New Arizona Immigration Law

[that1guy2]

Love it? Hate it? Indifferent? Never heard of it? Post your opinions here.

[AllisonWalker]

Post the law.

[that1guy2]

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
(Edit) Here's a summary.
http://jonjayray.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/fact-sheet-on-new-arizona-immigration-law/

[AFXisgreat]

It encourages racial profiling so I'm against it. Besides there's a loophole in the law. The US constitution states that any person in this country can keep their identification to themselves when asked to see it. This law would require the individual to show their identification. Not only is the law unconstitutional, but its also just morally unjust. Then again I'm not too passionate about it so I voted somewhat against it. I do think that its a bit racist to the point where they can just pick any person off of the street who isn't white to start questioning them about the validity of their citizenship.

[that1guy2]

Thanks to everyone who responded so far!
Just to clarify my position, I think it's a step in the direction of fascism. Though that viewpoint may sound a little extreme, the law itself is pretty extreme. It requires people to carry around their documentation. Does that sound like a democracy?
I'm open to everyone's opinions on the issue, though. :smiley2:

[Kanap]

People who are not citizens of the USA should not have the same rights as those given to people in the USA, if you are here illegally good for you but don't go saying how this law is unfair to people who are breaking the law anyway just by being here.

[Gary]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBLgSzJpOec&feature=related

Fuck illegals.

[darkarcher]

As long as the law does not end up violating some sort of basic human right (which it should not as long as the actual text of the law is followed) then I am mostly indifferent toward it. I don't really have anything against illegal immigrants, but it is not unfair to punish them for breaking the law

[Kanap]

As long as the law does not end up violating some sort of basic human right (which it should not as long as the actual text of the law is followed) then I am mostly indifferent toward it. I don't really have anything against illegal immigrants, but it is not unfair to punish them for breaking the law

I agree with thee.

[AllisonWalker]

Illegals shouldn't be here, so like DA said, if the law isn't violating human rights, then they should make them GTFU.
From the summary, I don't see anything bad about it.

[Underling]

Are you people retarded? Legal, non-white citizens will be targeted too, having to prove their legality there on the spot. Not your problem, I guess.

[mystra]

i'll reply on this when i get home for work but if you've read the bill in full you will realize that Arizona covered it's ass majorly in writing this. by law people CANNOT be discriminated against at all for what they look like (beyond clothing or tats which i'll get into later). the bill is indiscriminate and anyone who says otherwise has not read it. what comes of it is a different story and not what i'm going to get into.

[darkarcher]

Are you people retarded? Legal, non-white citizens will be targeted too, having to prove their legality there on the spot. Not your problem, I guess.

Like I said, if the actual wording of the law is followed then there shouldn't be a problem. People only have to prove their "legality" when there is reasonable cause, the primary source of which would be lack of a driver's license, as the article said, which is nothing beyond what is already routine when somebody is pulled over.

In the event that some sort of profile solely based on race becomes commonplace, then it is a problem with the local law enforcement and not the bill itself.

[Underling]

Like I said, if the actual wording of the law is followed then there shouldn't be a problem.

Yes, if only we lived in a fantasy land everything would be fine

[darkarcher]

Yes, if only we lived in a fantasy land everything would be fine

I know there will be problems like this just like there are problems with everything else, but what I'm trying to say is that the problems people are claiming would not be rooted in the construction of the bill itself but in the local law enforcement's incorrect interpretation.

[Underling]

I know there will be problems like this just like there are problems with everything else, but what I'm trying to say is that the problems people are claiming would not be rooted in the construction of the bill itself but in the local law enforcement's incorrect interpretation.

And I'm telling you that's irrelevant. You can't write laws without giving thought to how they're going to be interpreted.

Illegal immigration is, as far as I'm aware, already illegal. The only thing these changes are only going to is overreach the authority of law enforcement officers such that it breaches the rights of legitimate citizens.

[AllisonWalker]

How exactly does it breach the rights of legal citizens?

[Underling]

How exactly does it breach the rights of legal citizens?

I dunno, the part where they get stopped and forced to produce documents because of the colour of their skin maybe?

[AllisonWalker]

I dunno, the part where they get stopped and forced to produce documents because of the colour of their skin maybe?

Dark already explained that you can't go after someone just because of race.

Besides, the cops ask everyone for ID when they get pulled over for traffic violations, so again, I'm missing the part where this is discriminatory.

[Underling]

Dark already explained that you can't go after someone just because of race.

Besides, the cops ask everyone for ID when they get pulled over, so again, I'm missing the part where this is discriminatory.

I've already refuted DA's point, you're just going round in circles now.

[AllisonWalker]

I've already refuted DA's point, you're just going round in circles now.

It was a poor point. If the police fail to exercise the laws as they are written, they get sued.

[Underling]

It was a poor point. If the police fail to exercise the laws as they are written, they get sued.

What law are they failing to exercise? No part of the law restricts who they target, it's down to their judgement, and if you think that won't be biased you're even more naive than I thought.

[AllisonWalker]

What law are they failing to exercise? No part of the law restricts who they target, it's down to their judgement, and if you think that won't be biased you're even more naive than I thought.

You can't go after anyone because of race alone.
The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070.

[Fat1Fared]

It was a poor point. If the police fail to exercise the laws as they are written, they get sued.

actually, they don't, it is basically impossible to sue law enforcers for mispractise, as their unamazingly highly protected by law <oh the irony> and the few rights you have are basically impossible to prove, and only poeple who would ever have the resources to ever have a skilled enough lawyer to prove it, would never be effected by this act, the fact is, telling police to stop and search poeple in this way, is fear monogening and not going to end well, it is another ironic pecie of US freedom law

=Besides, like it is said Fasiam maybe 10 steps from democracy, but it only takes 1 take to start its path

[darkarcher]

What law are they failing to exercise? No part of the law restricts who they target, it's down to their judgment, and if you think that won't be biased you're even more naive than I thought.

Except the police are not allowed to "target" anyone unless they see somebody performing an illegal action in progress or they see someone who they know for a fact has been previously convicted and expelled from the country. Having an identity check on these people is already a part of due process in those scenarios. This was all laid out in the bill.

[AllisonWalker]

actually, they don't, it is basically impossible to sue law enforcers for mispractise, as their unamazingly highly protected by law <oh the irony> and the few rights you have are basically impossible to prove, and only poeple who would ever have the resources to ever have a skilled enough lawyer to prove it, would never be effected by this act, the fact is, telling police to stop and search poeple in this way, is fear monogening and not going to end well, it is another ironic pecie of US freedom law

=Besides, like it is said Fasiam maybe 10 steps from democracy, but it only takes 1 take to start its path

The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070.
Fared.

