Arizona Grows a Pair

[john5746]

In reality, Phoenix is suffering due to the Federal Government's refusal to uphold it's own constitutional duties to the for the people of Arizona, and the whole country for that matter.

 

I agree. If terrorists are found and federal agents won't or can't respond, then I would expect local authorities to do something. If the levees break, you can complain that it was the duty of the Federal Government to keep them working, but that does nothing for all those people in the water.

[Mr Skeptic]

Boycotting a state you say? Hey, that looks like it's actually somewhere that the Interstate Commerce Clause would actually apply, as compared to all the other crap they're pretending it applies to.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You mean, after detaining them for violation, or reasonable suspicion, of another crime?

 

It's not worded that way; I read the bill myself. These people are not illiterate: if they wanted to say nice and clearly that the bill only applies after suspicion of other crimes they could have done so. They did not and they are required by law to make the most of the law they can, so they will be required by law to stop people they think are illegals simply on the basis of that.

 

I can see how it might kind of look like it would apply only to suspicion of other crimes, but it does not say that and in context they lose the benefit of the doubt.

[ParanoiA]

Boycotting a state you say? Hey, that looks like it's actually somewhere that the Interstate Commerce Clause would actually apply, as compared to all the other crap they're pretending it applies to.

 

Ha! Damn, that's a great point. The one time the federal government actually has clear constitutional authority and duty and they ignore it. Just like with handling immigration to begin with - a clear constitutional authority and duty and they ignore it too.

 

It's not worded that way; I read the bill myself. These people are not illiterate: if they wanted to say nice and clearly that the bill only applies after suspicion of other crimes they could have done so. They did not and they are required by law to make the most of the law they can' date=' so they will be required by law to stop people they think are illegals simply on the basis of that.

 

I can see how it might kind of look like it would apply only to suspicion of other crimes, but it does not say that and in context they lose the benefit of the doubt.[/quote']

 

Looks like they're speaking right to you:

 

B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373

 

I'm not sure how they can be any more clear, other than omitting the necessary legalease. Are you sure you're just not seeing the clarity because of the legal jargon?

 

 

 

Hopefully I'll get to a point today where I can start my thread on the Judiciary and Constitutional interpretation. Watched part of a really great debate/discussion between Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer on Youtube. I think it's called "A Conversation on the Constitution". It's really interesting how they parse words, and the various theories on proper interpretation of the text. Scalia is the textualist whereas Breyer falls more in line with the Living Constitution. In light of our disagreement here - interpretation - it could compliment this theme.

Edited May 20, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Mr Skeptic]

No. They cannot. Please read through the other thread, we've already been through this. CharonY provided an updated version of the actual law - with new verbiage about this specific part and you clearly need to read it. You're dead wrong here.

 

Ah, this one. http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

 

Yes, they did actually address that concern then, but it was not in the original one I had read here:

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

[ParanoiA]

Correct. We had disagreed on the verbiage in that thread, and then CharonY jumped in and pulled us apart to reveal this update. I can only guess we weren't the only ones confused by the muddy language.

 

This also demonstrates Arizona's willingness to prove and address concerns over racial profiling - not just dismissing people as "wrong", but rather trying to remedy their concerns. It may still not go far enough, but I think it's a good concession on the part of Arizona.

[The Bear's Key]

Hell Yes!! It is absolutely about time.

 

In other terms, this is essentially how Arizona is being treated:

Living up to your name?

 

 

How do you know I'm an immigrant in order to know I should carry papers? Just because I'm white doesn't mean I'm not an immigrant. I couldn't imagine how they'd stop anybody and demand immigrant documentation when they have no way of knowing who is or isn't an immigrant in order to then demand documentation.

 

And that's partly why the law doesn't allow it. Here's the updated verbiage, per CharonY's link.

 

 

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm

You bolded the wrong parts.

 

Here they are, fixed...

A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

 

B.

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made

by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state

in the enforcement of any other

law or

ordinance

of a county, city or town or this state

where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States,

a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373

 

©.

A law enforcement official or agency

of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state

may not consider race, color or national origin

in implementing the requirements of this subsection

except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution

.

A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides

to the law enforcement officer or agency

any of the following:

 

 

Again, but with just the relevant parts...

For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance, where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person,

 

except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

....

 

A law enforcement official or agency may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

 

A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

 

 

So people can be detained for any ordinance, say...jaywalking, honking excessively, loud yelling at night, music blasting, etc.

 

And the law doesn't specify what "reasonable suspicion" is, so explain how any person reading the law is supposed to interpret that. Also, how do you enforce that "race, color or national origin" plays no consideration when following the Arizona law?

 

Your high horse took off galloping to the winds even before you posted in outrage -- then and now.

 

 

 

On the list of cities with the highest kidnapping rates Mexico City is #1.

 

Care to guess what city is #2?

 

Bogotá, Columbia? No.

 

Calcutta, India? Nope.

 

It's Phoenix, Arizona.

