Rep. Brian Bilbray can spot an undocumented immigrant by their shoes

Liberal example of a non-violent protest:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p48INNGtXh4&feature=related]YouTube - Apr. 23, 2010 - Arizona SB1070: "Small Riot Breaks Out at Immigration Protest" -part 22[/ame]

 

did he call him an illegal human? no, he's an illegal immigrant

get out of fantasy land, and understand that there is a difference

 

them physically BEING a human isnt the illegal part

 

No, are there many/any rich/middle class 'aliens'? More to the point, these people that they're searching, they claim to be able to identify them based upon their clothes, mannerisms etc - these clothes and mannerisms aren't wearing suits and saying 'old sport', are they? No, they are looking for things that betray their lower class, which is presumed to indicate that they are impoverished aliens. Quite simply, if they have the freedom to search them etc but not search a white man wearing nice clothes, then the white man in his nice clothes has a systemic advantage while the brown man in his shabby clothes must operate under a segregated set of laws and standards. They are profiling them based upon their class/race and discriminating upon their poverty, and I would challenge you to be able to say it's otherwise - that these Hispanic immigrants will have the same equality of law and have the same police perception as a white, black and/or rich man under this policy.

You are correct. I'm not going to either, for reasons of humanity. I live NOWHERE near Arizona, wouldn't possibly understand the legal technicalities (our parliament works totally differently to yours, you probably wouldn't understand ours either) of the bill, and absolutely can't be fucked sifting through 17 pages. I've read the article, watched the video and read this thread - that limited knowledge is enough to permit me to make a few assumptions, which you (having read the bill, I presume) can probably verify -

1) The bill permits officers to ask for paperwork etc from a suspected 'illegal immigrant', based upon certain 'clues' that, it is presumed, all immigrants share in common... such as race and class, which would be probably be the main two 'clues' and thus the main two factors by which poor, brown people are being discriminated against by the law.

2) The bill would, in theory, permit a white man who dressed in 'immigrant clothes' and spoke some form of Spanish to be searched for papers in the same way a brown man may be searched for papers? Or doesn't the bill permit this? Are you only 'suspicious' if you're brown and poor?

3) The bill means that legal Hispanic people would have to carry around paperwork in public, as they could possibly be mistaken for an 'alien' and would thus have to show their card or whatever to verify their legality. White/black people on the other hand would not, in fact, have to carry such paperwork around.

I don't think these assumptions or 'points' are off the mark. As I said, you've presumably read the bill (otherwise you've got a hell of nerve running around telling other people to...), so you're thus in a good position to make the final call on whether these points are supported and found under the bill.

 

Incorrect. Before this law officer were essentially powerless to inquire as to a person's immigration status. That could usually only be obtained when the person was being processed for arrest.

Under the new law officers can only inquire about immigration status during lawful contact (which is a legal term that defines a level of legal contact that usually applies to some form of lawful detainment-- the most typical being a traffic stop), and only then if they have reasonable suspicion (another legal term). The law further explicitly bars race based enforcement. If you had read the text I've cited previously in this thread you would know this.

Where previously officers were often legally barred from checking immigration status, they are now empowered to check immigration status at about the same level that they are empowered to check for outstanding warrants.

Previously if an illegal, for example, could not provide any form of valid ID during lawful contact, in many instances the officers were powerless to do anything but let the person go.

Racial profiling is explicitly banned in this law. Further reasonable suspicion, especially as it relates to immigration issues, requires a combination of factors that far exceed merely a person's race.

Again, racial profiling is explicitly banned in this law. This law only kicks in under lawful contact when reasonable suspicion exists. For example during lawful contact if the individual is requested to lawfully ID themselves and can not do so, there may now be reasonable suspicion to check their immigration status. Being unable to provide a name, a driver's license, or a valid SS# could be strong indicators of a person's illegal status.

This is further strengthed by the requirement that all legal aliens have their appropriate government issued ID on their person at all times. This is a federal law and is now an Arizona law too. Whereas a full US citizen is not required to have ID on their person for walking down the street, if they are lawfully contacted by an officer who has a reasonable need to obtain the identity of the individual, the person can do something as simple as provide their SS# which the LEO's computer can check. They can also provide name and address of their driver's license, which the LEO can check.

You clearly do not understand the terms you are using. Lawful contact and reasonable suspicion are specific legal terms

Lacking a reason for lawful contact, an officer can not seek to ascertain a person's identity in any fashion. Racial profiling is explicitly banned in the legislation. Even while engaged in lawful contact (for example, interviewing a witness), the officer is explicitly prohibited from checking immigration status without a reasonable suspicion to do so. In other words, if the person has not provided any reasonable suspicion that they are in Arizona and America unlawfully, the officer may not check. FURTHER, the law even states, after laying out the two-fold threshold discussed above

Giving the officer discresion to not make such an attempt when not practicable, or if the officer believes it would hinder or obstruct an investigation.

