
bugleyman |

...where brown people are now second-class citizens.
Today I'm ashamed to be an Arizona resident. I can only hope that, were I not out of town on business all week, that I would have had the guts to chain myself to the capital door in protest.
That is all.

Quandary |

Seriously.
I think if they try to go thru with this, a crucial statistic to measure is the profile of people asked to show proof of citizenship and who do in fact provide it. If they are NOT racial profiling, the statistics of that group (the 'proven innocent after presumed guilty' group) should match arizona's over-all population. If they DO effectively use racial profiling, you would see the statistics skew away from the over-all population of arizona and towards the 'targetted ethnicities'.

Samnell |

I don't think they can pull this off and expect no racial profiling.
I don't think they expected to. Quite the opposite. Though I'm sure to try to limit liability the police will be careful to harass some light-skinned people too. I mean, you have to get people habituated to the police state somehow.

Quandary |

The Roy wrote:I don't think they can pull this off and expect no racial profiling.I don't think they expected to. Quite the opposite. Though I'm sure to try to limit liability the police will be careful to harass some light-skinned people too. I mean, you have to get people habituated to the police state somehow.
Yeah. The whole thing is disturbing on every level. Obviously, they would be completely happy to go thru a "PC" hand-waving farce, drumming up numbers to make themselves look good, to make the whole thing look legit. And if they think they can justify presumption of guilt or basically stopping you for no reason other than they don't like how you look, why would they stop at the crime of not having proper papers on you?

Overseer, Vault 0 |

Is there a behavior that distinctly says, "I am not a citizen"...? Otherwise, there are only some three choices: random checks, ala TSA; 100% checks on everybody, ala TSA; or course-of-duty checks on arrests (which they were already doing).
Does this mean I need to carry my birth certificate if I'm visiting AZ?
If the law is designed to arrest illegal immigrants by catching them without their papers, then there's no reason I couldn't be stopped and sequestered until the police can determine my status, since if they detain me, I won't have any papers on me.

Quandary |

there are only some three choices: random checks, ala TSA; 100% checks on everybody, ala TSA
But even that really runs across so many standards of law. Even in states where you are required to furnish ID, police aren't allowed to go 'fishing' for the sole purpose of asking for ID, i.e. without any actions of your own which call for police action.
If the law is designed to arrest illegal immigrants by catching them without their papers, then there's no reason I couldn't be stopped and sequestered until the police can determine my status, since if they detain me, I won't have any papers on me.
And what happens when a young child is found lost? Whoops, no papers, so they have to lock them up now.

Samnell |

Is there a behavior that distinctly says, "I am not a citizen"...?
Anything the officer wants to count as one. States have gone to great lengths to try to let the police arrest you just for standing out in public not bothering anybody, and the Supreme Court has generally told them to go to hell. But that doesn't mean there aren't countless ways officers can find an excuse to detain or arrest you if they want. Get into an argument with one? You're creating a disturbance. In my own town, people have been stopped and questioned for nothing more than walking down the sidewalk while black.
Otherwise, there are only some three choices: random checks, ala TSA; 100% checks on everybody, ala TSA; or course-of-duty checks on arrests (which they were already doing).
Nobody passes a law like this so things can continue being done as they were.

![]() |

I think this is a foolish and unjust law which will lead to the harassment of innocent people.
That being said, if the Fed's would get off their collective ass and do something about the borders, instead of just practically ignoring the problem (for how many year now?), then foolish people mgiht not feel the need to pass such insane laws.

Lindisty |

...where brown people are now second-class citizens.
Today I'm ashamed to be an Arizona resident. I can only hope that, were I not out of town on business all week, that I would have had the guts to chain myself to the capital door in protest.
That is all.
I sympathize. I love the desert, and I loved living in Arizona during the time I spent there, but I'm glad I decided to move back east before this particular bit of legislation passed. I can only hope the law is struck down by the courts at some point.

Sir_Wulf RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16 |

This sort of legislation gets passed because Arizona lawmakers feel impotent in the face of rampant criminal activity crossing the border. The Feds talk and talk, but nothing gets accomplished. The Mexican government actually encourages illegal immigration into the US, despite their claims to the contrary.
This just an example of legislators going to extremes to draw attention to chronic problems, passing a law unlikely to survive court review. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will eviscerate that law the first chance it gets. The legislators can then preen about how they tried to address the issue, but were stymied by activist courts and uncooperative Federal bureaucrats.

