New Law in the U.S. State: Arizona

[MMM]

Originally Posted by clintjm

Now, now, you promised you were going to "leave it at that" on your last post and gracefully bowed out. I knew you couldn't resist rehashing your points back from the start of the thread. Weak. Don't bow out and pop back in; it is bad form.

I didn't promise anything, but you are correct, it is bad form. The only reason I felt the need to pop back in is that the arguments are being so steered from reality, I really couldn't help myself. I don't like seeing baloney walk like it is reality.

Originally Posted by clintjm

Okay I'll answer your one question. If a cop pulls over that individual for a traffic violation and can't produce a DL to ID him or herself, then there is reasonable belief that he or she is illegal because illegals don't have ID. The cop didn't pull them over because they weren't the right shade of skin, it was because of traffic violation. The person didn't have ID.
Being in the area of the border or anywhere in Arizona where there is an illegal problem, the officer can now ask the death question "Are you here legally?"

You still aren't reading my posts.

This is one example of a LEGAL CONTACT and no one here is going to argue with you that if a cop pulls over a person without licence they have the right to pursue proof of legality.

You are arguing something no one here is arguing against.

What you aren't doing is addressing my question.

LEGAL CONTACT is any contact with a police officer as long as the police officer is not committing a crime. This isn't just about pulling over people who make traffic violations. This is the point you are NOT addressing.

Originally Posted by clintjm

Now if the cop was to pull them over for no other reason, no traffic violation, other to ask
them are they here legally, then the cop is violating the new Arizona law.

LEGAL CONTACT is not only about shining the red and whites and pulling a car over. LEGAL CONTACT can happen in a McDonald's or on a street corner.

Originally Posted by clintjm

The answer is the STATE IS GOING TO DO IT LIKE THE FEDS. THE STATE LAW IS THE SAME AS THE FEDERAL LAW. IT IS LEGAL.


Satisfied?

Not in the least. You didn't address either of my points. I know what the definition of LEGAL CONTACT is, but you haven't acknowledged it.

And you didn't answer my question about REASONABLE SUSPICION. What is REASONABLE SUSPICION?

If I am a white guy driving without a licence am I within REASONABLE SUSPICION of being an illegal alien? Is Arizona going to spend their resources on deporting unlicensed drivers?

Originally Posted by clintjm

Now answer mine:

You first.

[tebian]

Though i think immigration reform is needed. This is not the answer to the problem it only gives law enforcement the right to stop and question any person they believe to be illegal.

They do this anyways... you have not been to place like FT Lauderdale at spring break where they stop you just randomly for enjoying holiday asking for id's. And have we forgotten the road blocks that are setup at big holidays to check for license all over the USA to hand out tickets and wish you Happy Thanks Giving or w/e. Arizona did nothing different then what happens in America every day. They made the mistake of telling people it was to fix their frustration with our bad policies of forcing individual communities to pay for illegal day workers who "steal" the jobs. And if you do not think that this happens all over this country, go to any street corner at 7am in Miami.

Bottom line if you are "for" not checking the papers and not forcing these people to join the "taxed" then you obviously have not tried to get a simple day job in these states and don't mind giving them some of "your" money. I am not prejudice btw about any one race, but I vote make the law National and maybe we would not be so in debt paying for peoples services who cant even both to be part of the country.

We pay for this place.... called America they do not.

(dang this is only my 2nd post i hope you do not think me ranting but this does annoy me)

[fluffy0000]

Originally Posted by clintjm

"According to the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, “Today, criminal aliens account for about 30 percent of the inmates in federal prisons and 15-25 percent in many local jails. Incarceration costs to the taxpayers were estimated by the Justice Department in 2002 to be $891 million for federal prison inmates and $624 million for inmates in state prisons [annually].” Every year, about 600,000 of those incarcerated, not limited to illegal aliens, are released and within three years, two-thirds become recidivists and are back in prison."

Congratulations dude, you do'nt know the difference between '600,000 not limited to illegal aliens' - used in this statement, - uses the term 'not limited to illegal aliens' - Translation the 600,000 number is refering to the general prison population numbers combined with illegal aliens.

Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform CAIR

U.S. Department of Justice and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation contradict your numbers and CAIR

The U.S. Department of Justice reported at mid-year 2005 that 16,613 noncitizens (legal and illegal) were incarcerated in California prisons, representing 10.1 percent of the total California prison population. And, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Jail Profile Survey: Annual Report 2005, "The percentage of criminal/illegal aliens in California jails has continued to drop since 2000, and now stands at 10.6% of the total ADP [average daily jail population] (versus 14% in 2000)." The report showed that, of the average daily population of 80,725 during the fourth quarter of 2005, 8,523 were "criminal/illegal aliens."
Another factoid error about your numbers regarding illegal aliens -

excerpted fron Los Angeles Times
...,
The problem is, the Los Angeles Police Department doesn't collect information on the immigration status of criminals, much less suspects, so there is no database of how many illegal aliens are wanted on outstanding homicide warrants.
Citing federal Bureau of Prisons data, an April 7, 2005, GAO study reported that in 2002, 2003, and 2004, the "percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens" (legal and illegal) was "about 27 percent." The Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has reported lower numbers. According to the BJS, on June 30, 2004, "noncitizens" represented 20.3 percent of federal prisoners, down from 23.5 percent in 2003 and 25.0 percent in 2002.

