jump to last post 1-26 of 26 discussions (192 posts)

Arizona versus the Federal government and California

  1. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 6 years ago

    I support the Arizona Immigration Law and I'll gladly tell you why....I've read it.  All of it.  I've been slammed from every corner for supporting profiling.  I always ask my critic, "Have you read the law?"  the answer is usually a resounding yes yet, when I ask them to point out the section of the law that permits racial profiling the answer is always, "Well, I don't know exactly where it is in the law but its there I'm sure."

    The same pre-judgment is readily apparent at the federal level as well.  Eric 'I haven't been briefed yet' Holder and Nitwit Napolitano both soundly condemn the state of Arizona (along with Obama, a multitude of Mayors and Governors, and 99% of the media) as unconstitutional.  In congressional testimony both were forced to admit they'd not read the law yet they were both sure it was unconstitutional and promoted profiling.  Napolitano went as far as to say she wouldn't have signed it had she been governor even though she's never read it.  Ain't it a bitch when facts interfer with ideology?

    Fact:  The Arizona law is a carbon copy of the federal law.
    Fact:  California has the same law.  Look it up, California Penal Code section 834(b).

    The difference....one chooses to enforce the law, the other does not.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I guess you need to read between the lines and the fudgy part where an excuse is offered by the police to cover up the fact that the person was held as a suspect because of the suspicion of being an illegal in the first place.

      Letter of the law, you are right. Real world, you know how it can be abused.

      1. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Between the lines that specifically prohibit racial profiling? Are we back to the super-practical position that you cannot consider any law legitimate?

        1. tobey100 profile image60
          tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sab Oh is absolutely on the money.  Abuse of the law is a lame argument usually offeder when all else fails.  Any law can be abused.  Obama's aunt gets to stay in Boston even though she entered this country illegally, has been ordered deported twice and refused to leave, donated to the presidential campaign illegally, lived in public housing illegally and was on welfare illegally yet a judge in Boston has now ordered she gets to stay.  Is it only conservatives that abuse the law?  That seems to be the argument.

        2. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I would like to carry on a coherent conversation with you but it always turns into a mudslinging contest with you so I would politfully like to bow out and discuss this with someone willing to reason their way through a conversation, and that ain't you.

      2. tobey100 profile image60
        tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I forgot to ask.....rhamson, have you read the law?  It's only ten pages long.  Not being a smart aleck or anything, just wondering.  If you have and are leary of profiling, that's one thing.  If you haven't read it, well..........

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes I have and the area that is fuzzy is this:

          B. FOR ANY LEGITIMATE CONTACT MADE BY AN OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS
          21 STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE
          22 WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
          23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
          , A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE
          24 TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

          The reasonable part is the fudgy area and one I think is open to interpretation.

          1. Bill Miller profile image60
            Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I have not read the law so I will assume that what you wrote is the actual language. Most laws use the same language, so I assume you object to all laws using the word reasonable?

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It's a loophole both sides have used for many different laws. How do you think criminals get off by crafty lawyers.

              The police use it as well as to get around the intent of many laws.

              I did a ride along with the police and found that in most cases they are correct in their gut feelings with a suspect.  But on a particular ride we were headed to a call and the officer I was with called in a black male "suspicious player" who was just walking along the side of the road.  I asked him what he thought and he said "just stirring something up to see".

              It was all over the radio in seconds and the individual was found out to be walking to the gas station to get some gas for his empty car a few miles back.  He was released and we later found out he had to take his wife to the hospital and ran out of gas. Nobody offered him a ride.

              Not only was it unreasonable but caused some hardship to the guy and his wife.

              True it is only one story but I have heard of others to question "reasonable"

              1. Bill Miller profile image60
                Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Then its a good thing the Officer is not the final authority on what "reasonable" is! Their Sgt/Lt/Commanders go over every arrest, CA/DA also go over every arrest! If the officer acted reasonably then the case will proceed if not it is discarded...reasonably

                1. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I hope you are right but nothing came from the incident.  My point is there was no reason to detain the guy and the officer had none to offer.

                  Now had the guy been carrying some drugs or if he was a suspect in a robbery I can understand that charges would follow and the officer would have been justified in his labeling the guy suspicious. Just stirring something up to see wasn't enough to be reasonable in my understanding from him.  Did I mention the guy was black.  Well the officer did when explaining on the radio who the suspicious character was and where.