Rhubarb |
if the police stop someone suspicious and start talking to them and they don't speak english that would be considered a good reason to question their citizenship. you who are offended by this need to realize the immigration problem and stop complaining and help find a way to solve the problem. if you don't pay taxes then you should not get free medical treatment and a drivers license. the police don't go around looking for ways to mess with people cuz they think it is fun,

bugleyman |

if the police stop someone suspicious and start talking to them and they don't speak english that would be considered a good reason to question their citizenship. you who are offended by this need to realize the immigration problem and stop complaining and help find a way to solve the problem. if you don't pay taxes then you should not get free medical treatment and a drivers license. the police don't go around looking for ways to mess with people cuz they think it is fun,
This isn't about stopping someone "suspicious"; it's about stopping them because they suspect is an illegal immigrant. And what does an illegal immigrant look like? The governer of Arizona couldn't answer, so I'll answer for her: They're brown. The police don't have to *try* to violate people's rights under this legislation; they have to *try* NOT to.
The rest of your post is irrelevant, as this law has nothing to do with the legality of illegal immigration.
P.S. The definition of complain is not "to disagree with me."

Nasty Pajamas |

This isn't about stopping someone "suspicious"; it's about stopping them because they suspect is an illegal immigrant. And what does an illegal immigrant look like?
This one line caught my attention. Why are they illegal to begin with? If they followed the law: (1) this new law would not have been created (2) they would have nothing to worry about in any case.
It appears that the beginning illegal behavior is the root of this problem.

bugleyman |

bugleyman wrote:This isn't about stopping someone "suspicious"; it's about stopping them because they suspect is an illegal immigrant. And what does an illegal immigrant look like?This one line caught my attention. Why are they illegal to begin with? If they followed the law: (1) this new law would not have been created (2) they would have nothing to worry about in any case.
It appears that the beginning illegal behavior is the root of this problem.
While it's true that if there were no illegal immigration, then this law wouldn't exist, that's completely beside the point. Supporters of this bill are so desperate to make this about illegal immigrants because they think that's a fight they can win. Unfortunately for them, the problem with this law has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. It has everything to do with people who AREN'T illegal immigrants being stopped and questioned by police on the basis of their race.
Try again.

![]() |

I beleive every state has the right to protect itself and its citizens from being invaded by foreigners who are in the country and the state illegaly.
At the same time I am against haveing to carry around papers that prove you are an American Citizen so that everytime you pass by a police officer as you walk down the street you have to present your identification to prove that are legal.
I think there is a better way to deter illegal immigrants from entering and ways to get them to leave on their own.

Nasty Pajamas |

While it's true that if there were no illegal immigration, then this law wouldn't exist, that's completely beside the point.
The illegal part is 100% the point.
Right there is the solution to your problem. You said it yourself.
It seems if you really really really want this law to go away, and be removed from the books, then stop illegal immigration.
Then, as you say this law will not exist. Solved.

![]() |

Take it as you will, but I find it more than a bit humorous that the folks who complain about illegal immigration into the US are complaining about people who are coming into a country that was founded by what today would be referred to as illegal immigrants ... and particularly violent ones at that.
As to whether illegal immigration is a problem, I would have to say no, it's not. The problem are the blocks and hurdles to legal immigration placed upon people who do indeed want to come to this country to work. Increasing the legal immigration rates, with corresponding changes in tax regulation in regards to foreign workers (as one of the main complaints re: illegal immigration is the use of public services without paying for them), would go a long way to "solving" this "problem".

Bitter Thorn |

How Immigration Crackdowns Backfire. The trouble with Arizona's draconian new law
I tend to have issues with this and real ID.
Does anyone know what the law actually says? I've heard reporting that ranges from, "You only have to document legal status if you are ticketed or arrested for something unrelated." to "Everyone with an accent will be cavity searched on the street.".
What can be used to prove legal status?
I'm curious if someone has a good source because the reporting is wildly contradictory. I'm even skeptical of elements of the piece I link to above.