[Fat1Fared]

Fared.

and the English legal law has even better worded version of that, does not stop it happening and I can tell you as a law student, it is impossible to prove in ether of our legal systems, because in both our legal systems, police have powers of Visas discretion within their powers, which means to rebut any such claim, just need to say, believed their action was reasonable or necessary and bang the claim is gone, these laws never work, because the system is against such people from the start, and some middle class Christian who will never be effected by it or knows nothing of the horrors it can cause should not be so quick to dimiss things, I have seen causes of police negligence causing people to die and still no one was held to account, I know what I am on about and don't say you cannot compare England to us, because I am on about US

=Look at turtle only the other day, completely ultra visas police brutality, not even a sorry from them, Allison, live in your bubble if you must, but don't get angry at those of us, who care about the rights of others

[Underling]

Except the police are not allowed to "target" anyone unless they see somebody performing an illegal action in progress or they see someone who they know for a fact has been previously convicted and expelled from the country. Having an identity check on these people is already a part of due process in those scenarios. This was all laid out in the bill.

Firstly, you're wrong. They only need the suspicion of illegal activity.

And secondly, the papers these people will need to produce aren't just their fucking ID, so no, it doesn't already happen.

[AllisonWalker]

and the English legal law has even better worded version of that, does not stop it happening and I can tell you as a law student, it is impossible to prove in ether of our legal systems, because in both our legal systems, police have powers of Visas discretion within their powers, which means to rebut any such claim, just need to say, believed their action was reasonable or necessary and bang the claim is gone, these laws never work, because the system is against such people from the start, and some middle class Christian who will never be effected by it or knows nothing of the horrors it can cause should not be so quick to dimiss things, I have seen causes of police negligence causing people to die and still no one was held to account, I know what I am on about and don't say you cannot compare England to us, because I am on about US

=Look at turtle only the other day, completely ultra visas police brutality, not even a sorry from them, Allison, live in your bubble if you must, but don't get angry at those of us, who care about the rights of others

some middle class Christian
Wow...

It's called Due Process. The police can get in trouble if they don't have a justifiable reason for arresting someone.

[Underling]

Wow...

It's called Due Process. The police can get in trouble if they don't have a justifiable reason for arresting someone.

We're not talking about arresting someone, Holmes.

[AllisonWalker]

Then there's nothing to complain about. Taking your ID out isn't a big deal.

[Underling]

Then there's nothing to complain about. Taking your ID out isn't a big deal.

We're not talking about your ID, either. Deary me.

[Fat1Fared]

Wow...

It's called Due Process. The police can get in trouble if they don't have a justifiable reason for arresting someone.

-I don't care if I sound like git, you cannot make such judgments but I know that you will just get me banned and will not ever listen to reason so I will not comment in this page anymore and just feel little more sad as the world slowly falls further down the dark road it is heading

Sinclair Lewis:
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.


-Underling we don't have ID yet thank god, what a waste of money and 1984 ideal heh

[AllisonWalker]

I wasn't talking about me, Underling. I was saying people in general. Showing ID is no big deal.
You're getting upset over nothing.-I don't care if I sound like git, you cannot make such judgments but I know that you will just get me banned and will not ever listen to reason so I will not comment in this page anymore and just feel little more sad as the world slowly falls further down the dark road it is heading



-Underling we don't have ID yet thank god, what a waste of money and 1984 ideal heh

What judgements?

When you have something reasonable to say besides wall-o-text rants, I'll listen.

You don't have a driver's license?

[Underling]

I wasn't talking about me, Underling. I was saying people in general. Showing ID is no big deal.


Providing papers proving your legal residency, however, is.

And, you know, that's what's actually being discussed here.

Just FYI.

Possibly you should have some clue about what's being discussed before you start rambling.

[Underling]

Driver's license my ass...

[AllisonWalker]

Providing papers proving your legal residency, however, is.

And, you know, that's what's actually being discussed here.

Just FYI.

Possibly you should have some clue about what's being discussed before you start rambling.

>_>
I know exactly what's being discussed when people aren't going off tangent, rambling about their disapproval of American laws.

A driver's license is all the "legal documentation" you need. It doesn't matter who you are, if you get pulled over, you're going to have to show it.

[darkarcher]

Providing papers proving your legal residency, however, is.

And, you know, that's what's actually being discussed here.

Just FYI.

Possibly you should have some clue about what's being discussed before you start rambling.

* Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status.

And...

* The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)).

If someone has a driver's license then that is all the proof they need. If not, then they are supposed to have papers on them anyway. How is that a big deal?

[AllisonWalker]

If someone has a driver's license then that is all the proof they need. If not, then they are supposed to have papers on them anyway. How is that a big deal? You're suppose to have your car insurance papers on you too.

My friend got pulled over two days ago while driving us home. It was pretty amusing.

[Underling]

And...



If someone has a driver's license then that is all the proof they need. If not, then they are supposed to have papers on them anyway. How is that a big deal?

I could mention the CRAZY possibility that some people don't carry a license everywhere they go, or indeed have one at all.

You're suppose to have your car insurance papers on you too.

My friend got pulled over two days ago while driving us home. It was pretty amusing.

Neither of you seem to realise we're not talking solely about being pulled over, either.

[AllisonWalker]

I could mention the CRAZY possibility that some people don't carry a license every where they go, or indeed have one at all.

That's illegal. You have to have some form of ID on you at all times.

Well, it's not like they're going to break into houses accusing people of being in the country illegally.

[Underling]

That's illegal. You have to have some form of ID on you at all times.

Again, that's only true when you're driving...

[darkarcher]

That's illegal. You have to have some form of ID on you at all times.

Pretty sure that's false.

And once again, for somebody to be checked they have to be suspected of some crime other than simply being an illegal. And in the off case that such a policy is not followed properly, people can sue law enforcement for unjust due process and receive significant compensation.

And before Fared states that most of these people will not have the means to go to court, there are countless civil liberties unions and law firms that are constantly jumping at the chance to sue for such injustices for no charge to the victim.

[Face]

Firstly, you're wrong. They only need the suspicion of illegal activity.

And secondly, the papers these people will need to produce aren't just their fucking ID, so no, it doesn't already happen.

Alien residents in the US are already required by federal law to carry their travel documents or green cards on them AND required to show said documents if requested to by a federal law enforcement. This law gives state and local government the ability to do the same and make it a state crime, in ADDITION to a federal crime to not have those documents.

[AllisonWalker]

Pretty sure that's false.

And once again, for somebody to be checked they have to be suspected of some crime other than simply being an illegal. And in the off case that such a policy is not followed properly, people can sue law enforcement for unjust due process and receive significant compensation.

