New Law in the U.S. State: Arizona

[West]

I back it because I see it as a sacrifice worth making.
If people aren't willing to make sacrifices for their country, why do they deserve to live there? I say that as a defender of the country. If someone isn't willing to make a sacrifice to improve a situation, and only want to think about themselves, then they aren't the kind of people I want to be associated with. In this case, they are American citizens who would rather complain about how law enforcement is trying to improve the status of the country, rather than support them in at least trying to do something about the problem at hand.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

That's fine. You are taking the political line, and West is taking the "man on the street" line. Guess which worries me more.

I'd worry about the links that I posted today in this thread.
That is some troubling news.

Originally Posted by MMM

Feel free to address (or not) all the other points I made about what you said.

Well that sums up this 20 some page thread between me an you. ^^/

If I didn't address something, I probably simply didn't disagree with the premise. You have some fine ideas on how to address the problem in Arizona, but I think many believe here that more direct, lawful, measure must be taken. Thus this Arizona law.

MMM:"Sit in front of Home Depot and follow trucks that pick up undocumented workers for day labor. Go to any farm and ask to see the docs and tax records of all their workers.
Go to any cannery or meat processing plant and ask to see the docs and tax records of all their workers."

Isn't this what the government can do now but really isn't allocating the resources? Also your follow the truck scenerio is exactly what the State law enforcement can not do now, even with the new Arizona state law. Because you don't know they are undocumented. They also have to be lawfully stopped. By not allowing this state law, there is no way law enforcement can stop or follow those trucks.

West had the good point on how do you really identify these companies/businesses to do an illegal check?

Okay, I'm going to go watch "Crossing Over" with Harrison Ford again.

[Paul11]

Originally Posted by MMM

I am not talking about law enforcement, but about not stepping on the rights of American citizens to do it. If you are saying we need to step on the rights of American citizens to enforce the law, then I say "no".
.

FOR THE FOURTH TIME - PLEASE TELL ME WHAT RIGHTS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND HOW THEY ARE STEPPED ON. WHAT RIGHTS OF CITIZENS WILL BE STEPPED ON? AGAIN, YOU REFUSE TO STATE WHAT RIGHTS YOU ARE REFERING TO BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. THEY DON'T EXIST.

It is clear you don't know jack about the law. You are a citizen and haven't the faintest idea what rights are and are not granted to you by the constitution.
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about.

You say to go to home depot and follow the employers. why not go to home depot and round up the one who broke into our country.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Paul11

FOR THE FOURTH TIME - PLEASE TELL ME WHAT RIGHTS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND HOW THEY ARE STEPPED ON. WHAT RIGHTS OF CITIZENS WILL BE STEPPED ON? AGAIN, YOU REFUSE TO STATE WHAT RIGHTS YOU ARE REFERING TO BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. THEY DON'T EXIST.

Does it take all caps for you to read what I am saying? OK then.

When you are creating a situation where some races are forced to hold some form of identification that other races are not, then that is a racial profiling and a violation of civil rights.

I was going to write that again in all caps, but I just don't want to play "who can scream louder."

I can explain more in details and examples, but I see the longer the post I write, the more information that is ignored.

Originally Posted by Paul11

It is clear you don't know jack about the law. You are a citizen and haven't the faintest idea what rights are and are not granted to you by the constitution.
Just admit you don't know what you are talking about.

I am not a student of law or law enforcement, and if that is what is required to continue this conversation than I will be forced to bow out.

However I have read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and know when one race is treated differently than another race just because they look "illegal" in that state, then that is a violation of civil rights. Define what an American looks like.

Originally Posted by Paul11

You say to go to home depot and follow the employers. why not go to home depot and round up the one who broke into our country.

I liked this one so much I will quote it again.

Originally Posted by Paul11

You say to go to home depot and follow the employers. why not go to home depot and round up the one who broke into our country.

Which makes more sense?

OPTION 1: Stamp out the ants.

OPTION 2: Remove the lollipop.

I am not an expert on police enforcement, but even I know that smart detectives try to find THE SOURCE rather than busting the same drug dealers over and over and over again. Bust the source, the drug dealers disappear.