Bitter Thorn |

Take it as you will, but I find it more than a bit humorous that the folks who complain about illegal immigration into the US are complaining about people who are coming into a country that was founded by what today would be referred to as illegal immigrants ... and particularly violent ones at that.
As to whether illegal immigration is a problem, I would have to say no, it's not. The problem are the blocks and hurdles to legal immigration placed upon people who do indeed want to come to this country to work. Increasing the legal immigration rates, with corresponding changes in tax regulation in regards to foreign workers (as one of the main complaints re: illegal immigration is the use of public services without paying for them), would go a long way to "solving" this "problem".
I don't think your historical analogy is sound. IIRC the immigration policy of early America was basically open.

bugleyman |

How Immigration Crackdowns Backfire. The trouble with Arizona's draconian new law
I tend to have issues with this and real ID.
Does anyone know what the law actually says? I've heard reporting that ranges from, "You only have to document legal status if you are ticketed or arrested for something unrelated." to "Everyone with an accent will be cavity searched on the street.".
What can be used to prove legal status?
I'm curious if someone has a good source because the reporting is wildly contradictory. I'm even skeptical of elements of the piece I link to above.
There is a link to the full text of the law in the original article. ;-)

bugleyman |

bugleyman wrote:
While it's true that if there were no illegal immigration, then this law wouldn't exist, that's completely beside the point.The illegal part is 100% the point.
Right there is the solution to your problem. You said it yourself.
It seems if you really really really want this law to go away, and be removed from the books, then stop illegal immigration.
Then, as you say this law will not exist. Solved.
Right. And dropping a nuclear bomb on Arizona would also solve the problem; I suppose you advocate that?
Illegal immigration is a problem, but it doesn't justify racial profiling. The ends doesn't always justify the means. I'm sorry, but I just don't know how to break things down any simplier than that.

Shadowborn |

zylphryx wrote:I don't think your historical analogy is sound. IIRC the immigration policy of early America was basically open.Take it as you will, but I find it more than a bit humorous that the folks who complain about illegal immigration into the US are complaining about people who are coming into a country that was founded by what today would be referred to as illegal immigrants ... and particularly violent ones at that.
As to whether illegal immigration is a problem, I would have to say no, it's not. The problem are the blocks and hurdles to legal immigration placed upon people who do indeed want to come to this country to work. Increasing the legal immigration rates, with corresponding changes in tax regulation in regards to foreign workers (as one of the main complaints re: illegal immigration is the use of public services without paying for them), would go a long way to "solving" this "problem".
I think he's talking about those white folks that landed here without proper cause or documentation and began settling, using up natural resources, and killing the established residents via disease and violence...

Nasty Pajamas |

Nasty Pajamas wrote:bugleyman wrote:
While it's true that if there were no illegal immigration, then this law wouldn't exist, that's completely beside the point.The illegal part is 100% the point.
Right there is the solution to your problem. You said it yourself.
It seems if you really really really want this law to go away, and be removed from the books, then stop illegal immigration.
Then, as you say this law will not exist. Solved.
Right. And dropping a nuclear bomb on Arizona would also solve the problem; I suppose you advocate that?
Illegal immigration is a problem, but it doesn't justify racial profiling. The ends doesn't always justify the means. I'm sorry, but I just don't know how to break things down any simplier than that.
I suppose cracking the planet earth into two pieces would work too. Then this law would be a moot point. LOL
Stop the illegal immigration, and then illegal immigration cannot be used and distorted by others for twisted purposes.

Disenchanter |

I am curious how this is any different than any other "probable cause" law?
This isn't much more different than being able to detain two people because they discreetly passed two objects between them because it my be a drug deal.
The only difference is that it could be placed under racial profiling, but doesn't necessarily have to.
But then again, I consider the concept of racial profiling as something of a double edged sword... I see why it is wrong, and yet I see why it is needed...

Bitter Thorn |

Bitter Thorn wrote:There is a link to the full text of the law in the original article. ;-)How Immigration Crackdowns Backfire. The trouble with Arizona's draconian new law
I tend to have issues with this and real ID.
Does anyone know what the law actually says? I've heard reporting that ranges from, "You only have to document legal status if you are ticketed or arrested for something unrelated." to "Everyone with an accent will be cavity searched on the street.".
What can be used to prove legal status?
I'm curious if someone has a good source because the reporting is wildly contradictory. I'm even skeptical of elements of the piece I link to above.
Dohp! I found it. 17 pages, I sometimes how brief state laws can be.

