SG Broadband Community

There is also, relatively, a very small number of illegal immigrates, maybe we should ignore that problem, as well, since there numbers are so small.

Estimates are reaching the 20 million mark.

Sarahnn wrote:Estimates are reaching the 20 million mark.

Try 11 million: What is that like 3% of the population? This immigration issue is always overly hyperbolized.

jeremyboycool wrote:Try 11 million: What is that like 3% of the population? These immigrates have much less of an impact on our society then what it is made out to be.

And their financial impact is even smaller-- If they weren't illegal, they'd probably be uninsured and still taxing the health system, and when employed, they pay income tax which they'll get minimal social benefit from. If they were being paid under the table, it wouldn't matter if they're illegal or not since the government wouldn't be seeing any of that money anyway.

And we all pay sales tax.

jeremyboycool wrote:"It's explicitly stated in the bill."

So you read that in the bill? It'd be a time saver if you could show me where.

It's in the Amended Bill (Arizona HB 2162) that was passed a week after the original bill was passed.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/ ... -bill.html

Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed a bill modifying Arizona's controversial new immigration law, saying it will "make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal."

The governor's signature on House Bill 2162 modifies a measure signed into law by Brewer last week that requires police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect to be in the country illegally. Barring a successful legal challenge, the law goes into effect July 29.

HB 2162 bars race from being considered when deciding whether to inquire about a person's status, "except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

The bill also clarifies that law-enforcement officers shall inquire about the immigration status only of those they "stop, detain or arrest." The earlier bill simply said "contact." The change is designed to allay fears that officers would have to examine the papers of anyone they spoke to, including crime victims and witnesses.

"These changes specifically answer legal questions raised by some who expressed fears that the original law would somehow allow or lead to racial profiling," Brewer said in a statement .

jeremyboycool wrote:Try 11 million: What is that like 3% of the population? This immigration issue is always overly hyperbolized.

They've been saying around 12 million but I've seen a few reports out now that there may be as many as 20 million. I'll see if I can find a source.

Qwijib0 wrote:And their financial impact is even smaller-- If they weren't illegal, they'd probably be uninsured and still taxing the health system, and when employed, they pay income tax which they'll get minimal social benefit from. If they were being paid under the table, it wouldn't matter if they're illegal or not since the government wouldn't be seeing any of that money anyway.

And we all pay sales tax.

What's your point, please?

Sarahnn wrote:What's your point, please?

My point is that there is a lot of hoopla about nothing when it comes to illegal immigration. Yes, immigrants should be documented, and yes, those that are here and caught committing crimes should be deported--- but that spending state resources policing just immigration, and the negative image from this bill ends up as a net negative cash-wise for the state.

We need immigration reform, but this is a step backwards, not forwards.

Qwijib0 wrote:My point is that there is a lot of hoopla about nothing when it comes to illegal immigration. Yes, immigrants should be documented, and yes, those that are here and caught committing crimes should be deported--- but that spending state resources policing just immigration, and the negative image from this bill ends up as a net negative cash-wise for the state.

We need immigration reform, but this is a step backwards, not forwards.

So only if caught committing a crime right? What about the crime of being here illegally.
It needs to look just like the S Korea N Korea border. You cross into the U.S. we shoot you, no questions asked.

JC wrote:So only if caught committing a crime right? What about the crime of being here illegally.
It needs to look just like the S Korea N Korea border. You cross into the U.S. we shoot you, no questions asked.

hahah, you had me going there for a second, then I realized you were trying to be funny. Good one!

Qwijib0 wrote:My point is that there is a lot of hoopla about nothing when it comes to illegal immigration.

Yes, immigrants should be documented, and yes, those that are here illegally, whether they commit crimes or not should be deported

Fixed for accuracy

but that spending state resources policing just immigration, and the negative image from this bill ends up as a net negative cash-wise for the state.

The way I see it, the money spent on extra resources would be well worth it since you'll save money in the long run not having to deal with the extra resources that the State is already spending combating the current problem. Phoenix is the # 2 city IN THE WORLD when it comes to kidnapping, and I think you can figure it out for yourself as to why that is.

