New Arizona Law

#101

Mith: Under the Constitutional of the United States, people have a right to privacy, defined as being secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. If you want to search, you have to have probable cause or a warrant. Simply believing someone to be “illegal” is insufficient. If you want to search that person, their house, their papers (including immigration status) and other items (cars, places of business, etc), you need to go to court and get their okay in the form of a warrant specifically stating what’s to be searched and why.

If you see someone on the street and, even if you’re reasonably suspicious that they’re in the country illegally, constitutionally, you have to go to court and get a warrant to search that person and their stuff. You can’t just go up to that person and get them to show their papers without that warrant. The American people still have rights under the Constitution and it is my hope that the Supreme Court will so viciously strike this down that the other states that are pondering the same exact thing will not enact it.

It’s so blatantly unconstitutional, it’s not even funny. And the only trait that a police officer can use to divine whether someone is illegal or not is…you got it: Their race.

Because, let’s play, “Who’s the Illegal?”


or

#102

MSNBC

It all gets down to technicalities of the language that frankly don’t matter. It is up to the individual to decide whether targeting hispanics because most illegals are hispanic is right, and tags like “racist” are meaningless. I believe it is right, since the discrimination is factually based and not based upon hate.

No, the media and people like the NAACP have time and time again proven themselves to portray every case of police hurting a black guy as racist. And they are idiots.

#103

Yeah I’m sort of informed on American Law and the whole amendments thing since I’ve been taking International Law classes at uni, but I’m still in my first year so I’m not that into it yet.

But from the comments I could see that you had legislation that stop these things from happening. And it’s also a known fact that laws made based on subjective terms tend to become highly inefficient and prejudicial, unless it specifies strictly under what circumstances a law-enforcer can take action. Vague stuff like this opens room for abuse.

Decisions on what is reasonably suspicious are not for police officers to make, but to the judiciary system. It should be up to the people who study and are selected for their impartiality/personal merit (read a Judge) to decide whether a citizen’s fundamental right must be overruled, not to some random cop.

#104

so you admit it’s discrimination but you still think it’s right?

#105

O_o

#106

When someone starts using connotations as the foundation of their argument, they know they’ve already lost.

I don’t know about you, faceless, but racism is and always has been racial discrimination, with or without hate. Wanting to have a white-only bathroom? Racist, whether it’s because you hate other pigments or because you just really love crapping next to fellow whites. We tend to ignore racial discrimination on the basis of love, because we don’t want to admit we’re using racial discrimination by visiting asian porn sites, but with that [literally] shitty example, we can see the intent of a racist effort still has a racist outcome.

A Chinese restaurant who won’t hire a white dude to wait tables, even if he knows Mandarin? That’s racism too, even if customers love the place to look like China. It works both ways.

#107

Back to connotations. When a group of people are a majority in a certain demographic, checking that group of people is discrimination, but it is also right.

EDIT: Meh, might as well address Tiki’s first point. I applied connotations just to point out that the words being thrown around here are not truly thought out, and only effective due to connotation.

#108

No, it isn’t right because you’re ascertaining the motives of innocent people simply because they happen to share a trait with a particular party. That’s the sign of a gross incompetent that can’t find the party in particular so just blanket accuses everyone in that group with the actions of that particular individual. Even if 100% of your suspects are members of a specific group, that doesn’t mean that everyone in that specific group is now a suspect based solely on the shared trait.

Good grief, man.

#109

that sentence pretty much illustrates everything i need to know about how you think. :wink:

in other words, you’re a sheltered ignorant white boy jacking off in suburbia :freeman:

#110

Ballsopt: The way I see Dino’s argument was: “If you add a liquid to another liquid, they’ll mix. I don’t have the background knowledge about oil and water, but I do know that they’ll mix if you put them together.”

#111

Alright, I exaggerated. I was arguing with Nutsack, truth is secondary. In reality, I recognize some of these cases are truly based upon race. But, many are not, and are just blacks wanting to feel like they are still hated by “the man”.

Also, Daniel, if that check is something as simple as finding a valid drivers license, then it is acceptable. If they are bringing people in to the police based solely on race, thats a problem. Although, I’ll say again, in this case there is questionable value in checking at all.

#112

the man doesn’t necessarily hate them, he’d just rather have them out of the way.

/Fact.

Bscly

#113

Except that merely having a valid driver’s license or government issued state ID is insufficient evidence for immigration status. And you are not required to carry either if you’re a citizen of this country. Proof of identity != Proof of legal immigration status.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked DinoThrasher then (because I got absolutely no where there): By what measure should the police use for “reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally”? What measure would YOU use to determine their legal status?

#114

someonrandm’s just going to try to use that to justify it again. this is getting pretty predictable.

#115

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UPGJ3YzkKs

#116

I think we all are pretty predictable, since this debate is going in circles.

#117

Your case more resembles a one-winged messerschmidt in a downward spiral, and your opponents are more like vultures riding a thermal, but yeah, we all look pretty circular from above.

#118

#119

Translation: I think you’re wrong and we are right.

#120

The only thing that this law will achieve is to further isolate already insular communities and entrench institutional racism and descrimination. Its exactly the same thing as racial profiling; in fact, it is racial profiling. No ifs or buts about it.

The worst thing is that this probably wont be effective anyway. It’ll just discourage people who are illegals from actually engaging in society and being productive (i.e. they’ll just stay at home or underground), and it’ll further isolate those who are legitimately here from those same communities, since they’re seen as being ‘them’, rather than ‘us’. Its not illegal Canadians they’re going to be targeting, just illegal Hispanics, and it doesn’t matter that that’s the dominant group that are illegal immigrants in Arizona, the effect of the law stays the same.

Furthermore, surely they have some form of identification if they got into the country, such as a fake passport? Which they can use to trick and beguile the police into believing is legitimate? Hence, you get all of the harms and none of the gains.

If you want a solution to the issue, perhaps you should do something like grant amnesty to those illegals who are already here? Or change your immigration policy so that you work with the countries, rather than against them? That way you get more effective border patrolling, which means less illegals get through, and the local populations who are already here illegally get identified and can be free to contribute to your society.

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.