Well, considering the article's focus is kidnapping in the U.S., how is Columbia or India even relevant? You're not trying to imply #2 city in the world, I'd hope.

 

Plus...

 

The majority of the victims are either illegal aliens or connected to the drug trade.

Just to be sure, you're not implying that everyday citizens are getting kidnapped? Whatever the case, there's a far easier solution to the problem: legalization of drugs.

[padren]

Correct, I'm saying that is not how it works. In fact, your argument is similar to my original one. How do you know I'm an immigrant in order to know I should carry papers? Just because I'm white doesn't mean I'm not an immigrant. I couldn't imagine how they'd stop anybody and demand immigrant documentation when they have no way of knowing who is or isn't an immigrant in order to then demand documentation.

Okay:

A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

 

B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373

 

What constitutes a stop? Would being warned for loitering count? I have a bit of concern regarding "reasonable attempt" if that is made when a person is simply stopped on the street. They could be asked if they witnessed an event or told they are smoking too close to an entrance of a building.

 

The reasonable attempt doesn't apply to after being arrested, but before. Does a reasonable attempt include the option of requiring the individual to come to the station while their status is determined?

 

The second part "Any person arrested..." doesn't speak to just those being suspected, so it sounds like even if the Governor gets a DUI, they'll go through federal verification. Not certain it literally works that way, but I would hate for citizens to be delayed longer as a result of having to wait for verification while other citizens get released right away.

As long as this isn't a double standard depending on "how immigrationy they look" it doesn't other me.

 

How do you feel about that?

 

 

 

Btw, the "Arizona 911 call" is a little out of context. People aren't worried about the actual illegals (those breaking in) but how it effects the legals (naturalized citizens) that are just moving into the neighborhood, not breaking into your house.

 

A more appropriate 911 call would end up with you, Obama, and your neighbor sharing a beer.

[swansont]

Guess you're siding with the totalitarians on this one

 

How about we focus on the actual issues under discussion, instead of flirting with the association fallacy.

[padren]

Just in reference to the OP:

 

I entirely agree that boycotts like this are somewhat stupid, especially if you wage "economic warfare" and are surprised to get the same in return. A boycott is a fair and understandable action, but it is also a strong-arm tactic, designed to apply pressure without any appeal to logic or consensus.

 

I think anyone that engages in such a tactic has the right to do so, but can't complain or be surprised when the same pressures are applied in response. If L.A. decides it is stupid to get in a fight over electricity they want to buy that AZ wants to sell... it really reflects on the nature of what they did in the first place to warrant the response.

[jryan]

Just in reference to the OP:

 

I entirely agree that boycotts like this are somewhat stupid, especially if you wage "economic warfare" and are surprised to get the same in return. A boycott is a fair and understandable action, but it is also a strong-arm tactic, designed to apply pressure without any appeal to logic or consensus.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that statement. Most boycotts are specifically appealing to the consensus as they are asking large groups of people act together. I would assume that nobody boycotts something when they agree with it.

 

I think anyone that engages in such a tactic has the right to do so, but can't complain or be surprised when the same pressures are applied in response. If L.A. decides it is stupid to get in a fight over electricity they want to buy that AZ wants to sell... it really reflects on the nature of what they did in the first place to warrant the response.

 

Yeah, LA and California are shooting themselves in the foot here.

 

The AZ law is not unlike the current CA law. But as I said, AZ should simply offer to bus all of their illegals over to Los Angeles since they are such an economic boon. I would bet most illegals would jump at the chance for a free bus trip to a friendly city.

 

Heck, if I were AZ I wouldn't even check the legal status of those wanting to take the trip.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oh, by the way, I think boycotts are specifically an appeal to consensus.

[padren]

Oh, by the way, I think boycotts are specifically an appeal to consensus.

 

Can you explain that? I don't quite follow what you are saying. Do you mean to appeal to a consensus between both parties? It seems to me it's specifically to gain conformity, regardless of whether there is consensus, by making it too economically difficult to disagree with you, regardless of what your actual views are.

[jryan]

No, because for a boycott to have any effect you need to have a large number of like minded people boycotting together. Such a group would have a consensus of opinion.

 

I suppose you can have a boycott by one person, but in this case California is asking it's citizens to boycott Arizona as a group.

[iNow]

But an appeal to consensus is the suggestion that an assertion is true due merely to the fact that lots of people agree with it. It's a very close cousin of an appeal to popularity. That is NOT what a boycott is. I think it's just the words you chose which are leading to the confusion.

[jryan]

But an appeal to consensus is the suggestion that an assertion is true due merely to the fact that lots of people agree with it. It's a very close cousin of an appeal to popularity. That is NOT what a boycott is. I think it's just the words you chose which are leading to the confusion.

 

Well, I was responding to the claim that the boycott was meant to apply pressure without appeal to logic or consensus. Since "appeal to Logic" isn't a fallacy I assumed the "appeal to consensus" wasn't meant to be taken as a logical fallacy.