We need immigration reform, but this is a step backwards, not forwards.

According to polls, the majority of Arizonians beg to differ. Hopefully this is just step one, with the following steps addressing the employers hiring the illegals on the State level, and hopefully the Feds waking up and finally doing something about the border.

Qwijib0 wrote:but that spending state resources policing just immigration, and the negative image from this bill ends up as a net negative cash-wise for the state.

We need immigration reform, but this is a step backwards, not forwards.

Is there going to be specific funding strictly for immigration? My impression was that if anyone is acting suspicious, they are questioned and ID'd Like I was when I drank underage. Maybe you can explain the bill better since you're there.

Sarahnn wrote:Is there going to be specific funding strictly for immigration? My impression was that if anyone is acting suspicious, they are questioned and ID'd Like I was when I drank underage. Maybe you can explain the bill better since you're there.

Have you followed the recent laws concerning young drivers in NJ?

David wrote:Have you followed the recent laws concerning young drivers in NJ?

No I haven't. But I know this much. Whenever I've been pulled over for myriads of reasons including sobriety check points on the weekend, I have to relinquish my ID and they run a check on me. Of course, I'm a wasp female so why should anyone care?

I'll say one thing more,I have never minded and would not ever have a problem showing my ID if asked for ANY reason by ANY police/sheriff/CHP,etc,etc

no big deal IMO

I carry my ID anytime I leave my home,

police run license plates anytime they wish,nobody complains about that.

Sarahnn wrote:No I haven't. But I know this much. Whenever I've been pulled over for myriads of reasons including sobriety check points on the weekend, I have to relinquish my ID and they run a check on me. Of course, I'm a wasp female so why should anyone care?

Perhaps it is my NJ sensibilities or the harassment faced during my long hair youth, I do not like being pulled over by the police. Simply put, we are on a schedule while commuting. The fifteen to twenty minutes can be more than an inconvenience. Sadly, predatory police districts (ones who actively seek to dispense tickets solely to fill their coffers) need little in this state to detain a driver. This has been compounded with recent laws forbidding late night driving by teens. It is on the books here in the Garden State, that such young drivers must have a red sticker on their license plate. This is a target for law enforcement as well as car-jackers.

I apologize for the indelicate off topic rant.

JBrazen wrote:
Fixed for accuracy

The way I see it, the money spent on extra resources would be well worth it since you'll save money in the long run not having to deal with the extra resources that the State is already spending combating the current problem. Phoenix is the # 2 city IN THE WORLD when it comes to kidnapping, and I think you can figure it out for yourself as to why that is.

According to polls, the majority of Arizonians beg to differ. Hopefully this is just step one, with the following steps addressing the employers hiring the illegals on the State level, and hopefully the Feds waking up and finally doing something about the border.

Because phoenix is a shithole?

I kid, I kid.

My continued point is that we _already_ deport illegal aliens who commit crimes in this state. The kidnappers (since that's your immigrant crime of choice) would be arrested and deported whether or not this law was on the books or not. At best, assuming no profiling or bullshit cop arrests, this law does NOTHING for the actual problem, and at worst it will embolden cops already prone to profiling to do it more.

And in the mean time, the state gets **** on, and rightfully so, for the retardedness of this law due to its potential for abuse.

As for polls:

Polls can be crafted to create any outcome desired.

Sarahnn wrote:Is there going to be specific funding strictly for immigration? My impression was that if anyone is acting suspicious, they are questioned and ID'd Like I was when I drank underage. Maybe you can explain the bill better since you're there.

No, there is no provision in the bill for extra funding for the policing of illegal immigrants.

And your point of underage drinking is a good one-- It's relatively easy to spot someone who is under the influence, and generally speaking, able to reasonably ascertain someone's age range from visual inspection, so an officer has every right to ask for ID.

What does an illegal look like? (given the 40% and 38% respectively legal latino populations in Phoenix and Tucson)

This bill was not crafted to catch the canadians in the state....