As a law and law enforcement expert, I am asking you if this is wrong?

[MMM]

Originally Posted by clintjm

MMM:"Sit in front of Home Depot and follow trucks that pick up undocumented workers for day labor. Go to any farm and ask to see the docs and tax records of all their workers.
Go to any cannery or meat processing plant and ask to see the docs and tax records of all their workers."

Isn't this what the government can do now but really isn't allocating the resources? Also your follow the truck scenerio is exactly what the State law enforcement can not do now, even with the new Arizona state law. Because you don't know they are undocumented. They also have to be lawfully stopped. By not allowing this state law, there is no way law enforcement can stop or follow those trucks.

West had the good point on how do you really identify these companies/businesses to do an illegal check?

I answered West's question how to identify these companies. It is much MUCH easier to identify them than it is to identify illegal immigrants on the street using the hit-and-miss efforts of traffic stops.

Yes, these are things government CAN do now. So....why aren't they doing it? Again, questions I have already answered, but the owners of these companies are also big contributors to election campaigns (and just so you know, they give to both sides) to ensure their businesses are not busted. It is despicable and should be stopped.

[Nyororin]

I do not want to get involved in this debate as I am truly so far removed from it that I do not believe I could actually contribute to the discussion.

However, having read quite a lot of it, I have a question.

MMM - you say to follow people who are employing illegal immigrants. You also say that it is wrong to just stop people because they appear to be illegal...

I am curious - by what criteria would an employer showing up at Home Depot or the like to pick up workers be judged? How can one be any more certain that those people being picked up are illegal than those in other places?
Or would it be a matter of looking at the employer?

I am finding it hard to see how checking people when stopped for something else is wrong, but stopping employers who may or may not be doing anything wrong and doing a check on their employees (also because they may or may not be illegal) would be alright.

[Paul11]

Originally Posted by MMM

When you are creating a situation where some races are forced to hold some form of identification that other races are not, then that is a racial profiling and a violation of civil rights. : Remove the lollipop.
As a law and law enforcement expert, I am asking you if this is wrong?

Yes it is wrong. The law does not require any group to carry any particular ID. When one of these people are encountered, it is not just a matter of asking for some kind of card. As I stated above, it requires a small investigation to develope the reasonable supicion into probable cause for arrest.
For example, if someone is driving without a license, there are only two reasons. Either the person is too lazy to get one. Or two, he can't get one because he's illegal. So, you make a legal car stop and the guy barely speaks english and had no license. Well, you can be pretty sure he's illegal (there are other factors as well, but this is the simplest example).

If someone has a license, then they are naturalized or allowed to have one because they possess a valid visa.

OH MY GOD! THE HORROR OF IT ALL! Does it really sound so bad after seeing the above example? The whole time you kept stressing about tramppling the rights of citizens. But as you can see, that won't happen. And you could not provide an example or section from the constitution that outlines the rights you were talking about.

After accounting for taxes paid, illegals cost the state of AZ and estimated 2.7 billion. California over 11 billion. Hospitals are closing and schools are failing. We can no longer pay out of our pockets exhorbitant taxes to provide free services for people who came her illegally. Yes, I am also sympathetic and try me best to minimalize any law enforcment action taken against illegals. I help save them thousands by not being overly punitive. But really, it comes down to this: we feel bad for them, but Mexico is responsible for not developing thier own country. We can't pay for everyone and America is a sinking ship. Enough! We can't provide programs and free education and healthcare for people any more. It was a failed experiment. They must go.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

I do not want to get involved in this debate as I am truly so far removed from it that I do not believe I could actually contribute to the discussion.

However, having read quite a lot of it, I have a question.

MMM - you say to follow people who are employing illegal immigrants. You also say that it is wrong to just stop people because they appear to be illegal...

I am curious - by what criteria would an employer showing up at Home Depot or the like to pick up workers be judged? How can one be any more certain that those people being picked up are illegal than those in other places?
Or would it be a matter of looking at the employer?