And before Fared states that most of these people will not have the means to go to court, there are countless civil liberties unions and law firms that are constantly jumping at the chance to sue for such injustices for no charge to the victim.

You'd think. I got in trouble once by authorities for having no ID on me.
:thatface:
It's a long story.

[Underling]

Alien residents in the US are already required by federal law to carry their travel documents or green cards on them AND required to show said documents if requested to by a federal law enforcement. This law gives state and local government the ability to do the same and make it a state crime, in ADDITION to a federal crime to not have those documents.

Yes, I'm proposing this law effectively makes it such that legal citizens will also need to carry said papers. I don't see what your point is supposed to be in contention with.

[AllisonWalker]

Citizens don't need travel documents or green cards. They have licenses or State ID.

[darkarcher]

You'd think. I got in trouble once by authorities for having no ID on me.
:thatface:
It's a long story.

Pretty sure that's a load of bullcrap then. I've never heard of any policy requiring identification unless performing an act explicitly requiring said identification (driving, carrying a firearm, etc.)

[Underling]

Citizens don't need travel documents or green cards. They have licenses or State ID.

That's what I'm referring to.

[darkarcher]

Yes, I'm proposing this law effectively makes it such that legal citizens will also need to carry said papers. I don't see what your point is supposed to be in contention with.

I'm curious as to where you got this idea.

[AllisonWalker]

Pretty sure that's a load of bullcrap then. I've never heard of any policy requiring identification unless performing an act explicitly requiring said identification (driving, carrying a firearm, etc.)

It was a crazy thing that happened.

People should carry ID on them anyways if they're out of the house. You're right, there is no law... yet.That's what I'm referring to.

Most Americans don't travel outside of the US. It's a waste of time getting a passport you'll never use. Completely illogical.

[Underling]

I'm curious as to where you got this idea.

...

So, the police can demand proof of your legal residency and you're confused as to where I got the idea people might have to carry papers proving their legal residency?

[Underling]

Most Americans don't travel outside of the US. It's a waste of time getting a passport you'll never use. Completely illogical.

I'm sorry, I don't see what this has to do with anything.

[AllisonWalker]

I'm sorry, I don't see what this has to do with anything.

You said Americans should have a passport.

[Underling]

You said Americans should have a passport.

I have never once used the word passport in this thread. Until now.

[darkarcher]

...

So, the police can demand proof of your legal residency and you're confused as to where I got the idea people might have to carry papers proving their legal residency?

Except if you're a citizen then you have ID on you anyway. If not then you take a trip to the police station where they verify your citizenship. Keep in mind that at this point the person has either been suspected of a crime or was driving without a license so it's still within what would already be due process.

[darkarcher]

You said Americans should have a passport.

He said no such thing. He was stating that United States citizens would be required to carry proof of residence outside of identification.

[AllisonWalker]

I have never once used the word passport in this thread. Until now.

You said travel documents. Same difference.

[Underling]

Except if you're a citizen then you have ID on you anyway. If not then you take a trip to the police station where they verify your citizenship. Keep in mind that at this point the person has either been suspected of a crime or was driving without a license so it's still within what would already be due process.

You've lost sight of the main point, which is that this is open to discrimination and will almost certainly be subject to it.

[AllisonWalker]

He said no such thing. He was stating that United States citizens would be required to carry proof of residence outside of identification.

State ID already does that.

[darkarcher]

You said travel documents. Same difference.

He did not even say that.

[Underling]

You said travel documents. Same difference.

No I didn't...?

[AllisonWalker]

No, you didn't. I screwed up Face's post about travel documents that you said Americans should have to carry.

[Underling]

Oh, okay.

[darkarcher]

You've lost sight of the main point, which is that this is open to discrimination and will almost certainly be subject to it.

I was simply following the course of conversation.

If the checking is tied directly into due process, as the case seems to be, and cannot be performed spontaneously, then in the end it's not going to end up garnering more racism than is already present in law enforcement since it requires a preexisting reasonable doubt that can be easily alleviated by legal persons with documents that they should have with them anyway.

[Underling]

I was simply following the course of conversation.

If the checking is tied directly into due process, as the case seems to be, and cannot be performed spontaneously, then in the end it's not going to end up garnering more racism than is already present in law enforcement since it requires a preexisting reasonable doubt that can be easily alleviated by legal persons with documents that they should have with them anyway.

Well, I think you're being ridiculously optimistic but I guess there's nothing more I can say than that.

[darkarcher]

Well, I think you're being ridiculously optimistic but I guess there's nothing more I can say than that.

Fair enough, I'll admit that I could very well be proven wrong and if/when that happens you are free to mock me more than usual.

[Face]

Yes, I'm proposing this law effectively makes it such that legal citizens will also need to carry said papers. I don't see what your point is supposed to be in contention with.

My point is that it already is the case that federal law enforcement can, if they suspect you of being undocumented, seek to determine if you are in the country legally.

State laws differ on the following, but in terms of federal law:

1) A citizen is not required to have nor carry any identification

2) In 2004 the supreme court ruled that citizens do not have a "constitutional right to refuse to reveal their identity when requested by police." It is perfectly reasonable and constitutional that you must truthfully identify yourself when requested by police officer who has detained you on reasonable suspicion of your participation in a crime.

In many states, if not all, it is also a crime to falsely identify yourself to a police officer.

The Arizona law gives Arizona state and local law enforcement the ability to inquire into your residency status:

1) If they have reason to believe you are not in the country legally
AND
2) If they have already detained you or are questioning you for some crime/offense for which they already have reasonable suspicion.


Now, your question is what happens with citizens? If you're suspected of a crime... and If they suspect that you might not be in the country legally and you are not carrying ID on you, they will ask you to identify who you are and they will attempt to verify what you say. As a citizen, you won't get in trouble for not carrying documents that you don't carry on you and don't even possess.

But, if you were in the country illegally and weren't able to produce those documents and/or gave the officer a false name it's a crime

[that1guy2]

Thanks to everyone who responded so far! It's nice to see all of the different opinions.

[Gary]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPtkqYwdHd8&playnext_from=TL&videos=EVttId5YRJQ&feature=rec-LGOUT-real_rev-rn-2r-4-HM

[Ishikawa Oshro]

Lol this law dosent really make all that much sense.
How do you profile an illegal........in america lol

[greymagick711]

...I'm a mix of background blood. But I learned in my high school Spanish class that my last name is an alternate spelling in Spanish of "Mexican". The catch is, I'm not Mexican.