![]() |

Bitter Thorn wrote:I think he's talking about those white folks that landed here without proper cause or documentation and began settling, using up natural resources, and killing the established residents via disease and violence...zylphryx wrote:I don't think your historical analogy is sound. IIRC the immigration policy of early America was basically open.Take it as you will, but I find it more than a bit humorous that the folks who complain about illegal immigration into the US are complaining about people who are coming into a country that was founded by what today would be referred to as illegal immigrants ... and particularly violent ones at that.
As to whether illegal immigration is a problem, I would have to say no, it's not. The problem are the blocks and hurdles to legal immigration placed upon people who do indeed want to come to this country to work. Increasing the legal immigration rates, with corresponding changes in tax regulation in regards to foreign workers (as one of the main complaints re: illegal immigration is the use of public services without paying for them), would go a long way to "solving" this "problem".
Exactly. While the argument could be made there was no immigration policy, per se, in the time of pre-Western colonization of North America, the analogy still holds as the population movement of foreigners into the lands of another nation is what is at issue.

Bitter Thorn |

Shadowborn wrote:Exactly. While the argument could be made there was no immigration policy, per se, in the time of pre-Western colonization of North America, the analogy still holds as the population movement of foreigners into the lands of another nation is what is at issue.Bitter Thorn wrote:I think he's talking about those white folks that landed here without proper cause or documentation and began settling, using up natural resources, and killing the established residents via disease and violence...zylphryx wrote:I don't think your historical analogy is sound. IIRC the immigration policy of early America was basically open.Take it as you will, but I find it more than a bit humorous that the folks who complain about illegal immigration into the US are complaining about people who are coming into a country that was founded by what today would be referred to as illegal immigrants ... and particularly violent ones at that.
As to whether illegal immigration is a problem, I would have to say no, it's not. The problem are the blocks and hurdles to legal immigration placed upon people who do indeed want to come to this country to work. Increasing the legal immigration rates, with corresponding changes in tax regulation in regards to foreign workers (as one of the main complaints re: illegal immigration is the use of public services without paying for them), would go a long way to "solving" this "problem".
I'm not sure how much of the issue is population movement. For me the core issue is rule of law. I'm in favor of much more open immigration policy, but I tend to think it's mutually exclusive with the current welfare state. It doesn't bother me at all that people want to come here legally and work hard, quite the contrary.
One must wonder though, if tens of millions of people in the US are breaking a set of laws habitually without harming anyone directly are those laws worthwhile?

Vigil RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16 |

Reasons to ask for proof of citizenship that DON'T racially profile:
-Pulled over for a traffic violation and unable to provide a driver's license. (Citizens tend to have one)
-Pulled over for a traffic violation and 8 people are found hiding in your trunk. (Citizens tend not to traffic in human smuggling)
The real purpose of these laws is to make these people self-deport. We can't catch them all and send them home, there are too many. But if life here is scary when your not supposed to be here, you'll go elsewhere.
If you are here legally, you have nothing to fear. Nor are you a "second-class" citizen.

Lindisty |

The real purpose of these laws is to make these people self-deport. We can't catch them all and send them home, there are too many. But if life here is scary when your not supposed to be here, you'll go elsewhere.
If you are here legally, you have nothing to fear. Nor are you a "second-class" citizen.
"These people"? Really?
As for people who are here legally not being 'second-class citizens', ever hear of 'driving while black'? I've lived in diverse neighborhoods (in Arizona and elsewhere) enough to have observed such behavior by police officers first hand, and in the heavily hispanic neighborhood the borders the one I currently live in, it happens just as often to the immigrants there as it does to the black folks in my neighborhood.
This law, and others like, aren't even thinly veiled racism, in my opinion. They're flat-out blatant racial profiling. Do you think the cops in Arizona are going to be using them to arrest Canadian or European illegal immigrants who happen to be white? I doubt it.
And y'know, now that I think about it, I've personally known more folks from Europe and Canada who are in the U.S. illegally than I have Mexicans or Central or South Americans. Oddly, they rarely get challenged on their immigration status, because they happen to be white.