I am finding it hard to see how checking people when stopped for something else is wrong, but stopping employers who may or may not be doing anything wrong and doing a check on their employees (also because they may or may not be illegal) would be alright.

Nyororin, you ask a very good question. I will just make two statements before addressing your questions the best I can.

1) Just because I am more left than right does not mean I think the borders should be open or that people committing crimes shouldn't be punished to the full extent of the law...citizen or not

2) This wording "appearing to be illegal" or as the law saw "under suspicion of being illegal" is the point I am trying to make about this new law in Arizona. The law says "race" cannot be a factor in determining whether an individual is illegal, so what I am trying to figure out is, what are the factors an Arizona police officer will use to determine suspicion that someone might be an illegal alien?

But to answer your question, Nyororin, any employer is required to do the proper paperwork to determine that the employees he or she hires are legal citizens. That is part of the employment process.

I have been a teacher in Japan and the US, and I went through several thorough tests to determine my legitimacy and ability to do the job I was being hired for. This involved not only legality and citizenship, but drug tests, criminal histories and confirming educational claims.

Home Depot is a well-known collection point for hiring day laborers that will work for less than minimum wage with no questions asked.

(When I was a kid I worked at a farm, and I knew a little Spanish so I got to go help pick up the laborers for the harvest days. It was easy to get people in the truck,)

I am not saying day-labor farmers or contractors should be the main target, though they are real reasons undocumented workers come to the US, but that major factories and corporations that hire undocumented workers should be investigated and fined for every undocumented worker they hire.

This is common practice at giant farms and processing plants. My point is that it is no secret and that the owners cannot run away and hide like the workers some people want to punish so bad can.

When you pull a car over, you don't know if the riders are legal or illegal. However if you put out a Hot Tips line giving rewards for identifying employers for undocumented workers then you have a better definition for the word "suspicion" that isn't making decisions based on skin color.

[Paul11]

Originally Posted by MMM

Nyororin, you ask a very good question. I will just

2) This wording "appearing to be illegal" or as the law saw "under suspicion of being illegal" is the point I am trying to make about this new law in Arizona. The law says "race" cannot be a factor in determining whether an individual is illegal, so what I am trying to figure out is, what are the factors an Arizona police officer will use to determine suspicion that someone might be an illegal alien?
.

there is no "appearing to be illegal" in the bill or in the philosophy or practical application of law enforcement. The bill is only 10 pages long. read it. As described above, probable cause is developed after an investigation based on articulateble facts arousing reasonable suspicion.

your questions regarding the word "suspicion" have been well laid out in the courts with a very common and agreed apon meaning. But that is what the courts are for. that is why officers must prosecute cases and why suspects have the right of a defense. the first part of any trial is the prelim trial )preliminary trial) in which the court determines, based on arguments of prosecutor and defender, whether or not there is sufficient evidence to continue woith a trial.. Essentially the police officer (including his investigation and articulated facts that lead to suspicion and probable cause) are on trial. This is how bad guys get off on technicalities, often. In the prelim the defense picks apart the officer and his investigation in attempt to make the officer appear incompetent or immoral.

Hot itp lines are sometimes OK, but I don't support an oppressive culture that encourages neighbors to spy on each other like in eastern block countries. it tears apart the fabric of community.

[MMM]

I redefined my quote in the quote you quoted me (but I misspelled "saw" as "say".)

What I would like to know is what defines "suspicion" if "race" is not a factor.

You say it is "well laid out in the courts with a very common and agreed apon meaning."

Please break it down for me.

You also say "This is how bad guys get off on technicalities, often. In the prelim the defense picks apart the officer and his investigation in attempt to make the officer appear incompetent or immoral."

If this is a regular practice it sounds like the officers and investigations need to be revamped so this doesn't happen.

You can call me an ignoramus, but if hard criminals are getting away because investigators and police officers are botching investigations, then that is a problem.

Incompetency and immorality are two aspects I have not talked about. I don't know if these are major issues, and I am not going to say that they are. I am just saying...again...that American citizens living in or traveling Arizona shouldn't lose the ability to do so.