                  I have been detained as a suspected bank robber because I matched the description of the robber and was driving a similar car.  I did not mind and understood why I had been pulled over.  While it was upsetting I don't feel I was profiled.

                  The guy on the side of the road was.

                  1. Bill Miller profile image60
                    Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm a little confused, you said "Now had the guy been carrying some drugs". How would the officer know what he may or may not be carrying unless he is detained and questioned? That seems to me to be unreasonable, but you seem ok with it.

    2. ChimPhungHoang profile image61
      ChimPhungHoangposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What part of "illegal" do some people not understand?
      i would gladly show my CA license at every door--every store, restaurant, library, school, whatever--if it meant I would get cheaper car insurance and lower taxes AND SO FORTH!

  2. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Yup.

    And it is a thing of beauty.

    I can't wait till every state has one.

    1. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      TMM, it appears Oklahoma is gearing up to be our next contestant to win.  I hope so.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well I think the plan of attack that this represents is counterproductive and does not get at the heart of a solution.

      The illegals come here to work.  Take that opportunity away and you take away the problem.  It would work a lot faster and cost a lot less and hold the people here legally responsible.

      1. tobey100 profile image60
        tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Better yet, both need to be held accountable under the LAW.  If you hire them it's illegal.  If they're here and undocumented, it's illegal.  It's about time someone stepped up and enforced the law of the land.  The feds aren't gonna do it.  They'd lose too many illegal alien votes.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I understand what you are saying and I believe the problem needs some laws with teeth in them.  But circumventing the feds to enact any legislation is counterproductive.

          It is quite simple.  Levy a hefty on employers who hire illegal workers and provide competant identification and it will go away.

          I know as an employer I would absolutely shy away from hiring anyone who had suspicious ID because of the resulting legal problems and costs that I would incur.

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "But circumventing the feds to enact any legislation is counterproductive."


            "Circumventing"?! Are you $@$$^^&^#@* me? The whole point of the Arizona law is that the #@@!!#$^&(&*%$ feds have very deliberately NOT been doing their job!

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Circumvent the profiling in case you did not get it.

              1. Sab Oh profile image60
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The Arizona law takes greater pains to avoid profiling than the federal law upon which it is based.

        2. Sab Oh profile image60
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Better yet, both need to be held accountable under the LAW.  If you hire them it's illegal.  If they're here and undocumented, it's illegal.  It's about time someone stepped up and enforced the law of the land.  The feds aren't gonna do it.  They'd lose too many illegal alien votes."


          Once again, right on the nose.

          1. livelonger profile image88
            livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ah, yes. As we all know, illegal aliens comprise one of the most important electorates in the country.

            Or did you mean "Hispanic" votes? Funny how conservatives seem to confuse the two...

            1. TMMason profile image72
              TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              When half to two thirds of the vote is Illegals... it is quite easy to confuse the two.

              Thats another reason they need to go.

              They have a strangle hold on our political system.

              I mean when the Congressional Hispanic Caucus can claim such prestiged groups as La'Raza on thier member-ship list.

              Then maybe we ought to consider the impact of thier votes a lil more seriously.

            2. tobey100 profile image60
              tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Nope, liberals THINK we confuse the two and do their very best to convince all others we confuse the two.  An illegal alien means extactly that, someone who has entered and remained in this country illegally.  Doesn't matter where you came from, Holland, France, England or yes, Mexico.  Just so happens Mexico is Arizona's problem.  If there were a mass influx of illegal Canadians the reults would be the same.  Nice try though.  Your comment is a classic example of 'baiting'.  They must send ya'll to a school or something.  My grandmother, 95, came to this country from Wales.  She was required to learn the language, live here 5 years and pass a test on U.S. History before she became a citizen.  She did it the right way.  Why should those that BROKE THE LAW be excused?

              1. TMMason profile image72
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                god bless her.

              2. livelonger profile image88
                livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Then what illegal alien voting bloc are you talking about, then?

                At least TMMason more or less admits he's prejudiced.

                1. TMMason profile image72
                  TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Not predjudice.

                  Realistic.

                  If you don't think the Hispanic illegal vote makes up a good chunk of the left's voting power. Then your blind or stupid live.

                  And I know your not stupid live.

                  I have spoken to you many times. You are smart enough to see what that bloc represents in terms of office seats and districts.

                  It is not predjudiced or racist to point at something or someone that is a problem.

                  Regardless of thier race.

                  To bad if that is to much reality for all of you.