![]() |

I often wonder on threads like this one that if some people look for an excuse to complain rather then even try to see someone else's view point. That they always see 'evil' in an opinion that does not match up right exactly with theirs.
If you don't like the law work to change it!!! Even better look for a better solution!!!

DigMarx |

bugleyman wrote:
While it's true that if there were no illegal immigration, then this law wouldn't exist, that's completely beside the point.The illegal part is 100% the point.
Right there is the solution to your problem. You said it yourself.
It seems if you really really really want this law to go away, and be removed from the books, then stop illegal immigration.
Then, as you say this law will not exist. Solved.
You know what, let's go one step further. How about no immigration at all. Illegal or otherwise. If you're here, you're here, if you're not, piss off. No, wait, even better: even if you're a citizen, if you leave the country, we're not letting you back in. We'll devise an intricate system of codewords and secret handshakes, and depth-charge any boat coming within 50 miles of US waters. OOOH, how about a giant concrete wall between the US and Mexico? And I'm sure there're some ex-Stasi agents floating around somewhere. They might be old, but brother can they spy!
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Zo

Rhubarb |
I beleive every state has the right to protect itself and its citizens from being invaded by foreigners who are in the country and the state illegaly.
At the same time I am against haveing to carry around papers that prove you are an American Citizen so that everytime you pass by a police officer as you walk down the street you have to present your identification to prove that are legal.
I think there is a better way to deter illegal immigrants from entering and ways to get them to leave on their own.
the police will ask you for your drivers license or social security number everytime you get pulled over, your ssn is your "papers" you carry around

![]() |

Ison wrote:the police will ask you for your drivers license or social security number everytime you get pulled over, your ssn is your "papers" you carry aroundI beleive every state has the right to protect itself and its citizens from being invaded by foreigners who are in the country and the state illegaly.
At the same time I am against haveing to carry around papers that prove you are an American Citizen so that everytime you pass by a police officer as you walk down the street you have to present your identification to prove that are legal.
I think there is a better way to deter illegal immigrants from entering and ways to get them to leave on their own.
I couldn't begin to tell you where my SSN card is or even when I lost it (or if I lost it; I should probably ask my wife).
It's printed on my military ID, but that's supposed to go away in the next year or so as we migrate back to Defense Service Numbers.

![]() |

well thank you for your military service, you should probably find yer card and memorize that number cuz its gonna be needed as we head into the future
Thanks, and I appreciate your support :-)
I use my SSN routinely (someone in the Army is asking for my "Last Four" on a daily basis), so I know it; and it's incorporated into several of my identity cards I use at work...but the actual SSN card? I certainly don't carry it around, and I can't remember the last time I actually saw it. My prints, DNA, and favorite color are all on file, thanks to my government service, so it should be a pretty quick process for anyone to verify my status.
Out of curiosity, how many Paizonians routinely carry their SSN card on their person?

Disenchanter |

Out of curiosity, how many Paizonians routinely carry their SSN card on their person?
Routinely?
I don't. But then again, I don't routinely carry my drivers license unless I know I'll need it, or I'm actually driving.
In other words, if my Social Security Card becomes the new drivers license, I would start routinely carrying it around on my person.

![]() |

Andrew Turner wrote:Out of curiosity, how many Paizonians routinely carry their SSN card on their person?Routinely?
I don't. But then again, I don't routinely carry my drivers license unless I know I'll need it, or I'm actually driving.
In other words, if my Social Security Card becomes the new drivers license, I would start routinely carrying it around on my person.
I suppose I would, as well. It's kind of funny how just a while ago we were trying to get away from the all-pervasive SSN.
Aside: So you actually remove and replace your DL from your wallet? Or you don't usually carry a wallet when you leave your house?

Disenchanter |

Aside: So you actually remove and replace your DL from your wallet? Or you don't usually carry a wallet when you leave your house?
I don't use a wallet. I take what I need when I leave the house.
I don't know about getting away from the SSN. Ever since signing up for college, I haven't been able to get away from it. (Side Note: In some states, a photocopy of the Social Security card is no longer accepted since they scan them on site. Used to be, I could carry my own copy to give them and keep the original safe.)

