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.

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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hmm... As I see it, those who feel very strongly about illegal immigrants are just as - most likely much more - likely to do "racial profiling" when it comes to reporting these sorts of things. With a hotline sort of arrangement, it would be easy to report places under suspicion... But what would put them under suspicion? I can almost guarantee it would be "a large number of workers who look Mexican". If the area already has a high population of legal immigrants, inevitably many of their workplaces would fall under suspicion. To check every report, to me, seems like a huge additional use of resources.

I have not read the bill itself, so can`t say whether my understanding of it is entirely correct... But I am under the impression that it allows for the confirmation of citizenship when someone has been stopped for some unrelated offense. Please do correct me if I am understanding it incorrectly, but I didn`t think that suspicion of being illegal alone would be enough to stop someone.

This would seem to be fairly efficient and not require that many additional resources. Someone is stopped for something, and then asked for proof of citizenship if there is some reason to suspect that they may be illegal.

Yes, it would be incredibly unfair to just stop people on the street who happened to "look illegal", asking tons of legal citizens to produce proof... However, if they are already being stopped for something else, and are already in a situation where they have done something criminal or are under suspicion - I don`t think it`s all that horrible an idea.

Although I do suppose there is a fine line where the distinction has to be made for that "suspicion" - to prevent a mere "suspicion of being illegal" alone from being good enough reason to detain someone.

Officers (professional ones) conduct thier investigations very carefully with a clear understanding of how to conduct an investigation to stand-up to legal scrutiny. I didn't say the cops were incompetent or immoral. the defense attorneys attempt to make it appear so. In court it is all about impeaching (discredit) a person's statement through many different means. we (cops and DAs) have more continuous training than most doctors and other professionals to keep up with the game. Our depatment has almost 700 pages of general orders. everything in law enforcement is geared toward your suggestion of "re-vamping.

most bad guys do not get off on these technicallities because of the above described points. They just try. Sometimes they succeed. I had a bad guy get off because he was a good liar and the victim was wealthy. totally not fair, but that's part of the game.

reasonable suspicion is based on the 'reasonable man' theory. would the actions or conclusion appear reasonable to the average person. the facts and circumstances presenting reasonable suspicion must be articulatable facts.

I gave the example above of a driver stopped for a common traffic violation. It just so happenes the guy has no license, but has maintaned his residence inthe state for, oh, say, two years. Why no license? 'Cause he can't get one because he's illegal.

The guy also doesn't speak english. Not staggering evidence, but part of the overall picture.

Ok, again, the only reason someone can't get a license is because they can't pass the test or thier illegal.

So, they are in our in a border state, the dude has no license, he speaks no english and only possesses a mexican consulate ID card. The reasonable person would agree that there is reasonable suspicion he is illegal. He was not stopped or investigated for his ethnicity, although the ethnicity could also be a factor. If they are in AZ and 99.99% of the illegals are hispanic, well then it is part of the picture, but not the basis. If this were in idaho, well, close to the Canadian border, that ethnicity would probably not be a factor.

People are arrested when reasonable supicion is followed by an investigation in which probable cause for an arrest is developed. People are based on suspicion of a crime (innocent until proven guilty).

My main point is that people who yell and scream about laws like this automatically yell "racism." those same people have no clue about the laws and how thier administered. They only rely on thier own ignorance, assume we are as brutish and ignorant as themselves without realizing the legal system is deep. cops must be smart enough and educated enough to take on defense attorney's in court. Don't be fooled. this law was written to pass legal scrutiny. It expressly forbids profiling. Officer's must jump through hoops.

How does any of this trmaple the rights of citizens? If you're stopped and have a valid driver's license it is assumed your a citizen and let go on your merry way.

Side note: Except in the state of Washington (your homestate?) where licenses are given to illegals. so they all go to WA state, fake and address, obtain WA state licenses and bring them to CA state. well, we know how to investigate and prove that falls, too.

Please read my posts, since I outline how the bill works, how it's administerd, etc...

I understand what you are saying. However what I am thinking is that if you give a $100 reward for a Hot Tip Line for a successful prosecution, it isn't the anti-illegal racists that are going to call the number as much as the legitimate businesses that compete with them that want to hire American citizens or legal immigrants for at least minimum wage.

You don't pay the reward for identifying companies that hire Latinos. You pay $100 for identifying companies that hire undocumented workers.

I have been told in this thread that my original reading of the bill has changed, and that "suspicion" alone is not enough to stop someone.