According to the BJS, 6.4 percent of all state and federal prison inmates at midyear 2005 were "noncitizens" -- not just illegal immigrants -- down from 6.5 percent in 2004, 6.6 percent in 2003, and 6.9 percent in 2002.
Since you have a obvious problem with math the trend according to the BJS figures shows a decline not a increase or a 'far fetched' number.
last but not least Colorado Alliance Immigration Reform CAIR is a affiliated with white separitist / militant anti immigration organizations such as MAD.

June 15, 2009 10:04 AM
Anti-Illegal Immigration "Extremists" Murder Girl And Father, Say Police
PHOENIX (CBS/AP) Anti-illegal immigration "extremists" murdered a Hispanic father and his 9-year-old daughter and gravely injured the man's wife in order to raise money for their cause, say Arizona police.

Jason Eugene Bush, 34, Shawna Forde, 41, and Albert Robert Gaxiola, 42, have been charged with two counts each of first-degree murder and other charges, said Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona.

The trio is alleged to have disguised themselves as law enforcement officers, forced their way into a home in rural Arivaca on May 30, and shot and killed Raul Junior Flores, 29, and his daughter Brisenia Flores, 9. Raul Flores' wife obtained a gun and fired back, hitting Bush. The wife was also wounded, according to police. Her name is not being released at this time.

Forde is the leader of Minutemen American Defense, a small border watch group, and Bush goes by the nickname "Gunny" and is its operations director, according to the group's Web site. She was once associated with the better known and larger Minuteman Civil Defense Corps

Their motive was financial, police say. They sought a large sum of money to fuel their anti-illegal immigration operations.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

You first.

You can hit this argument all you want.
The fact is lawful contact hasn't changed despite how you and the left want to make this racial. Police still must uphold stopping someone legally.

I gave you an example. You refuse to acknowledge it.
Reasonable suspicion will extend to anyone according to law. There is nothing written into the law to prevent state officials to ask a black, white, red, yellow, green, blue man or women if they are in the country legally. Does the fact that they can ask this race satisfy you? I doubt it.
Race baiting is the oldest lefty political trick in the book when this has nothing to do with race.

You refuse to answer my questions on Japan and other countries.
The fact is you can't answer it without losing face.

Japanese law enforcement can stop an individual and ask them for ID for proof of being there legally without cause. There is no race debate.
Does that make Japanese racists? No.

Federal law enforcement can stop an individual and ask them for ID for proof of being there legally without cause. There is no race debate.
Does that make Feds racists? No.

Country X law enforcement can stop an individual and ask them for ID for proof of being there legally without cause. There is no race debate.
Does that make Country X racists? No.

Arizona State law enforcement can stop an individual and ask them for ID for proof of being there legally after being lawfully stopped. Lawfully being stopped doesn't extend to only suspicion of being in the country illegally based on race. That would be defined as an illegal stop. There is no race debate. Does that make police racists? No.

Arizona state law doesn't go far enough in my mind. I would like them to have the power Japanese Police and the Federal government has.

The fact is this is the law of a sovereign country.
It is law now. I believe it is a good law.

Silly race baiting talking points of the left and Charlatans in power boycotting their own nation's neighboring states. The most foolish crap I've seen in a long time.

Stop being a part of the problem MMM.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

Congratulations dude, you do'nt know the difference between '600,000 not limited to illegal aliens' -

"Every year, about 600,000 of those incarcerated, not limited to illegal aliens, are released and within three years, two-thirds become recidivists and are back in prison."

The preceding sentence is talking about illegals in prison. Of the 600k illegals incarcerated in the next sentence. The not limited to illegals is referring to all criminals, not just illegals, when context of 'can be released within three years'. Not that they are suddenly changing the predefined subject of illegals in prison. You could be right, that is how I took that poorly formed sentence. If I'm wrong, I have egg on my face.

In any case we are arguing over data that is 7-8 years old.
The fact is it is a lot. My assumption is with the crime on the border at an all time high as described in my Ralph NY Post article, and illegals in the country at 25-30 million vs 7 million in the GAO article, one can assume the prison population is up and high.

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

June 15, 2009 10:04 AM
Anti-Illegal Immigration "Extremists" Murder Girl And Father, Say Police

Hope those extremists idiots get what is coming to them.

[fluffy0000]

dude you've just been elected 'JF,s deputy sheriff of 'massive and epic fail'. pick up your official badge at the office, sir. and report to the border.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

dude you've just been elected 'JF,s deputy sheriff of 'massive and epic fail'. pick up your official badge at the office, sir. and report to the border.

