I believe it was The Daily Show that had a reporter covering the immigration story…on cinco de mayo, at a mexican restaurant. He asked two drunk women which amendment protected against illegal search and seizure… they had no idea of course…
Then he asked the all-hispanic kitchen crew the same question, and they all replied ¡Cuatrooo!
It’s called a “joke.”
Edit: But to be fair, that was a little unnecessary, Xalener.
You should of just called him a prick and leave it at that.
The whole stay in Tech and Gaming applies to you as well at this point.
Piss off. 
Anyway, I don’t support anti-illegal immigration laws (it’s uneconomical, they have a positive impact on the economy, and really, who gives a shit?)… but if we HAVE TO do this (like, say, if they somehow had a negative impact on the economy. idk how, it’s just an example), then I don’t have many qualms with this particular law (other than my existing dislike towards the “dey took ma jawbs” mentality some people have.)
I mean, if they know that a murderer has brown hair, and they look for people with brown hair, is that discriminatory against brown haired people?
Then again, I don’t know all the details. What qualifies as a “suspect” in this case?
Not that it matters anyway. This bill supports anti-illegal immigration and I don’t.
Thank you for posting on topic.
Anyway, from what I can tell, you want to have open borders. I we had open borders we really would be screwed because there would be a massive influx of laborers who really would begin to take away jobs from other Americans. As is, many are deterred by the very existence of a border. With out it, problems.
On top of this, if there is an open border, that means they begin to get more open advocacy, and laws begin to get made around them benefiting them, non-citizens, and actual citizens get screwed.
make them citizens
It really isn’t that racist and it doesn’t break the 4th Amendment:
The 4th Amendment clearly uses the phrasing “unreasonable”, so if the law is properly used then the search is not unreasonable. Also, even without this law police already have the right to stop and question people who appear suspicious:
Asking them about immigration to determine if they are illegal immigrants would not be considered “additional matters” since the purpose of the stop was to determine if the person was an illegal immigrant or not.
I’m not seeing the issue here. They’re called “illegal” immigrants for a reason, so of course we’ll charge them.
This seems a bit over the top, though. Citizens have the right to demand their law enforcement fully uphold the law for their protection, but to be able to sue for something like this comes across as over-reacting.
So basically from what I can see, all that this law is doing is taking laws and precedents that already exist and re-writing them so they sound slightly more racist.
How you would enforce this law I’m not sure, since how you can tell from “suspicious” activity someone is an illegal immigrant isn’t very clear. However, if such a thing can be defined and used as the basis for what they can/can’t use to justify a search then there isn’t anything in this law that doesn’t already exist.
I have to say, having just read the bill, it really is no where near as bad as some idiots say. You need a valid drivers license. My God. That’s terrible.
I still have covered how I don’t think it would work, but it is no where as bad as people make it out to be.
As a side note, amnesty is stupidity. To legalize all these citizens would basically say: Yes we have laws, but they don’t matter. Just ignore them. We don’t care.
If they want to come here illegally, fine, they don’t get the rights of citizens, will be subject to deportation if they are arrested, and will not have the opportunities of a citizen. That is the price.
Are the laborers really the ones taking jobs from Americans? Is someone going up to an American, giving them the beat down and then assuming their identity just to get a job from an unwitting employer? Or is it the employer who sees an opportunity to screw Americans so they don’t have to pay an American a decent salary?
Imagine this: If you had American Lawn Care Center come and mow your lawn for $100, but then someone says that he’ll do it for $50, then that’s a $50 savings, isn’t it? You’d be foolish to go with ALCC, right? Capitalism at its best, am I right?
Exactly my point. You’ve just screwed over hardworking decent Americans because someone else said he’d do it for less. You’ve taken jobs away from Americans. This person who did it for less is not taking anything away from any American…YOU ARE.
Every company that hires illegals is guilty of taking jobs away from Americans. But I see no movement on the Right to stop this from happening. All they can do is blame the illegal who can’t take a job from anyone without an employer enabling them.
Actually, it is. Whenever someone is stopped by police, the first thing that’s done is verify their identity. That’s no problem. They don’t, however, verify if they’re supposed to be in the country. That is excessive.
If you have reasonable cause to believe that someone is in the country illegally, then go after them for that, using the full power of the government to do so. Great! Go for it! However, a blanket ‘warrant’ to search whether you are or not is not only unreasonable, it’s unconstitutional. It’s a fishing expedition because you have no reason to believe, regardless of WHO you have detained, is illegal without evidence.
If you have evidence that they’re illegal, then you go after them with that and this law is unnecessary. If you don’t have evidence that they committed an illegal act, then you can’t go after them. That’s one of the foundational principles upon which our country was founded.
This law is highly unconstitutional and it’s flabbergasting to me how anyone can defend it.
Huh, that’s odd… the description of the law I quoted specifically mentions that you have to have this before you can begin the search. I’m not sure why you’re yelling at me, I included all of this in my argument already.
Also, to me, determining if someone is legally allowed in the country fits under the description of “determining identity.” If the officer while checking a persons identity finds something suspicious, then under already existing laws and precedents the officer has the right to question it. Again, this including immigration facts.
Really, this law introduces nothing that wasn’t already present in US law. Police already had the right to do this, it just wasn’t specifically mentioned.
I’m not yelling at you. If you have the evidence that they’re in the country illegally, then the existing laws already cover that; there’s not need for a blanket law that gives police carte blanche to investigate people they just “suspect” of being in the country illegally WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Determining whether someone is legally in the country is a different charge than determining someone’s identity for the purposes of enforcement of a broken law.
You’re right, police already have the power, but this gives them an extra power (a blanket search) that they didn’t have before and this extra power is the unconstitutional part.
Verifying your identity != Verifying your immigration status
Except that as I’ve already quoted, the law already has this. Police under current US law have the right to question anyone suspicious. Again, what constitutes suspicious activity for this is very difficult to say, but if one can find it then this law provides nothing new. There is already a law that gives Police this very power, and it’s been taken through the Supreme Court plenty of times. Since they define what is “constitutional”, the current US law defines this new law as being constitutional.
Again, this assuming the Police do indeed have full reason to be suspicious.
But the question becomes, what makes them suspicious in the first place? Clearly, if the law already is there, what is the need for an additional law that does exactly the same thing?
I don’t know, but that’s what I’m saying. How can the law be unconstitutional, racist, and terrible if it doesn’t change anything that people aren’t already ok with?
You are trying to argue the law is unconstitutional. However, if constitutional laws already exist that allow Police to already exert these powers, then the new law can’t be unconstitutional since all it does is reiterate constitutional powers.
What I’m saying is that the new law is DIFFERENT from the existing law.
Explain to me how? Again, it isn’t anything new. You’re complaining that this law allows police to ask questions with nothing more than a suspicion, when that’s something the police could already do.
Okay, can you do me a favor? Point out where, in Arizona state law prior to this law, that is says that police, for any lawful stop, can check the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally and what constitutes “reasonable suspicion”.
My concern is not for taking away jobs from Americans now. My concern is that they will end up equal on the job stage if borders are opened. At this point, they will be taking away jobs Americans would do.
It’s not a specific state law, I think it’s federal. I already posted this information. I don’t have links to the actual court cases or laws pertaining, but I’ve seen them before.
I, again, don’t know what would be proper suspicion for such an act. However, if someone can successfully define this, then suspicion is already a reason to detain someone for questioning.
No. Stop thinking like a christian and trying to find convoluted ways to justify discrimination. Have people learned nothing from history? :hmph:
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.