Since Mexicans seems to be the number one illegal immigrants in the US, I can assure you all that I won't be going to AZ anytime soon. Why? Because Americans sometimes can be huge bigots and might assume that I'm an illegal just on the premise of my last name. My saving grace is that coming from a mixed heritage, I don't look too latina.

It really encourages racial profiling, even though I know it's for the best intentions. The law just doesn't address the real issue--the faulty US/Mexico boarder. The money for the law should have gone to the boarder patrol instead. C'mon, illegals aren't that dumb--after all, they snuck into the country pretty damn easily. They'll know not to live in Arizona where the law is.

[Face]

The problem with what you propose is also the core issue that precipitated this state law. The border patrol is a federal agency and the federal government is charged with securing the border. Yet, the federal government has been lax in both securing the border and enforcing federal laws on unlawful immigration. If the federal government was adequately doing it's job in this area, Arizona would have had no need to pass a law that allows state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration policy

[D.M.Girl]

This law gives the police the power to detain someone, upon their suspicion that the person may be here illegally... humm how do you explain that to anyone without sounding like a racist prick? "I'm sorry I stopped you because you... erm look brown so therefore you must be illegal immigrant, may I see your documentation?" seriously how? How can this be happening??? We are de-evolving! evolving backwards!!! I saw this on the news about 2 weeks ago while having breakfast with my family and my stomach turned. This is basically making it ok to discriminate and this is not going to end well.

[darkarcher]

This law gives the police the power to detain someone, upon their suspicion that the person may be here illegally... humm how do you explain that to anyone without sounding like a racist prick? "I'm sorry I stopped you because you... erm look brown so therefore you must be illegal immigrant, may I see your documentation?" seriously how? How can this be happening??? We are de-evolving! evolving backwards!!! I saw this on the news about 2 weeks ago while having breakfast with my family and my stomach turned. This is basically making it ok to discriminate and this is not going to end well.

They must either have been pulled over due to a traffic violation or otherwise be charged for a crime in progress for the police to check them. Both of these situations involve having to see a driver's license or documentation anyway.

[Gamemaster300]

They must either have been pulled over due to a traffic violation or otherwise be charged for a crime in progress for the police to check them. Both of these situations involve having to see a driver's license or documentation anyway.

At least you have a level head, seems like you read the law. You truly can't trust the media.....at all. The law requires someone to be like you said, already in trouble for something else before they check documentation. it is already a federal law that leagal imigrants have to have documentation on them, arizona is just taking it upon them selves to enforce it.

I like how the president stated how the law would work......Priceless.
Oh, we also have a fantastic atorney general as well. (sarcastically)

[Underling]

They must either have been pulled over due to a traffic violation or otherwise be charged for a crime in progress for the police to check them. Both of these situations involve having to see a driver's license or documentation anyway.

Once again; they just have to be suspected, not charged.

[Face]

The law specifies that the officer first must be in "lawful contact" with the person which, while not being explicitly defined in the law, is accepted to mean that the person has been lawfully detained in the course of the officer's duty in connection with an offense. After meeting that requirement, there must be "reasonable suspicion" that "the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the united states" before the officer can elect to investigate the issue.

Reasonable suspicion is a well defined legal burden in law and the US justice system, and here it cannot constitute solely race and/or broken english, but must be a combination of multiple factors.

[Underling]

Oh good, we've returned to the fantasy land where the police can do no wrong.

[maisetofan]

Are you people retarded? Legal, non-white citizens will be targeted too, having to prove their legality there on the spot. Not your problem, I guess.

Wow i actually agree
Seriously what is wrong with you all?
Its easy to say, Ban the mexicans who have anchor babies but what if a foreign white person is asked to leave?
oh nooooo :rageface:

[darkarcher]

Wow i actually agree
Seriously what is wrong with you all?
Its easy to say, Ban the mexicans who have anchor babies but what if a foreign white person is asked to leave?
oh nooooo :rageface:

Umm...way to jump to conclusions? Don't assume that people who support the legislation simply have it out for Hispanics. If an illegal Caucasian is discovered then they should be subject to all of the same measures as any other illegal alien.

[maisetofan]

Good then that is fair, hey i was just saying the same thing underling said
because i agree with him
but some people here are racist toward hispanics and people who are not white
and that is wrong

[Gamemaster300]

underling:: it is true that police can be curupt or just not perfect. But you cant say thats a reasonable reason to not have the law, the law itself is fine, so long as it is followed the way it is written.

Arizona is just enforcing an already existent federal law, that you can't be hear illegaly.

the only reason race is invalved is because opponents of the bill make it about race, the law itself does not desegnate hispanics. people do that.

i really think face and DA are the most correct on this issue.

[Gamemaster300]

Good then that is fair, hey i was just saying the same thing underling said
because i agree with him
but some people here are racist toward hispanics and people who are not white
and that is wrong

yes, that is wrong, and that definatly exists. its not like that in the law itself though.

[Outenkun]

I think we're all human beings and should look out for one another...but that's called Utopia, sadly...

[Gamemaster300]

I think we're all human beings and should look out for one another...but that's called Utopia, sadly...

a utopia isn't sad. the problem is it would be run by humans. if they weren't curopted by power, or greed a lot of societies would work, if things went as intended.

[Face]

Wow i actually agree
Seriously what is wrong with you all?
Its easy to say, Ban the mexicans who have anchor babies but what if a foreign white person is asked to leave?
oh nooooo :rageface:

Your failing is in assuming that people who don't share your point of view on this are racist, hate mexicans, and love white people.

Oh good, we've returned to the fantasy land where the police can do no wrong.

I didn't say that, and I do not think darkarcher said that either. Police are people, people can fuck up, that's fact. Those with legal authority over others need to be dutifully watched and heavily scrutinized to ensure that those who abuse their powers do not keep them.

But, speaking of fantasy lands imagine a world where police had the power to search anyone they wanted, at any time, with no burden of reasonable, so long as they claim it's to defend against terrorism. And what if they could take DNA samples from anyone that they detain using these powers and keep them forever and ever, regardless of whether they are guilty of any crime, tried for any crime, or charged for any crime, or even justly detained. What a horrible fantasy land that would be... oh wait that's England.

The Arizona law isn't willy nilly stop-anyone-who's-hispanic. As I've said several times now, and detailed just this evening, police must first be in lawful contact with a person in regards to an unrelated offense. Then, IF there is reasonable suspicion that this person is be in the country illegally, which cannot be based alone on race or accent, the officer may seek to determine if they are here legally. These are powers that Federal law enforcement already possess, and it is already federal law that resident aliens carry their documentation on them.

