Undocumented immigration in border states

[Skiz]

Law #5: By law, Latino and hispanic looking people must carry proof that they are not illegal aliens in the state of Arizona. This law is directly tied to race, violates constitutionally guaranteed rights, and is just as much a deterrent to legal, American-born citizens as the "illegals" it targets.

How does someone support this race-based law, and NOT believe they are (unknowingly) being racist?

Where is that law? It certainly wasn't a portion of the AZ law or current VA law. I haven't even seen a law such as that proposed.

[megabyteme]

Law #5: By law, Latino and hispanic looking people must carry proof that they are not illegal aliens in the state of Arizona. This law is directly tied to race, violates constitutionally guaranteed rights, and is just as much a deterrent to legal, American-born citizens as the "illegals" it targets.

How does someone support this race-based law, and NOT believe they are (unknowingly) being racist?

Where is that law? It certainly wasn't a portion of the AZ law or current VA law. I haven't even seen a law such as that proposed.

From NY Times regarding Ariz law: (Source):

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

[999969999]

Rather than quoting what someone else said about the law, why not have a look at it for ourselves?

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

[megabyteme]

Yeah, I've already got it on my desktop.

Does it surprise you that the law does not talk about the innocent people who will be "mistaken" for illegals, and possibly detained for not having "proof of citizenship" on them?

Again, this law is race-based. You guys seem to be the only ones missing that. The words "Latino" and "Hispanic" are race-based. This law targets, as its sole purpose, ....wait...for...it..... Latinos AND Hispanics.


BUYAKASHA. We've now established who this law effects. Let's continue another 25 pages and I'll show that the police are, in fact, involved.

[Skiz]

Yeah, I've already got it on my desktop.

Does it surprise you that the law does not talk about the innocent people who will be "mistaken" for illegals, and possibly detained for not having "proof of citizenship" on them?

In the State of Texas (and maybe even Arizona as well), we are required by law to carry a valid state ID, be it a drivers license or state issued ID card. Why should non citizens be exempt from having to carry identification as well? If you're here legally, it shouldn't be any big deal to carry documentation stating as much.

I have a good friend who is married to a British girl and she is required by law to carry her green card and passport (or a copy) at all times. I find it incredibly odd that you and others are getting in a tiff about the same thing in AZ, only with the added text of "reasonable suspicion".

Again, this law is race-based. You guys seem to be the only ones missing that. The words "Latino" and "Hispanic" are race-based. This law targets, as its sole purpose, ....wait...for...it..... Latinos AND Hispanics.

Of course the words "Latino" and "Hispanic" are race based. So is "Caucasian" or "blacks". But what do they have to do with this debate or this law? What are we "missing"? None of them are mentioned a single time in SB 1070, so your point in mentioning them escapes me.

[megabyteme]

Well, the past 25 pages have been discussing Latinos and Hispanics. I don't imagine any other race will be concerned about leaving the house without "proper documentation", nor will they be detained.

Just because the law does not expressly state its true, intended purpose, does not mean that anyone (present company excluded) will mistake what it is for. At the VERY least, Arizona is announcing themselves to the world as an unfriendly place for Latinos.


*EDIT* So, if a radio station called and offered you $1 Million to answer this question : "Who is the sole target of the new Arizona Immigration Law?" You would NOT be able to answer "Latinos". How about if they gave you a second shot, and read you the article from The New York Times (above)? Still unable to answer, skiz?

[j2k4]

For those struggling with the concept of a Race-based law leading to people supporting that/those law(s) being considered (unknowing) "racists"...

Law #1: Blacks are required by law to ride at the back of the bus and give up their seats if a white desires the seat.

Law #2: Asians, by law are not allowed to own property, and count as 1/2 persons.

Law #3: By law,blacks are not allowed to vote.

Law #4: By law, blacks are not allowed o use public drinking fountains, and must use substandard "blacks only" restrooms.

The vast majority of current Americans would believe that supporters of these laws are, in fact, racist.


Law #5: By law, Latino and hispanic looking people must carry proof that they are not illegal aliens in the state of Arizona. This law is directly tied to race, violates constitutionally guaranteed rights, and is just as much a deterrent to legal, American-born citizens as the "illegals" it targets.

How does someone support this race-based law, and NOT believe they are (unknowingly) being racist?

Where is that law? It certainly wasn't a portion of the AZ law or current VA law. I haven't even seen a law such as that proposed.

From NY Times regarding Ariz law: (Source):

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

Yeah, I've already got it on my desktop.

Does it surprise you that the law does not talk about the innocent people who will be "mistaken" for illegals, and possibly detained for not having "proof of citizenship" on them?