Your objections to this law would largely be resolved if you would actually bother reading the text of the bill my friend.

You may find this article helpful in better understanding what's going on with this very narrowly defined law:

A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona | Washington Examiner

A law is racist if it explicitly targets a racial group. This law does not do that. It targets a legal classification group, illegal immigrants.

The fact that the majority of illegal immigrants are of a specific racial group is inmaterial, because the law is not targeting the racial group. The majority of convicted felons in America are black. We have laws that target convicted felons-- depending on the state, they may not own firearms, vote, or sometimes even live in certain areas or engage in certain other activities. Yet those laws are not racist. Why? Because the target group is not a racial group, but a legal group.

All cats are fluffy. Not all fluffy things are cats. All cars are red. Not all red things are cars. You're making a basic, but understandable, logical fallacy.

Just because the majority of illegals are hispanic doesn't mean laws that target illegals are racist. This is clear in this case since the law explicitly bans racial profiling.

 

You are incorrect on both counts. One of the things this bill does is eliminate sanctuary cities. There were some places where officers could never check a persons immigration status.

Further, immigration status can only be inquired upon during lawful contact with reasonable suspicion, which is (as I've stated elsewhere) about the same threshold for doing a warrant check on someone. And even then it only applies to the individuals involved and not the persons who happen to be around them.

 

Not true. I've explained this elsewhere.

Also not true. Clothing is not reasonable suspicion.

Also not true. If a person is a US citizen they are required to carry nothing (unless they are, say, driving in which case you must carry your license). All legal aliens are required to have their government ID on their person at all times, however.

Since the threshold of ascertaining a person's immigration status is set rather high (as I've explained in an above post), this myth is also revealed to be untrue.

Unfortunatly the liberal media is spreading lies about the bill because it fits their agenda. I hope these explanations help clarify your understanding of the legislation.

It ban racial profiling, and cops can't just go around asking or 'papers.'

 

What 'clues' will the officers be using then?

Just to put this out there, the thread says 'Brian Bilbray can spot an undocumented immigrant by their shoes.' Shoes are, indeed, items of clothing - you might call them footwear I guess, but most of us would agree that shoes are some form of clothing accessory. The video on the first page supports this title, as does the article. Are these wrong?

What would be 'reasonable suspicion', what 'clues' are these officers going to be picking up upon? I asked this before, but meh, seems relevant once more.

If this bill is indeed purely targeting 'illegal aliens', then Hispanic people should have nothing to worry about. They're just as likely to get asked for ID as a white guy or a black guy, right?

Man, I have to be suspicious of this. It might 'ban racial profiling', but which group do you think are going to be hassled by the police more with these new powers? The cops might not be able to 'just go around asking for papers', but they're also not supposed to beat the shit out of people and yet cases of police brutality aren't hard to find... and with a majority of the population presumably not understanding that the police are technically not allowed to 'just ask for papers', what exactly is going to stop the police from asking whoever the hell they want for papers? Their guilty conscience?

It's slippery dude, it's slippery. As I personally see it, this is an example of a rich, powerful country creating a different discriminatory legal status for a group of poor, underpriveledged people. Instead of considering them poor refugees with the intention of forging a better life, they are considered illegal aliens who do not deserve the same legal conditions as everyone else - a menace, one that requires deporting these poor bastards back to their shitty lives in Mexico. I don't understand this mindset. They're human beings in my opinion, who have just as much right to be in America as you or anyone else. You didn't choose to be born in America, why do you deserve such priveledge that you haven't worked for or earned whatsoever when these people who come to work and endure significant hardship to get to America are denied such priveledge and have to endure such discrimination.

What's this 'liberal agenda' also, what's the aim of it? To protect Mexicans?

 

Alf had a pretty cushy life, don't you think?

 

Alf repped the ghetto, mofucka wasn't afraid of flashing colours because he's got so much rep and shit man.

 

So, again failing on the merits of any actual argument, you cite the NYTs opinion piece, an MSNBC anchor, and RINOs like Graham (AKA Grahamnesty), while present Rubio's statement at best incorrectly.

You then try to make this about tea partiers.

You have, for page after page, failed to address the facts of the actual piece of legislation.

It's becoming pretty clear that you have no idea what the legislation is, what it says, or what it does. You just have a knee jerk political response.

 

You know, drunk driving accidents are dangerous. Like, lots of people die because of that every year.

The Irish are well-known for getting drunk. Therefore Irish people are more likely to drive drunk than other people.

Therefore we should pass a new law that states a police officer not only has the authority, but is required to pull over anyone who looks like they might be Irish and make them take a breathalyzer test. And if they refuse the test they get a $500 fine and jail time.

 

Dumbest thing I ever heard.

 

You gotta make sacrifices to uphold the laws of society.