[padren]

Well, I was responding to the claim that the boycott was meant to apply pressure without appeal to logic or consensus. Since "appeal to Logic" isn't a fallacy I assumed the "appeal to consensus" wasn't meant to be taken as a logical fallacy.

 

All I meant is as far as tools go, negotiation, debate, that a boycott isn't designed to build consensus with the opposition. It's designed to pressure the opposition into accepting your terms, without necessarily agreeing with them on their merits.

 

It does take a "consensus" in the manner that it takes a lot of people all doing a boycott for it to be effective, but I was referring to the settling of disputes between parties.

 

When a boycott is used to achieve an agreement, it usually doesn't involve an actual consensus between the two parties, just one of them saying "uncle" and bowing to pressure.

[jryan]

All I meant is as far as tools go, negotiation, debate, that a boycott isn't designed to build consensus with the opposition. It's designed to pressure the opposition into accepting your terms, without necessarily agreeing with them on their merits.

 

It does take a "consensus" in the manner that it takes a lot of people all doing a boycott for it to be effective, but I was referring to the settling of disputes between parties.

 

When a boycott is used to achieve an agreement, it usually doesn't involve an actual consensus between the two parties, just one of them saying "uncle" and bowing to pressure.

 

 

That's true. But the idea of compromise in this case is as strange as a boycott, anyway. Arizona has every right to do what it is doing. Any compromise from that position is simply giving up some of that right. It is not a position subject to compromise.

 

California, we should remember, has at least some boarder fence in place. I would guess that the real worry in California is not for the poor illegal aliens... it is the fear that the law would mean more AZ illegals drifting into CA.

[ParanoiA]

So people can be detained for any ordinance, say...jaywalking, honking excessively, loud yelling at night, music blasting, etc.

 

Yes, those are laws. If you break them, then police officers have a duty to stop you, which includes identifying who the hell you are. Really simple.

 

This kind of reminds me of the people who get all pissy about police using cameras everywhere and how we'll all receive tickets in the mail for various frivolous crimes. And my response is I can't wait. I love the idea that you will all have to pay for the stupid laws we pass day after day, generation after generation. It will fill my heart with joy to watch you all bitch and moan about having to be held accountable for your nitpicking micro behavioral legislative whims.

 

You don't like being stopped and processed for jay walking? Then stop making it a law that people can't jay walk. You don't like being stopped and processed over loud music, then stop making laws about loud music.

 

I love it.

 

And the law doesn't specify what "reasonable suspicion" is, so explain how any person reading the law is supposed to interpret that. Also, how do you enforce that "race, color or national origin" plays no consideration when following the Arizona law?

 

1) The law doesn't say what a "law enforcement official" is, nor what a "political subdivision" is, nor any other of the hundreds of terms and phrases contained in the text - what exactly is your point? That all laws ever created over the 220 years of our existence are all suspect if their phrases aren't defined within the laws as well? Get real.

 

This is not an argument, it's a complaint about the inherent flexibility in language, contained in every law ever passed. And this is the wrong class to bitch about it.

 

2) Again...for the umpteeth time...because you can't imagine a valid scenario of how they'd determine reasonable suspicion for being an illegal immigrant during detention for another crime, does not give you license to fabricate racist ones of your own (that you do this, says more about you than them). The burden of proof is on you to prove there is any racial profiling in this law, or allowed by this law and it is not and you've failed to prove it.

 

You and anyone else still leaning on this argument despite the evidence to the contrary are proving that there are scientists who don't change their minds with the facts at all. This is the equivalent of following a religion: blind faith with out any supporting evidence at all - not one crumb.

 

Are you conservative? I thought only conservatives did that.

 

Just to be sure, you're not implying that everyday citizens are getting kidnapped? Whatever the case, there's a far easier solution to the problem: legalization of drugs.

 

Your final statement there is spot on and that would solve much of the problems.

 

However, I and everyone in here should be insulted by the implication that illegal immigrants are somehow beneath consideration to actual citizens. They're all people. They may be guilty of immigrating illegally, but they are still valuable as humans. Show some respect, please.

 

Living up to your name?

 

Your high horse took off galloping to the winds even before you posted in outrage -- then and now.

 

 

Now if you want to keep being a dick when you post, I'll keep being a dick as well. Or, you could drop the flaming and bring this back to an honorable discussion. Doesn't matter to me as I enjoy being a dick to those who deserve it.

[jryan]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the drugs on the illegal immigration issue, or the crime issue.

 

It is an aspect of the rising crime rate here in the U.S., but that shouldn't be a surprise that people willing to break U.S. law to make money would.... break U.S. law to make money.

 

Crime rates are on the rise in Europe even as their drug laws become more liberal.

[swansont]

Now if you want to keep being a dick when you post, I'll keep being a dick as well.

 

No, that's not going to happen. The only acceptable options in response to objectionable behavior are to either ignore it so as to not let the conversation be dragged down by it, or report it and let staff take care of it.

[jryan]

Edit: ah, nevermind...

[bascule]

The City of LA general manager has issued a statement reminding Arizona they own the power plants under discussion. Oops.