The issue, the reason that Arizona even had to pass this law, is because the feds aren't enforcing the the existing law. You see, when there's a sticky, divisive issue such that it's difficult and costly (in terms of money and political capital, voters) to resolve it through revised legislation, such as illegal immigration, it becomes much easier to just stop enforcing the law and ignore the problem. Neither the democrats nor the republicans want to lose votes by actually addressing the problems with legislation. Several years ago a few lawmakers actually attempted to resolve this root issue. Ted Kennedy and John McCain (You know, that guy that everyone said was just another Bush) broke with the absurdity of both their respective parties to come together and compromise. They created a reasonable bill that, while not perfect, accounted for much of the concerns of both parties and would have taken a major step forward towards resolving the issue. Of course it brought republicans and democrats together in the spirit of lilliputian ideals to kill it as swiftly as possible.

Republicans want the border to actually be secured and for those who are here illegally to leave and get in the back of the line of those who wish to come here legally... BEFORE revamping the immigration process to allow, much more easily, people to come here legally as workers. Democrats want everyone who is here illegally to be made legal, regardless of how they got here and the laws that they broke in doing so... BEFORE securing the border. But most of both sides won't budge on this, so it's kind of a Mexican Standoff, ironically. Democrats want to turn all the people here illegally now into democratic voting citizens. Republicans don't want to unfairly reward the actions of millions who came here illegally, in the face of those who took the time and effort to go through the process the legal way.

With all this trench digging and ignoring going on federally, the border states actually have to deal with the effects of people streaming in across the border with no id, no background checks, and who can assume a different identity if they get into trouble. Many people who come into this country illegally just want a better life and, other than the conditions of their immigration, aren't criminals... but then some are criminals, and the problem is that we can't tell which are the good and which the bad. The federal government sure isn't doing any checking.

Your feelings against this law seem to be that the powers it grants to state law enforcement officers will, despite the specified usage, be abused, so it should be scrapped. It's probable that some officers will abuse the power granted to them under this law - just as there are officers that already pull people over because of the color of their skin, or let someone go after an arrest because he's the son of some golfing buddy, or take a few hundred dollars a week for not busting some drug dealer. To follow your logic, since almost every power granted to law enforcement officers has the potential to be abused, then they shouldn't have those powers. No power to stop cars for traffic violations, no power arrest criminals.

This Arizona law provides reasonable powers, with reasonable restraints to state and local police officers who have a reasonable need to enforce existing rules that an unreasonable federal government ignores. The issue people have should not be with a reasonable law, but with those police officers and politicians who already abuse their positions... and with those who misconstrue the facts and meaning of said laws to suit their own ideological goals.

[maisetofan]

Your failing is in assuming that people who don't share your point of view on this are racist, hate mexicans, and love white people.


Well there is truth in that
Why else would you be pro law?
Do the mexicans take all your jobs
lol south park reference
"They took our jobs"

whatever happened to people being allowed to live in a land where they can be free and allowed to express themselves regardless of their race?

Martin luther king would be ashamed

[darkarcher]

Well there is truth in that
Why else would you be pro law?
Do the mexicans take all your jobs
lol south park reference
"They took our jobs"

whatever happened to people being allowed to live in a land where they can be free and allowed to express themselves regardless of their race?

Martin luther king would be ashamed

Believe it or not, there are reasons people are against illegal immigration other than racial discrimination. -__-;;

[maisetofan]

Really?

[Fenrir502]

Really?

Now, I'm no American, but I think it may have something to do with taxation or somerthing. Bureaucratic stuff with numbers and the crunching thereof.

Of course, I'm mostly likely talking bull.

[Face]

Well there is truth in that
Why else would you be pro law?
Do the mexicans take all your jobs
lol south park reference
"They took our jobs"



This has nothing to do with race. Nothing at all. Have you read the few posts I've made in here? First, my problem with this whole issue over the Arizona law is that that people are misrepresenting the actually contents as being racist, or beng nazi, or being soviet to support their ideological interests, when in fact it's pretty far from the truth.

Second, NOTHING in the law is inherently racist, in fact it explicitly rules out consideration based on race. Residents aliens in this country are already required by law to carry documentation on them, this law does not change that. Federal law enforcement agents already have the power to request those documents at ANY time. This law gives state and local law enforcement the ability to request those documents, but ONLY if the person has done something else first to be detained by the officer, and then ONLY if the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe that they are here illegally. AND it specifies that race may NOT be the sole consideration in this.




Martin luther king would be ashamed

Yes, Martin Luther King junior would be very ashamed. Ashamed of people using false cries of racism to scare others over to their perspective, and grant unequal treatment under the law to those who are of a different race. You claim racism when someone has the opinion that all people should be held equal under the law. Entering this country without proper documentation is illegal, regardless of race.

I am very much in favor of immigration reform and a guest worker program where it would be a lot easier for people to come here to work legally. What I am not for is people breaking the law to do so. "Why else would you be pro law?" If someone dismisses out of hand that the only reason that a person wouldn't argue against this law is racism, it shows that person is either ignorant of the issue or a racist themselves.

It is very much possible to believe in the rule of law being followed without being racist. Just as it is very much possible for people to have not voted for Obama without being racist. Just as it is possible that people have not voted for McCain without being racist.

[maisetofan]

No he would be ashamed at the level of racism that still exists
White supremacist groups and the KKK are still huge in States like Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana and texas.

Ray Charles was banned for goodness sake from GA because he refused to preform for a segregated audience. (in 1979 it was dropped however)

Yeah off course you can vote for mccain without being a racist if you are republican after all it was a republican who abolished slavery what i mean is that a lot of people will use this bill to hide their racist views, there are still an awful lot of racists out there

we worked with some americans from texas in the rental car industry and they refused to serve people of color, WTH was with that????

[Fat1Fared]

OK, i did give up on this thread, but certain things make it seem worth posting again and though I am just going to put what i put before, i feel it worth putting it, despite the fact that people will stand their side no matter, whichever side that maybe:-

1=Lets not be stupid and make this who has better legal system, seriously it would petty egotisms at best and well make everyone look stupid, because we all know that very legal system has failings such as that DNA law, which was brought by labour and another reason, I hate labour, hopefully, the Lib Dems will be able to get Cameron to remove it like trying to remove Terrorism acts, another pecie of english law which deverses burning and the men who made it, with it.