David wrote:Perhaps it is my NJ sensibilities or the harassment faced during my long hair youth, I do not like being pulled over by the police. Simply put, we are on a schedule while commuting. The fifteen to twenty minutes can be more than an inconvenience. Sadly, predatory police districts (ones who actively seek to dispense tickets solely to fill their coffers) need little in this state to detain a driver. This has been compounded with recent laws forbidding late night driving by teens. It is on the books here in the Garden State, that such young drivers must have a red sticker on their license plate. This is a target for law enforcement as well as car-jackers.

I apologize for the indelicate off topic rant.

Interesting though. If no one was ever pulled over, we wouldn't need cops on the road at which point the real idiots would be causing all kinds of grief. Oh by the way, I hate being pulled over and I agree about the red sticker.

Qwijib0 wrote:No, there is no provision in the bill for extra funding for the policing of illegal immigrants.

I couldn't understand why you said the money could go for something better.

And your point of underage drinking is a good one-- It's relatively easy to spot someone who is under the influence, and generally speaking, able to reasonably ascertain someone's age range from visual inspection, so an officer has every right to ask for ID.

Yep and no one likes it, and I think they are fully aware of that.

What does an illegal look like? (given the 40% and 38% respectively legal latino populations in Phoenix and Tucson)

This bill was not crafted to catch the canadians in the state....

If you think back to the Ft. Hood shootings, it was not politically correct to draw attention to the shooter for his Islamic radicalism. If cops can ID me, why can't they ID a Latino acting suspiciously? Does it have to do with politics?

Sarahnn wrote:I couldn't understand why you said the money could go for something better.

Yep and no one likes it, and I think they are fully aware of that.



If you think back to the Ft. Hood shootings, it was not politically correct to draw attention to the shooter for his Islamic radicalism. If cops can ID me, why can't they ID a Latino acting suspiciously? Does it have to do with politics?

The state budget could be spent on anything better-- the real problem is the provision in the bill for citizens suing if they think a department is not adequately enforcing the law, meaning police forces must spent time on that specifically to head off lawsuits. This is unique, the law against speeding does not specifically enumerate the right of citizens to sue the state troopers for not pulling over enough speeders. Think about how absurd it would be. The diversion of resources to enforcing this specifically will be a tangible time and money drain from other police duties.

As for your second point, what 'suspicious behavior' is specific to illegal aliens?

Qwijib0 wrote:The state budget could be spent on anything better-- the real problem is the provision in the bill for citizens suing if they think a department is not adequately enforcing the law, meaning police forces must spent time on that specifically to head off lawsuits. This is unique, the law against speeding does not specifically enumerate the right of citizens to sue the state troopers for not pulling over enough speeders. Think about how absurd it would be. The diversion of resources to enforcing this specifically will be a tangible time and money drain from other police duties.

As for your second point, what 'suspicious behavior' is specific to illegal aliens?

I'm sure that in the course of an officer's day he doesn't just have to deal with latino-looking people. Other ethnic groups commit crimes. So, suspicious behavior is just that.

Sarahnn wrote:I'm sure that in the course of an officer's day he doesn't just have to deal with latino-looking people. Other ethnic groups commit crimes. So, suspicious behavior is just that.

Right, but "being an illegal alien" is not an identifiable behavior. A man with a torch next to a warehouse is suspected of being an arsonist. A guy with a gun in a store waving it around is suspected of being a robber.

There is no obvious outwardly visible behavior that might indicate one is in the state without papers. So you're left with:

A)Nobody is reasonably suspicious, law not enforced, department sued for not enforcing the law.

B)Latinos are the most likely to be here illegally, so you question them far more than other races, law promotes racism, department sued for violating civil rights.

The likely outcome is somewhere in the middle, which is also not good.

Qwijib0 wrote:Right, but "being an illegal alien" is not an identifiable behavior. A man with a torch next to a warehouse is suspected of being an arsonist. A guy with a gun in a store waving it around is suspected of being a robber.

