to detain and arrest. Arrest warrants permit any officer to arrest an individual without having probable cause (providing them with probable cause, if you will). Which leaves us with the issue of Constitutionality. This law, if signed, will very likely make its way to the Supreme Court. The 9th circuit is the most over-turned circuit (and for good reason), fwiw. It's clear that the vast majority of the bill is indeed Constitutional (and one presumes typical language is included that says "if one part of the bill is struck down the other parts remain in force"), such as granting all citizens standing to sue cities for not enforcing laws. The nuances of the issues related to requiring persons to demonstrate citizenship are complex. As I said above, that specific issue almost certainly will go before the Supreme Court (and may actually get fast tracked as some other states may have standing to sue arizona on this law, which would give SCOTUS original jurisdiction). Most provisions, however, will almost certainly prove effective and are almost certainly themselves Constitutional. I do find it odd that many liberals, who often care not at all for the Constitution, are suddenly trying to cite strict-constructionism readings of the Constitution to oppose this law. And here I thought the Constitution was living and breathing, and could evolve to allow different things. Why can't it evolve to allow states to do this? Oh, because liberals don't support it. Silly me. Ultimately this is a failure of the federal government to protect the border, and the people. George W. Bush should have been impeached for failing to protect our border from foreign invaders (I'm serious about that, btw). This problem is rather easily solved with a very large fence. At that juncture we can properly deport those illegal aliens who are criminals here only to prey on citizens, and devise a fair and just method to address those who remain. What most Americans want, ultimately, is the problem itself stopped and our borders protected.
Land of the free... LOL... More like Police State.. Tea baggers must love Sheriff Joe and his concentration camps.. He even has his own form of a mark for his captives.. Pink instead of a star of david.. The sad part is that the US was built by immigrants fleeing from persecution and poverty.. I wonder has this anything to do with the colour of these immigrants skin ?
FUCK THAT Sir Elliot, I bet there's plenty of hispanic Arizona smoker's who would point out that your position is not only a complete fucking generalization, but it's racist too. Anyone with a hispanic skin color loses the right to not consent to a search because they don't have ID? That alone is fucked, and any reasonable person would realise it destroys your argument. Who cares if it happens. It fucking shouldn't. Your the one always quoting the goddamn constitution. I think you just being oppositional because you want to disagree with the 'dirty liberals.' Edit- Let's just revoke mexican-americans of their fucking rights. Bah!
Racism isn't always color related. Not in reference to anything but your post.. Edit- Oops, smokinp was talking about color specifically.
SirElliot, i disagree with just about everything you stated. Im not going to go line by line, its a waste of time. You obviously have picked your side and its not on the civil rights/civil libertarian side of this issue.
Yes they fled from persecution in Ireland to more of the same abroad.. But at least they had a fighting chance in the US.
Today President Obama spoke about the need for immigration reform while speaking at the Active Duty Naturalization Ceremony in the rose garden, and he talked about the radical SB-1070 bill in particular. He gave it as an example of how federal inaction on the issue "will only open the door to irresponsibility". "Our failure to act responsible at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes for example the recent efforts in Arizona which threaten basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.In fact, I've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts to open up across the country." Today the Wahington Post reported that Harry Reid has told Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham that if they dont get some kind of deal on their immigration reform bill within the next three weeks, Democrats will bring foward their own legislation. I dont think Graham thinks he can get it done between now and then, he has already said, "What am I supposed to do, write an immigration bill between now and Monday with Chuck?â€. The group behind this bill, IRLI in Arizona, has talked about how more of these radical bills are coming. Michael Hethmon is general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which helped write parts of SB-1070. The IRLI is connected to a recently named hate group by the SPLC.
Again, lacking actual arguments against enforcing US law (it is a crime to be here illegally), you are resorting to petty attacks and ad hominems. Mr. Obama, as president, is the person who is failing to act at the federal level. Mr. Executive Order could solve the problem in one day. He chooses not to. The SPLC is itself a radical hate group, who happens to classify everyone that doesn't agree 100% with the SPLC as a hate group. Its accusations are not credible. Oppose the bill on its own merits, instead of attacking people that support the bill or had a hand in shaping the bill, or who like the bill.
I dont disagree. This seems more like your opinion than actual fact. it just so happens the people you defended are a hate group. IRLI is the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). IRLI's primary purpose is to push legal causes that unfairly target immigrant communities. In California, the IRLI has aligned itself with a state ballot initiative that aims at overturning the 14th amendment citizenship requirements and ending pre-natal and non-emergency care and child welfare checks that benefit the U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants. Heres a good documentary that investigates the role IRLI played in an anti-immigrant ordinance that was proposed in Prince William County: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbjrk0QWqw"]YouTube - Hate Group Wrote Immigration Law in Pr. William Experiment[/ame] Ive already done this, you just choose not to agree with anything and disagree with everything. These ill conceived immigration enforcement only approaches bring with them serious economic risks, its been show again and again.