=It is as simple as this, this law is clearly going to flawed at best and almost certainly abused at practical level and I will ban myself from this site if it ever even kicks a single english speaking white person out the US, but even then, it will be used against eastern European works I suspect and all this comes down to the it will use stereotypes.
-Just because the paper it is written on, says not to use stereotype, does not in real world mean anything and that clearly that is what it will do, because that is what it can be read to ask the officers to do, now before we go back to the "race written out of it" line, this real world and like said that line is meaningless as the term reasonable belief is will fuzzy term which many officers will basically read, as are they ethic in some way, I seriously, do you think a white person with Arizona and business suit on, is ever even looking have to consider this law being used against him?
-Now, I suspect it has some explanation of constuing in other law, but trust me here, that doesn't help much as they would have you believe, because if it works like Reasonable belief works in most US law, then it will be belief, therefore the structure of law is guideline based and not elusive.
-And so it is in all this that the problem lies, it is a fuzzy law which is then be used to compound those who are ethic further in a system which already works against them.
-We all know that then, all needs to happen is some cop makes up a flimsy reasoning to arrest innocence person because decides he is of a dissent he does not like and then compounds this person horrific experience by making him out to be an "illegal Alien"
-It won't happen or there is ways of appeal, do I hear you cry? 1-Yes it will 2-Yes, but they ain't worth paper their written on, as unless the case is so extremely wrong as to defy all logic (in which case, unless really dumb cop, unlikely to happen) it relies on a judge believing some poor ethic person who is most likely in the lower side of this judges inter respectability meter, over an honest and upstanding enforcer of the law, <erm yer>

=Now it is effects themselves are bad, but not evil, however it is what this law represents which is the problem, it is another small towards wrong end of the legal spectrum and another piece of fear mogoning law, in order to degrade our freedoms and allow greater control over us.
-This is like England with Identary card thing, it was not worse thing in world to have piece of plastic with our name on it, most countries already do, but why should we allow the government to force us to do that, so have more control which do not need over us and more information about us? The counter agrument is why hide anything if nothing to hide? (well simple answer is, maybe i like to have some automatism from the state, but the real is this:-
-How many more of these steps have to be taken before we all wake up one morning and look out our windon to see a world which no longer is one we wish to live as the greed of vile men has turned it into a dark and cold place of fear and dispear where even sneezing out of line is worthy of summary execution. Now sure again, sure hear, never happen, well everyone believes it will never happen but as that famous poem goes, it doesn't stop them off breaking down your door one day and taking you away, does it.

-Many say Freedom is not worth the price we pay for it, I say if being sentient is the one thing man truly has, then we should never allow their mind to be oppressed.

=And so that is where the problem lies, simple as that, it is a step in the wrong direction and even one step is too many steps, we should never stop fighting against such things, because second we do, as my own county showed in last 13 years of labour, that one step quickly becomes 3 or 4, how many is it, before we're living in 1986?
-because remember when Sinclair Lewis said, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.” This is what he meant, because this Machiavellian law, may call itself patriotic and defenders for greater good or even simply a means to an end law, but doesn't stop it being what it is, another pecie of law which slowly eats away at the world our anesters died to give us and willing to throw back in their faces. Sometimes without even realising we are.

=Now not even getting into the point about why US federal government doesn’t care about illegal Aliens, as everyone truly knows it is because US uses it to its own ends “steal our jobs” don’t make me laugh, you give them your crappy end jobs willingly, want to blame anyone, blame your own white collar businessmen

[HarleyThomas1002]

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p100/Sheepbot123/Forum%20Messages/americaadvert.jpg

[maisetofan]

^^ i like that :D

[AdjacentOrigin]

This new law is exactly what the Arizona needs. Yay for state rights. If only other states would adopt something similiar. How dare these illegals try to sneak into our country illegally! The only rational decision to control immigration is to implement racial profiling and spontaneous detainment of alledgedly suspicious people. Also, if you want to live in America, learn English. No exceptions. I don't care what creed you follow or what motivates you to come to the US. English is the official language of America. Just like the Bible. It says so somewhere in the Constitution.

[darkarcher]

This new law is exactly what the Arizona needs. Yay for state rights. If only other states would adopt something similiar. How dare these illegals try to sneak into our country illegally! The only rational decision to control immigration is to implement racial profiling and spontaneous detainment of alledgedly suspicious people. Also, if you want to live in America, learn English. No exceptions. I don't care what creed you follow or what motivates you to come to the US. English is the official language of America. Just like the Bible. It says so somewhere in the Constitution.

Troll harder. Most of the actually relevant things you said have already been addressed.

[AdjacentOrigin]

Troll harder. Most of the actually relevant things you said have already been addressed.

Are you doubting my sincerity? Because I'd be surprised if you weren't.
As for immigration, I'm just mortally afraid of colored people. There I said it. I have facts to support this. They speak in strange tongues and smell funny. Call me a xenophobe but I'm just not myself when I'm not fearing something.

[crack]

lol stephen colbert.

And lol at people who possibly think this can help.

[Gamemaster300]

lol stephen colbert.

And lol at people who possibly think this can help.

your saying this law wont help??
Are you basing that on stephen colbert??

[crack]

Yes. That is exactly what I said.

[AllisonWalker]

Trolling fail.
>_>

[greymagick711]

Are you doubting my sincerity? Because I'd be surprised if you weren't.
As for immigration, I'm just mortally afraid of colored people. There I said it. I have facts to support this. They speak in strange tongues and smell funny. Call me a xenophobe but I'm just not myself when I'm not fearing something.

Holy crap. Are you serious? It's natural to fear the unknown about another person, but if you are basing this on mere prejudice, then I'm very sorry to hear of this phobia. Consoling might be necessary if you ever wish to be politically correct.

I mean, there are tons of Caucasian illegal immigrants as well. By this law, they should be targeted as well, yet somehow I fear they are overlooked as well.

Yes, something needed to be done in Arizona because we all know the Fed Gov't couldn't handle the border. But there should have been another way than stooping to racial profiling. If the leaders of Arizona couldn't think of a better law to help with their problem, then I'd say they elected the wrong people in the first place.

[AdjacentOrigin]

Damn, I have to drop the Colbert persona permanently. Sarcasm is impossible to convey over the interwebs without sounding like an uneducated ass. It was my mistake. :( Now my serious approach to the problem of immigration is that this particular law is imperfect and a poor decision on behalf of the legislature and courts of Arizona. It's simply impossible to determine illegals based on suspicions alone and the need to constantly carry papers is reminiscent of unhealthier times. The US needs immigration reform but Arizona made a terrible mistake. Isn't immigration the responsibility of the federal government and not the state government?

[greymagick711]

Damn, I have to drop the Colbert persona permanently. Sarcasm is impossible to convey over the interwebs without sounding like an uneducated ass. It was my mistake. :( Now my serious approach to the problem of immigration is that this particular law is imperfect and a poor decision on behalf of the legislature and courts of Arizona. It's simply impossible to determine illegals based on suspicions alone and the need to constantly carry papers is reminiscent of unhealthier times. The US needs immigration reform but Arizona made a terrible mistake. Isn't immigration the responsibility of the federal government and not the state government?