There is no obvious outwardly visible behavior that might indicate one is in the state without papers. So you're left with:

A)Nobody is reasonably suspicious, law not enforced, department sued for not enforcing the law.

B)Latinos are the most likely to be here illegally, so you question them far more than other races, law promotes racism, department sued for violating civil rights.

The likely outcome is somewhere in the middle, which is also not good.

I'd love to see a copy of the law. How it's worded, what it entails. Then I could better discuss it.

Sarahnn wrote:I'd love to see a copy of the law. How it's worded, what it entails. Then I could better discuss it.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... j1cegoxNpg

Qwijib0 wrote:http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... j1cegoxNpg

Thanks

Qwijib0 wrote:B)Latinos are the most likely to be here illegally, so you question them far more than other races, law promotes racism, department sued for violating civil rights.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Of course Mexicans and other Central Americans are more than likely to be questioned, because like you said, they're the ones that are more than likely to be illegal, so how does is that promoting racism? I would think that the legal Mexican's in the Arizona and other States with severe illegal immigration problems should be mad at the illegals for making things harder on them and giving them such a negative image.

JBrazen wrote:This makes no sense whatsoever. Of course Mexicans and other Central Americans are more than likely to be questioned, because like you said, they're the ones that are more than likely to be illegal, so how does is that promoting racism? I would think that the legal Mexican's in the Arizona and other States with severe illegal immigration problems should be mad at the illegals for making things harder on them and giving them such a negative image.

How do you differentiate between someone that is Mexican, or of Mexican descent?

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the NJ State Police and their racial profiling of black people that was eventually deemed illegal.


The point is this, in this country, everyone is presumed innocent. If we go down this current route, then EVERYONE, you included is to be presumed guilty. There are white people here illegally as well, and black folks, and yellow folks...

IMO, if you are here illegally and you get CAUGHT doing illegal stuff...you're gone. Simple as that.

Qwijib0 wrote:Right, but "being an illegal alien" is not an identifiable behavior. A man with a torch next to a warehouse is suspected of being an arsonist. A guy with a gun in a store waving it around is suspected of being a robber.

There is no obvious outwardly visible behavior that might indicate one is in the state without papers. So you're left with:

A)Nobody is reasonably suspicious, law not enforced, department sued for not enforcing the law.

B)Latinos are the most likely to be here illegally, so you question them far more than other races, law promotes racism, department sued for violating civil rights.

The likely outcome is somewhere in the middle, which is also not good.

What if they can't speak english? Is that just cause? I might consider that an identifiable behavior.

SlyOneDoofy wrote:What if they can't speak english? Is that just cause? I might consider that an identifiable behavior.

How do you know they can't without unjustly interrogating them first?


Here's the issue:

SlyOneDoofy wrote:If you rip up a road you replace it to "as good as it was or better condition*

you tax attitude is wrong.

"you tax attitude"?


Does bad grammar/spelling indicate a possible terrorism suspect? To me, you sound just like one of those guys at 7-11. And we all know that turban wearing men are linked to geographical areas where terrorism is the norm.

Are you a terrorist Slyone? Why are you here on SG?

What has this great country of mine become, just demand everyones papers, just get over it.

JawZ wrote:How do you differentiate between someone that is Mexican, or of Mexican descent?

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the NJ State Police and their racial profiling of black people that was eventually deemed illegal.


The point is this, in this country, everyone is presumed innocent. If we go down this current route, then EVERYONE, you included is to be presumed guilty. There are white people here illegally as well, and black folks, and yellow folks...

IMO, if you are here illegally and you get CAUGHT doing illegal stuff...you're gone. Simple as that.

This

Here's what I don't get.

If Obama thinks the Arizona State bill is so bad, why does he tolerate the exact same law on the Federal level? (actually, I do get it, the question is rhetorical)

Miggs wrote:What has this great country of mine become, just demand everyones papers, just get over it.

Are you posting from Russia?

Joking aside, this is what is great about America. We can openly discuss our concerns.