Again, this law is race-based. You guys seem to be the only ones missing that. The words "Latino" and "Hispanic" are race-based. This law targets, as its sole purpose, ....wait...for...it..... Latinos AND Hispanics.


BUYAKASHA. We've now established who this law effects. Let's continue another 25 pages and I'll show that the police are, in fact, involved.

Well, the past 25 pages have been discussing Latinos and Hispanics. I don't imagine any other race will be concerned about leaving the house without "proper documentation", nor will they be detained.

Just because the law does not expressly state its true, intended purpose, does not mean that anyone (present company excluded) will mistake what it is for. At the VERY least, Arizona is announcing themselves to the world as an unfriendly place for Latinos.


*EDIT* So, if a radio station called and offered you $1 Million to answer this question : "Who is the sole target of the new Arizona Immigration Law?" You would NOT be able to answer "Latinos". How about if they gave you a second shot, and read you the article from The New York Times (above)? Still unable to answer, skiz?

I read the postage ^, larded heavily with references to Latinos and Mexicans provided by MBM and The New York Times.

I proceed to S.B. 1070, and find NO SUCH REFERENCES.

The language in the bill is generic; this is proper in all respects, and any presuppositions relative to oppressive enforcement upon Latinos/Hispanics is just that - a presupposition.

A democrat politician of some note recently said of much-more-earthshaking legislation (that) "We're just going to have to pass it to see what's in it".

MBM says, in effect, that even absent any language whatsoever regarding ethnicity/nationality, we must presume the law will be mis-applied before-the-fact.

I must ask for supporting legal reasoning, and no, I am afraid citing the NYT will not suffice.

I propose Arizona proceed on the basis of federal neglect and cleanly-drafted law, and let time and events show whether or not abuse follows.

The law provides - in painstaking detail - for easy legal recourse and monetary damages if it is misapplied.

To quote a liberal icon:

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself".




Oh yeah-

Calling me a racist before the fact won't work, either, so forget that.

[j2k4]

One more thing.

I don't know why the 'leet' person hasn't posted here yet, but if it is because he has been idled by the mods, I propose he be loosed so as to give us the benefit of his wisdom...we really can't proceed without it.

[megabyteme]

Just because the law does not expressly state its true, intended purpose, does not mean that anyone (present company excluded) will mistake what it is for. At the VERY least, Arizona is announcing themselves to the world as an unfriendly place for Latinos.


*EDIT* So, if a radio station called and offered you $1 Million to answer this question : "Who is the sole target of the new Arizona Immigration Law?" You would NOT be able to answer "Latinos". How about if they gave you a second shot, and read you the article from The New York Times (above)? Still unable to answer, skiz?

I must ask for supporting legal reasoning, and no, I am afraid citing the NYT will not suffice.

I propose Arizona proceed on the basis of federal neglect and cleanly-drafted law, and let time and events show whether or not abuse follows.

The law provides - in painstaking detail - for easy legal recourse and monetary damages if it is misapplied.


Calling me a racist before the fact won't work, either, so forget that.

I'm saying it is a race-based law. No one else seems to doubt this. Arizona borders Mexico. People are crossing the border. A $600 Million bill was just signed to protect the border. Are we doing the same from the north? Are we passing $600 Million bills to keep illegal Canadians out?

If this silliness doesn't stop, I will withdraw from this discussion because all three of you are (playing?) incredibly dumb. Quit it.

This law targets Latinos. Period.

*Addition* I suppose section-by-section analysis by the Arizona ACLU won't suffice, either...

http://acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%...%204-14-10.pdf

[j2k4]

I must ask for supporting legal reasoning, and no, I am afraid citing the NYT will not suffice.

I propose Arizona proceed on the basis of federal neglect and cleanly-drafted law, and let time and events show whether or not abuse follows.

The law provides - in painstaking detail - for easy legal recourse and monetary damages if it is misapplied.


Calling me a racist before the fact won't work, either, so forget that.

I'm saying it is a race-based law. No one else seems to doubt this. Arizona borders Mexico. People are crossing the border. A $600 Million bill was just signed to protect the border. Are we doing the same from the north? Are we passing $600 Million bills to keep illegal Canadians out?

If this silliness doesn't stop, I will withdraw from this discussion because all three of you are (playing?) incredibly dumb. Quit it.

This law targets Latinos. Period.

*Addition* I suppose section-by-section analysis by the Arizona ACLU won't suffice, either...

http://acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%...%204-14-10.pdf

So, you, the NYT and the ACLU say it's racist?

Not enough.

I think a Mosque near Ground Zero is an incredible overstep, no matter the legalities, and 64% of Americans agree with me.

Does that make it so?

BTW-

The ACLU thinks NAMBLA is A-Okay, so by extension (and your logic) we can freely assume that you do as well.

I would not previously have guessed that.