Gee, now I feel bad cause I didn't catch the Colbert act. My bad.

[MrsSallyBakura]

the need to constantly carry papers is reminiscent of unhealthier times.

Hmm, I don't think that they need to carry all their papers, necessarily. I mean, when I was touring in Europe last year, we had to always carry our passports. People operating machinery or wanting to purchase alcohol need to carry their state identification cards/driver's license. I'm pretty certain that people with visas need to carry those around as well, no matter what country you're in.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't really seem like much has changed in regards to what you need to carry around in public. :shrugs:

[Fat1Fared]

Hmm, I don't think that they need to carry all their papers, necessarily. I mean, when I was touring in Europe last year, we had to always carry our passports. People operating machinery or wanting to purchase alcohol need to carry their state identification cards/driver's license. I'm pretty certain that people with visas need to carry those around as well, no matter what country you're in.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't really seem like much has changed in regards to what you need to carry around in public. :shrugs:

Sally I am sorry but travelling as tourist with passport is nothing like having live with your legal doc's, I rarely take my passport out my house, unless I know going to use it, in fact I try to keep as little formal id on me as possible, why because I don't want to have it with me all time and shouldn't need too, normally I only have uni card and that is so I can get into uni building

-I still stand by that german poem made about WW2, sure when doesn't effect you its fine, but if keeps going like it does, one day it will and not one person who stood back and let it start can say anything about that because the thing with these things are, once you start down that hill it is a fast and slippery slope, and if poeple still have not learned that after everything our anesters went through to remove us from such ideals, well then their is no hope for us, because there will never be enough idealists in power to stop it, if those they fight for don't even care about it

[MrsSallyBakura]

Well I don't take my passport with me while I'm in the US either... that's just silly. I'm a US citizen and I don't need to carry it with me.

But if I were in a foreign country, I would take my passport with me everywhere just so that people know that I didn't sneak into the country or whatever.

Does the new Arizona law state that legal immigrants/new US citizens need to carry ALL of their legal documents? Or just the basics (ie state ID or visa)? I apologize if this conversation was had before but it's 2:30 AM and I don't really feel like looking back.

[HarleyThomas1002]

The law also targets legal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html) citizens.

[darkarcher]

The law also targets legal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html) citizens.

No it doesn't. That action by the state has nothing to do with the law except that the writer makes a conjecture that the passing of the law emboldened the state to crack down in other areas. It is not a case of the law being implemented in such a way that it is targeting a legal citizen.

NOTE: That being said, I do not support that education reform. I'm simply stating it does not have to do with the law being discussed.

[Gamemaster300]

sally, i believe carrying documentation in the U.S. if your here but not a citizen is required on the federal level, (although i could be wrong). If it is required by the fed, dosn't that mean Arizona is just taking it upon themselves to enforce a federal law. 42 states (i think 42) require citizens to have an ID on them at all times. (i would assume Arizona is one of them). so they aren't breaking any......law......so far. (any former statute, in fact there supporting former statute, set by the fed)

Also no, the law does not target.....anyone, the only reason people think it is racist is because there is mainly one race Arizona has a problem with, and thats mexicans. There are a whole lot of reasons you don't want illegals in your state or country. .......That being said, the whole suspicion thing could lead to an inocent person getting falsly accused, but if you have documentation (like your suposed to) then it is not a problem.

I can't believe people would rely on colbert report for political insight. As far as i'm concerned he is a comedian and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Face]

I've said at least 3-4 times already in this thread that US Federal law already requires that foreign nationals (tourists, non-citizen residents, etc) carry their documents on them at all times... AND federal law enforcement already has the power to request those documents from someone at any time for ANY reason.

I see no point in this thread, or any serious discussion thread, when people people make no attempt to understand the arguments of others... or join the conversation without sufficiently reading the preceding posts in the conversation... or link articles claiming it demonstrates some point when it's obvious that they never even bothered to read the article they posted since it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion, nor what they allege it demonstrates.

[Fat1Fared]

<facepalm> the point is face that:-

1=This law is a step in wrong direction

2=This law is clearly going to make legal US citizens who not stereotyped legal US citizens do things shouldn't and everyone who looks at things practically knows this law is going to be basically based on legal stereotyping, anyone who knows anything about law, knows you never just look at the law itself, but also the way that law will work in practise and the wider reaching effects it will have,

-Oh and I would like to add those cheap shots you had at British law earlier in the decision, well guess what laws have already been repealed.

[Face]

-Oh and I would like to add those cheap shots you had at British law earlier in the decision, well guess what laws have already been repealed.

Those "cheap shots," while valid, were a snarky response to underling's sarcasm and not meant to be a debate on the matter. Though, I should point out that despite your claims those UK laws have not been repealed.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled section 44 illegal

There has been discussion of it repealing it in the UK: http://orwellsdreams.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/uk-may-consider-repeal-of-section-44/

The new government may do something about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/may/19/nick-clegg-great-reform-act-laws-repealed

But, those laws, including section 44, are still in effect and still causing problems: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23832604-photographer-stopped-under-anti-terror-laws-may-sue-police.do

As an aside, those who are thoughtful and reasonable tend to at least attempt to check their facts before they make claims in a serious discussion.

[Underling]

But, speaking of fantasy lands imagine a world where police had the power to search anyone they wanted, at any time, with no burden of reasonable, so long as they claim it's to defend against terrorism. And what if they could take DNA samples from anyone that they detain using these powers and keep them forever and ever, regardless of whether they are guilty of any crime, tried for any crime, or charged for any crime, or even justly detained. What a horrible fantasy land that would be... oh wait that's England.


Oh man, you sure got me. What was I thinking, claiming England was an unparalleled Utopia of the modern world... oh wait I didn't.

[Gamemaster300]

I've said at least 3-4 times already in this thread that US Federal law already requires that foreign nationals (tourists, non-citizen residents, etc) carry their documents on them at all times... AND federal law enforcement already has the power to request those documents from someone at any time for ANY reason.

I see no point in this thread, or any serious discussion thread, when people people make no attempt to understand the arguments of others... or join the conversation without sufficiently reading the preceding posts in the conversation... or link articles claiming it demonstrates some point when it's obvious that they never even bothered to read the article they posted since it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion, nor what they allege it demonstrates.

That is all true. Its just that seeing the others arguments sorta makes me less certain. But i re-read the thing and i have my own opinion on the law itself. What people do to abuse it (if anything) i hardly have control over. so i have no interest in arguing that. Plus i agree that this thread is dead. So thats that.