Sarahnn wrote:Interesting though. If no one was ever pulled over, we wouldn't need cops on the road at which point the real idiots would be causing all kinds of grief. Oh by the way, I hate being pulled over and I agree about the red sticker.

Of course obvious scofflaws should be detained, however that is not always the case? I will give you a personal experience, yes this happened.

It was early afternoon on a beautiful Saturday. I was bringing my three small children home after making purchases at the health food and bagel store. A police officer decides to pull me over. I pull my documents and offer them up. He looks inside my truck and asks what I had been drinking. I show him a bottle of ginger beer (spiced ginger ale). He said, "Oh, I thought you were drinking a beer." I say, "I have my three children in my car, why in G-d's name would you think I was consuming alcohol while driving them about?!". His answer, "You would be surprised". Discretion kept me silent after that point.

This could be someone suspected of having a cell phone to their ear or a seat belt unbuckled (Both primary offenses in NJ). Thanks to new laws, perhaps a driver who appears young, or hispanic.

JBrazen wrote:This makes no sense whatsoever. Of course Mexicans and other Central Americans are more than likely to be questioned, because like you said, they're the ones that are more than likely to be illegal, so how does is that promoting racism? I would think that the legal Mexican's in the Arizona and other States with severe illegal immigration problems should be mad at the illegals for making things harder on them and giving them such a negative image.

The legal immigrants _are_ generally the ones who are the most upset about illegal immigration (after all, they jumped through the hoops, why shouldn't these illegals?), but this law will adversely affect their right to walk around this state as free citizens without being presumed illegal.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Sarahnn wrote:Here's what I don't get.

If Obama thinks the Arizona State bill is so bad, why does he tolerate the exact same law on the Federal level? (actually, I do get it, the question is rhetorical)

The impact of this law is much greater because there are not federal agents patrolling the streets asking people for papers during the course of other duties. Federal immigration officials do things like investigation and research before doing sweeps to deport people.

Qwijib0 wrote:The impact of this law is much greater because there are not federal agents patrolling the streets asking people for papers during the course of other duties. Federal immigration officials do things like investigation and research before doing sweeps to deport people.

I agree that a law is only effective when it is enforced. But, I'm not sure how that addresses the fact (if the comparison is accurate) that Obama has reacted to that law at State level but not Federal level.

Sarahnn wrote:I agree that a law is only effective when it is enforced. But, I'm not sure how that addresses the fact (if the comparison is accurate) that Obama has reacted to that law at State level but not Federal level.

The federal statutes do not require that federal agents, during the course of other duties, inquire about immigration status, nor do they specifically enumerate the right of a citizen to sue the federal government for not enforcing immigration properly.

JawZ wrote:How do you know they can't without unjustly interrogating them first?


Here's the issue:




"you tax attitude"?


Does bad grammar/spelling indicate a possible terrorism suspect? To me, you sound just like one of those guys at 7-11. And we all know that turban wearing men are linked to geographical areas where terrorism is the norm.

Are you a terrorist Slyone? Why are you here on SG?

So if a cop pulls someone over and asks them if they know why they were pulled over and they respond "no speak english"....would that be a reason to ask if they are illegal?

And for why I am here? I'm actually questioning that now after your comment. I could say I was looking for thoughtful discussion but from your comment I doubt that will be coming soon.

Read what I said. I said I "might" consider it an identifiable behavior. I didn't say all non-english speaking people should be questioned.

But, you are right...we shouldn't even ask questions at the border either. You might insult someone and that would be so terrible.

Get some balls...

SlyOneDoofy wrote:So if a cop pulls someone over and asks them if they know why they were pulled over and they respond "no speak english"....would that be a reason to ask if they are illegal?

And for why I am here? I'm actually questioning that now after your comment.

Cops just don't pull people over...they have to have probable cause. Residents and Citizens are NOT the same. Does someone with a Green Card need to speak English? What about H Visas?


See, this is the problem with people like you. You don't think before you speak. You're just the echo chamber for other mindless twits.