That is good, but what I am saying is that in my home state, proof of citizenship is not required to get a Drivers License. This is not true in Arizona, but the question becomes, is my Oregon Driver's License = Proof of Citizenship in Arizona. That's a question I can't get an answer to here. Do I need a Passport to travel freely in Arizona. Does any non-driving traveler to Arizona need a Passport or Original Birth Certificate to travel freely in Arizona? This is the questions I am looking for answers to.

Someone is stopped for speeding on an Arizona highway. The driver has an Arizona Driver's License, but his "wife" and "minor children" do not have IDs. They do not have Passports or Birth Certificates on them in the car. So....what is the right thing to do? If they are under suspicion of being illegal immigrants then they should be taken in for investigation. If they cannot prove they are American, should they be deported? Where would they be deported to? Should they be jailed?

Right now in America carrying an ID is not a legal requirement. However it is a requirement of residential aliens (as it is in Japan). However if I am an American citizen and cannot prove I am not a residential alien, then I am an illegal alien.

Is the problem becoming clearer now?


My problem is as I described above. People of color can be expected to carry a different level of ID that "non-suspicious" (i.e. white) people wouldn't. That is my only issue with this kind of legislation.

The job is difficult and under a lot of scrutiny. I will not deny that. It should be, as the statements and decisions made by law officers can change people's lives forever. They should be looked at closely, and these decisions should be made carefully.

I am sorry about this but this doesn't negate the point I am making.

If they are in AZ and 99.99% of the illegals are hispanic, well then it is part of the picture, but not the basis.

This is exactly what I am talking about. If you want to make a law that says "reasonable suspicion" but "race" cannot be a factor and then you say 99.9% of illegals are "hispanic", well, then tell me what basis are the officers using this law going to use to enact it? I am being 100% serious and have asked this question at least a half dozen times. Is it plaid shirts? Hair styles? Lunch time meal choices?

Are you starting to see where the holes in the law are?

If people are enacting in major crimes, then arrest them like crazy. No one is saying no.

This is a forum. No one is "yelling" or "screaming". Let's talk to each other. I have not political agenda to promote...only my personal opinion. I disagree with your points, so let's talk through that one by one.

But let's talk about that. This law doesn't allow profiling for a law that is targeting 99.9% "hispanics" by your words.

Then what is this law designed to do? I am told this is specifically targeting south of the border aliens, and at the same time it is not profiling Latino and Hispanic people.

It can't be both.



Here is an example...again. I am a father of two. We are all American born citizens, but my parents and my wife's parents were born in Ecuador. I have a birth certificate and Social Security number. So do our kids. My wife never got a Driver's Licence. Our kids are minors. We get pulled over because I didn't signal at a turn. We are in Arizona visiting friends. I have an Oregon Driver's license. My minor children have no ID. My wife doesn't drive, and has no ID.

Tell me how it goes down.

Arizona doesn't like Oregon licenses either, from what I have read. So, can I travel freely in Arizona?

I'm not starting to see holes. The law is not targeting hispanics. The law is targeting illegal aliens. It just so happens that hispanics are the majority of the law breaker. They made thier decisions. that does not equal racial profiling. regarding race does not equal profiling. I'm sorry you cannot see a distinction.

Your wife will be fine for several reasons.
1) She won't be driving (I hope) so they will not be contacting her.
2) If she's with you and you're driving, they will probably not contact her. they will be addressing you.
3) Yes you will be OK with an OR driver's license.
4) Your wife will be carying her green card or visa to show she's here legally like she's already required to do.
5) All the types of arguments you are raising are perdicated on the idea that cops are Nazis that are going to go postal, grabbing people of the streets. No officer is going to take your wife away without really developing a case worth prosecuting and he's not going to throw away his career, benefits and his own family's livelyhood to take one Ecuadorian off the streets then be sued civily.


Here's the most important point: This law only mirrors the federal law, but allows the local police to enforce it. Most states already have that but don't enforce it. There will be no mass gathering of foreigners. Passing a law like this encourages illegals to return home, as it has. Mexican authorities are complaining to the US officials that they can't handle the influx of rerturning immigrants (how's that for irony?).

In short, this law really changes nothing. the ACLU and liberal politicians are raising a ruccus to create fear.

Your wife will be fine for several reasons.
1) She won't be driving (I hope) so they will not be contacting her.

I have fortunately only been pulled over by the police a few times in my life. Every time I have been with a passenger in the car, or have been a passenger in the car, all passengers have been asked to show ID.

2) If she's with you and you're driving, they will probably not contact her. they will be addressing you.

Maybe Oregon is more strict than Arizona (I sort of doubt it), but even as a passenger I have been always asked to show ID.

3) Yes you will be OK with an OR driver's license.

Can you show your source on that?

4) Your wife will be carying her green card or visa to show she's here legally like she's already required to do.