![]() |

Andrew Turner wrote:Aside: So you actually remove and replace your DL from your wallet? Or you don't usually carry a wallet when you leave your house?I don't use a wallet. I take what I need when I leave the house.
I don't know about getting away from the SSN. Ever since signing up for college, I haven't been able to get away from it. (Side Note: In some states, a photocopy of the Social Security card is no longer accepted since they scan them on site. Used to be, I could carry my own copy to give them and keep the original safe.)
What a great idea. I really only ever need my DL, ID, and a credit card. I think I'll give your method a try.

Disenchanter |

Not using a wallet isn't for everyone. There is a benefit to having everything you might need in one container. Also, any card with a magnetic stripe can wear out faster. In my case, my bank card gets reissued every two years, and that is about when that card starts to reach the unreadable state. (You might now the state I am talking about - where you start rubbing it on your clothing to get it to read, or stick it in a plastic bag.)

Rhubarb |
in ohio they let us remove our ssn from our drivers license so i don't usually carry the actual card with me since having both in the same place is like saying steal my identity please. i just memorized it like a good little boy. the only time i really need the card is when i go to get my license renewed or get plates for my car.

![]() |

I like what SNL's Seth Meyers had to say about the bill.
Seth: Arizona passed the toughest immigration bill in the country this week. It requires immigrants to show their papers whenever asked. Seriously Arizona your going to have police going around saying "show me your papers". How much more fascist can you get, I don't even think you can say "show me your papers" without hitlers family getting royalties. I mean it's in every World War 2 movie ever made and you never even thought of it? I know it may be a dry fascism, but it's still fascism.

Valegrim |

I as stationed at Ft Whogotcha in the 80's; sheesh, we had a couple days of legal breifings about your state and the laws there; OMG; unbelievable; glad I dont live in that state. now sure, every state has some F up laws still on the books; but you guys have some that are over the top harsh as you can be charged with a crime you didnt even do if someone next to you commits 1st degree murder; they charge you with it too; even if you didnt do anything; why; cause you didnt do anything. i can understand a penalty maybe for not doing something; but sheesh; same as the original offender; that is messed up.
Now this immigration thing; I cannot understand why everyone is so up in arms about this issue. Seems like a lot of hate mongering; like I always say; follow the money; so who is profittering from all this; who stands the most to gain financially?

Shadowborn |

Now this immigration thing; I cannot understand why everyone is so up in arms about this issue. Seems like a lot of hate mongering; like I always say; follow the money; so who is profittering from all this; who stands the most to gain financially?
Interesting that you should mention following the money. Did you know that deportations of illegal aliens from the U.S. decreases during the harvest season? So when following the law is inconvenient to our market, we're willing to look the other way.

Nasty Pajamas |

Nasty Pajamas wrote:bugleyman wrote:
While it's true that if there were no illegal immigration, then this law wouldn't exist, that's completely beside the point.The illegal part is 100% the point.
Right there is the solution to your problem. You said it yourself.
It seems if you really really really want this law to go away, and be removed from the books, then stop illegal immigration.
Then, as you say this law will not exist. Solved.
You know what, let's go one step further. How about no immigration at all. Illegal or otherwise. If you're here, you're here, if you're not, piss off. No, wait, even better: even if you're a citizen, if you leave the country, we're not letting you back in. We'll devise an intricate system of codewords and secret handshakes, and depth-charge any boat coming within 50 miles of US waters. OOOH, how about a giant concrete wall between the US and Mexico? And I'm sure there're some ex-Stasi agents floating around somewhere. They might be old, but brother can they spy!
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Zo
No, let's not. Let's just stop the illegal portion.
Oh, I just had an even better idea! We should build ROBOT DEFENDERS that drive along the U.S.-Mexican border. 1000's of 'em patrolling and swarming -- ever vigilant.
This would require skilled workers to build them, and employ a lot of out-of-work LEGAL immigrants -- Look at me mom!
Reading your crazy ideas is fun, keep up the good work.

Valegrim |

Well; our state is right next to AZ; and while there is a little huff here; no where near like it is in AZ or Texas; hehe our state gives immagrants drivers liscenses so that is why Homeland Security doesnt want to let us travel to other states without a passport; clearly in violation of the Constitution.