You are so witty in your retort as usual.

[jbradfor]

I haven't posted here because by the time I read it, clintjm had already steered it in a ridiculous direction. I will just say to clintjm that if you think this law will not lead to profiling, even thought the law says otherwise, you do not understand Arizona, and you do not understand Arizona police.

Rather, I came here to post this article, which I think pretty much shows the mood in Arizona:
Arizona Ethnic Studies Classes Banned, Teachers With Accents Can No Longer Teach English. If that doesn't explain the mood in Arizona right now, I don't know what does.

Also, wouldn't "lawful contact" includes questioning potential witnesses of crime? So does this mean that if I witness a crime in Arizona, and I go to the police to report it, they can now legally check my citizenship status? Isn't that a big step backwards?

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by jbradfor

I haven't posted here because by the time I read it, clintjm had already steered it in a ridiculous direction. I will just say to clintjm that if you think this law will not lead to profiling, even thought the law says otherwise, you do not understand Arizona, and you do not understand Arizona police.

Just doing what the rest of the world is doing, including the feds.
Is the rest of the world racists and wrong?

What don't I understand about Arizona and the police in Arizona?

Originally Posted by jbradfor

Rather, I came here to post this article, which I think pretty much shows the mood in Arizona:
Arizona Ethnic Studies Classes Banned, Teachers With Accents Can No Longer Teach English. If that doesn't explain the mood in Arizona right now, I don't know what does.

This article deserves its own thread if there is really any debate. <hint>

"Department of Education has told schools that teachers with "heavy" or "ungrammatical" accents are no longer allowed to teach English classes." "Teachers who don't meet the new fluency standards have the option of taking classes to improve their English."

Sounds good. We should only expect the best English education for our children. I mean the subject is ESL English being taught to non-fluent students. It is unfair to spoken English students when the teacher is unable to articulate the language properly or in grammatically correct ways. The article even has English mistakes: What is an ungrammatical accent?

Heavy accents to the point of not being understood and improper grammar is unacceptable.



"Under the ban, sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer by the state legislature Thursday, schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

Also another high praise for the Gov.
I'm liking her more and more.

Thanks for the article.

Originally Posted by jbradfor

Also, wouldn't "lawful contact" includes questioning potential witnesses of crime? So does this mean that if I witness a crime in Arizona, and I go to the police to report it, they can now legally check my citizenship status? Isn't that a big step backwards?

You are incorrect in your assumption. Nice try though.
In your example you haven't been stopped for a violation of a crime.
Suspicion can only be assumed after lawfully being stopped for a crime.

[jbradfor]

Originally Posted by clintjm

"Department of Education has told schools that teachers with "heavy" or "ungrammatical" accents are no longer allowed to teach English classes." "Teachers who don't meet the new fluency standards have the option of taking classes to improve their English."

Sounds good. We should only expect the best English education for our children. I mean the subject is ESL English being taught to non-fluent students. It is unfair to spoken English students when the teacher is unable to articulate the language properly or in grammatically correct ways. The article even has English mistakes: What is an ungrammatical accent?

Heavy accents to the point of not being understood and improper grammar is unacceptable.

I agree. But do we really need a STATE LAW for this? This seems to be something that should be decided on a local level. If a local school district really thinks that a teacher with an accent is still the best person for the job, they should be able to decide that. Personally, I would take a dynamic, engaging teacher with an accent over a dull teacher with perfect English, any day.

It MAY be the case this this law is actually trying to bypass the teacher's union and allow local school districts to remove unqualified teachers easily. I don't know, but I don't really think that is the case.

Unless there is some background to this, having a state law to this just seems unnecessary and divisive.

Originally Posted by clintjm

"Under the ban, sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer by the state legislature Thursday, schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

"promote the overthrow of the U.S. government" -- that's one I think we can all get behind. But this is a red herring. Is there really an epidemic of Arizona public schools teaching kids to overthrown the government? I think not. This one is bull shit, pure and simple.

"promote resentment of a particular race or class of people" -- while this sounds good, even a moment's thought shows why this is a problem. There are, unfortunately, several episodes in USA history that are racist and we now feel is wrong. Starting with slavery, of course, but continuing to the Jim Crow / Black laws, the anti-Chinese laws in California, the anti-Jew laws, and the interment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. By this law, classes that teach these episodes in American history would now be illegal. Is this good? I think not. While unpleasant, we need to face our past, or we will repeat it. Which, unfortunately, we seem to be doing in Arizona right now.

"are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals" -- as clearly stated in the article, this is aimed to eliminate ethnic studies classes. Why is this beneficial? Personally, I'm not very interested in taking such classes, but many people are. So why ban them? A state law removing them just seems unnecessary and divisive, and shows that Arizona is turning racist or borderline-racist.