[HarleyThomas1002]

No it doesn't. That action by the state has nothing to do with the law except that the writer makes a conjecture that the passing of the law emboldened the state to crack down in other areas. It is not a case of the law being implemented in such a way that it is targeting a legal citizen.

NOTE: That being said, I do not support that education reform. I'm simply stating it does not have to do with the law being discussed.

State
State law
Nothing to do with each other

What?

[MrsSallyBakura]

State
State law
Nothing to do with each other

What?

It's not the immigration law that's targeting them, it's the Arizona Department of Education saying that people with accents don't speak English properly and therefore cannot teach it.

That article could start its own topic, really. This article and the concept of "speaking English properly" is an entirely different issue. And I have my own opinions about all that, but I won't get into those because this isn't the thread for them.

The article you linked does show that there are some people representing Arizona who are prejudiced against Mexicans and other foreigners. It doesn't mean that the immigration law is racist, nor that the people who made that specific law are racist.

[HarleyThomas1002]

It's not the immigration law that's targeting them, it's the Arizona Department of Education saying that people with accents don't speak English properly and therefore cannot teach it.

That article could start its own topic, really. This article and the concept of "speaking English properly" is an entirely different issue. And I have my own opinions about all that, but I won't get into those because this isn't the thread for them.

The article you linked does show that there are some people representing Arizona who are prejudiced against Mexicans and other foreigners. It doesn't mean that the immigration law is racist, nor that the people who made that specific law are racist.

Ah, thank you for clearing that up.

[Novax]

I think it is a start for taking care of the illegal immagrent issue. It is alot better then what the government has done for it, which is absolutly nothing. Although it does need to be retooled.

[Gamemaster300]

I think it is a start for taking care of the illegal immagrent issue. It is alot better then what the government has done for it, which is absolutly nothing. Although it does need to be retooled.

i agree with that. (for what it's worth)

[Fat1Fared]

Those "cheap shots," while valid, were a snarky response to underling's sarcasm and not meant to be a debate on the matter. Though, I should point out that despite your claims those UK laws have not been repealed.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled section 44 illegal

There has been discussion of it repealing it in the UK: http://orwellsdreams.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/uk-may-consider-repeal-of-section-44/

The new government may do something about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/may/19/nick-clegg-great-reform-act-laws-repealed

But, those laws, including section 44, are still in effect and still causing problems: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23832604-photographer-stopped-under-anti-terror-laws-may-sue-police.do

As an aside, those who are thoughtful and reasonable tend to at least attempt to check their facts before they make claims in a serious discussion.

=Face, while I am sure your vast search of the first page of bing gives you far greater knowledge than a fully trained human rights solicitor and lecturer, and 2 MP's of British parliament, I must explain to you, that Britain has only had a government for a week and as yet parlinment is not yet fully formed still, so it does take time to finish these all things, and the reason I did not go into vast depth is because it was an end note about a comment which had been mostly forgotten and people keep moaning about how much I write (this sort of points out why I write more.) I only brought it up because of talk I had with certain people I know in real life.
-=You also may wish to note that ECHR cannot make anything illegal, so if you are going to start questioning my knowledge and try to make yourself out to be this vast fountain of information, you may wish to understand the workings of Europe first. It can merely tell a county if it is acting outside the convention however the county will always be the actual lawmaker, because the ECHR is not an legislative or administrative body, it guidance committee, if anything and their is massive difference
-In fact the 1998 Human Rights Act takes britain far beyond its required duty under the treaty

=I also must ask how you, the person who is willyfully casting claims on my intent on these topic's, ever considered this anything more cheap point scoring, as it is not within the realm of this topic and adds nothing substantive to the topic, well unless you are claiming that failings in the British System justify failings in the US which i seriously hope you are not. So believing you are not making the the forenamed claim, all this is, is a cheap point scoring and pointless shot at Britian because Underling never made any comment as to Britians standing in this area because it is not point of the topic (something you admitted yourself, giving only further weight to this point) and in fact your last comment mixed with this seems more like you merely wish to make fun of people and their county. (something which if must do, surely making a topic for it would have been better idea,)
-Also claiming it was not meant to be up for debate seems a flimsy defence at best, because if you put such points, expect others to make comments on them.

=Now you may not have any respect for this topic or me, but I do feel that as a moderator you should conduct yourself with little more decorum as sarcastic comments can end up with flaming wars on the internet, something your meant to stop and also if do not think this topic is worth commenting on, do not comment, seems a logical answer, rather than to merely put supercilious comments about how amazing your judgment is and how that judgment is so beyond reproach as to make this how topic redundant, which is ironic considering that your only two points to this topic have been to constantly say the act don't say this or that (something which has been accepted and then moved on from as it not that point which is even in question) and to make a sarcastic comment at underling, which is plain pointless and childish,

[Face]

Fared, the purpose of my previous post was to point out a factual error in your prior post when you stated that the law had "already been repealed". An error which you haven't not even acknowledged in this new post. If you had not erred, I would not have discussed the matter concerning English law any further.

My initial mentioning of it was a tongue-in-cheek response to underling's 'fantasyland' comment. You're the only one who took it up as some sort of serious statement.

Yet, you admonish me that I should not make sarcastic comments, while in the same post you speak sarcastically to me.

"Face, while I am sure your vast search of the first page of bing gives you far greater knowledge than a fully trained human rights solicitor and lecturer."

Neither of us should comment any further on English law in this thread, and if you wish to have a discussion with me concerning it, then PM me.

[Fat1Fared]

-Fair enough, I will talk to through PM, there normally better places to talk anyway

[HarleyThomas1002]

Relevent to this thread.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/american-as-comics-the-immigration-debate/

[Chiru]

From my experience, only a United States citizen can have a driver's license. Legal immigrants actually can drive too, but they have a different license. Illegal immigrants have no license. The police always ask for your license when they pull you over, so by many of your arguments, is this unconstitutional?

From what I know, the Arizona immigration law is simply reinforcing the United States Federal Law. Immigrants are supposed to carry their documents at all times, and for once, the state will enforce it. I don't see a problem with it- the only people who should have a problem with it are the illegals or people affiliated with the illegals.

I find it ridiculous how people could be offended by this, when it is already law. Either they do not have knowledge of the federal law, or perhaps their emotions are getting in the way of the facts?

[HarleyThomas1002]

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p100/Sheepbot123/Forum%20Messages/1276487008032.jpg

[IamMcDoob]

Having lived in Arizona for the past 16 years, I can say without a doubt that I am a firm supporter of this bill. It may not be perfect, but it's necessary to help begin to fight back against the illegal immigrants. I'm open to any questions anyone has for me as to what it's like to live here, I've got plenty of stories to tell.