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

Why the hell would my American born wife (a natural citizen, born and raised in the US of A) be carrying a green card or visa?

5) All the types of arguments you are raising are perdicated on the idea that cops are Nazis that are going to go postal, grabbing people of the streets. No officer is going to take your wife away without really developing a case worth prosecuting and he's not going to throw away his career, benefits and his own family's livelyhood to take one Ecuadorian off the streets then be sued civily.

No they are not. Thanks for playing the Nazi card, though. Somehow that is in the back pocket of many of the folks that want to defend this.

Even in the simple case I describe, you mistake my wife for a foreigner.

It is a simple paragraph I wrote and you read it in the luxury of your home or office. I'll repeat it:

We are all American born citizens, but my parents and my wife's parents were born in Ecuador.

From there you concluded my wife needs a visa or passport. You called her an Ecuadorian.

Insert rainy late night and a cop sitting at my diver's side window and tell me he can't make the same mistake. This new law not only allows him to take my wife in, IT REQUIRES IT. And if he doesn't the community can SUE HIM for not doing his job.

Ok, you made it soundlike she was ecuadorian. Dude. You are just stubborn and don't listen. You have a cop sitting here telling you it doesn't work that way. telling you from experience. You still persist in going into a fantasy where people are just yanked off the streets. Ok, you've been brainwashed. You keep arguing the point in the face of every explanation of the law, yet it still comes down to some nasty cop abusing you. Ok. Just wait and see and you'll realize nobody will be abused by the arizona law. As a cop, your whole demeanor sounds just rediculous - another histerical citizen who knows nothing about the law and is scared of cops. Alright, dude. Good luck. Time will show you wrong.

Okay... you are officially out of your mind or are just making stuff up in order to further your point against asking for basic ID the state would have the power to do.

Take your, as you wrote, "rich non-suspicious "white" and poor suspicious "brown"" stereotypes and racial prejudices out of this thread or I'll have to speak with the moderator.

Race is not written into the bill. This state law only mirrors the federal law.
The Federal law is still sound, just not being enforced.


"Calling a spade a spade" use of the word "spade" as an ethnic slur against African-Americans... so I wouldn't use it for making a point against not making something a racial issue.

Also can you try not to take the Lord's name in vain.

Here is the circular logic you guys are trying to say makes sense.

This law is not about profiling race, it is about profiling illegal immigrants.

99.9% of illegal immigrants are Latinos.

Therefore this law is about profiling...what?

I am out of my mind expecting one of you guys to even answer my point about being pulled over directly. Paul11 was the only one that tried, and he was expecting my American wife to be carrying her visa or green card.

I will address the accusation of using ethnic slurs with this response:

Philippus aunswered, that the Macedonians wer feloes of no fyne witte in their termes but altogether grosse, clubbyshe, and rusticall, as they whiche had not the witte to calle a spade by any other name then a spade.
-1542 translation of Apophthegmata Laconica

Get your facts straight before making such statements.

MMM, this Arizona law is us immigration law, thats it..minus the actual confinement to "profileing" in the state version that the federal version doesn't actually have..The fed's can actually profile.( since it doesn't specify that they can't.)

Besides, you answered your own question...99.9% of the lawbreakers..( they are illegal, thus lawbreakers.) Are hispanic/Mexican. So 99.9% of those checked, arrested and deported will be Hispanic/Mexican. That's not "profileing" persay so much as it's just how it is. ;)

If I grow nothing but corn and you check out my field..you are 99.9% likely to find corn...amazeing how that works. :eek:

Honestly, if you were looking for a member of the KKK..would you "look for a white person"? or a black person?, how bout a asian? Now remember, if you say white person, that's "profileing" cause it doesn't matter if 99.9% of KKK members are white. :rolleyes:

If you really consider the argument being made by those who are apposed to this law, it just sounds silly. You should be apposed to US law too, since it's basically the same law..minus the anti profileing section the Arizona law has..as I mentioned earlier.

It isn't going to be Nazi's asking for papers everywhere you go, that's dumb. (Arizona doesn't have enough manpower for that.)

Last things first, I am not the one that made the comparison to Nazis. It has now been referred to more than once by supporters of the law on this thread. This is not the argument I am making.

But I am confused by your argument.

If 99.9% of illegal immigrants are hispanic, then how can this law function if "reasonable suspicion" does not profile by race.

According to the posts here, this law DOES NOT ALLOW "reasonable suspicion" by race (in this case Hispanic/Latino). So if that is not allowed, and 99.9% of the violators are Hispanic/Latino, then how are they determining additional questions of a legally approached individual about legality in the US?