                  1. livelonger profile image88
                    livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    "most of them are probably illegal anyway, so I tend to confuse them" is something you want to defend?

                2. tobey100 profile image60
                  tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  What does prejudice have to do with anything other than the fact that you dearly want this issue to be about racial prejudice?  You honestly believe that illegals in this country don't vote and that they would vote against those that are against deporation and in favor of amnesty?  Look up the definition of Illegal.  You can not cloud the issue by throwing out charges of prejudice or profiling.  I'm sure it makes you feel more compassionate but the fact is IT'S ILLEGAL immigrants we're talking about.  Not their color, not their place of origin.  It's their LEGAL status.  In typical fashion your side can't refute Sab Oh's argument so his intelligence is questioned.  You have no factual argument against my stance so I must be prejudiced.  Brilliant.  Using your techniques I can state that since my mother is a full blooded Iroquois Indian everyone needs to get the hell out of my yard.  We were here first so the land should revert to us because the white man was prejudiced against my people.

                  1. livelonger profile image88
                    livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Tobey

                    Illegals can not vote. Not in the US, at least. Even those here legally, on work visas, can not. Why is that you can't grasp this simple fact?

                    And, as it's been said here umpteenth times, the issue is those here LEGALLY, either legal immigrants or citizens, who are Hispanic are going to be targeted and humiliated by being singled out.

                    Think they won't? Look at TMMason's response. He's not alone.

                    And stop ascribing to me things you think I said that I didn't.

      2. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That is hogwash.

        Most come here to get what they can. If not because le'Eme and the other cartels send 'em on over t , "work".

        If they work it is a plus. And when they work they under-cut the wages for the scale or going rate. Then all sufferer from thier incursion.

        Man I am tired of hearing how they are all poor lil migrant workers. Alot of them are not. Iwould dare say at least half of them are not.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That is hogwash.

          Your opinion.

          Most come here to get what they can. If not because le'Eme and the other cartels send 'em on over t , "work".

          Once again your opinion.  I have met many illegal workers on the job and not one of them is in the drug trade that I can tell. If they were they would not be doing the work I have met them through.

          If they work it is a plus. And when they work they under-cut the wages for the scale or going rate. Then all sufferer from thier incursion.

          If they work is a plus.  I don't think so because I agree with the rest of your above statement.

          Man I am tired of hearing how they are all poor lil migrant workers. Alot of them are not. Iwould dare say at least half of them are not.

          Dare all you like.  If they were not poor why would they perform the jobs they do at the wages they are paid.  You really have to get out and see the situation to comment on it.  I live in it as I am directly involved with them quite frequently

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "If they were not poor why would they perform the jobs they do at the wages they are paid"

            Because they have undercut the wages... and what that undercut wage is, is still ten times the pay in thier own country. Thats why. They have no choice and neither do we Americans when that is done. It is called cause and effect.

      3. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Why not do both?

  3. barryrutherford profile image32
    barryrutherfordposted 6 years ago

    I guess racial profiling is just that you are trying to find criminality by linking race to wrongdoers.  Whilst you do that it is in fact racial predudice.  It might be okay for those that are not subjected to it but for those that are it is tyranny of the worse kind !

    1. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Huh???  If the individuals legal status can only be questioned after an event (arrest) and the arrestee happens to be hispanic, that's profiling???  In Tennessee nearly 70% of prison inmates are black.  Convicted felons that have been sentenced to prison for crimes COMMITTED.  Is that profiling?  They committed an illegal act and were convicted.  Read the law.  No one can be pulled over because they look foreign.  No one can be detain because they don't look 'American'.  This argument doesn't hold water on any level except as an attempt to support one's ideology.  Most of the arrests we make here involving drug trafficing are due to traffic violations.  A tail light is out or the driver ran a stop sign.  Should a subsequent arrest for drug trafficing be thrown out on the grounds the stop was for a tail light only?  Illegal is illegal and I for one could care less what color you are.  I've been in law enforcement for 25 years now and the reason so many illegals and minorities get arrested isn't due to profiling or harrassment.  It's due to the fact they're the ones breaking the law.  Period.

      1. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "If the individuals legal status can only be questioned after an event (arrest) and the arrestee happens to be hispanic, that's profiling???"

        That is where the fuzzy part begins.  Was the individual arrested because of the crime he supposedly committed of was he singled out because of his race and then the law broken found after the arrest?  How many times does a cop come out and tell you right off why he pulled you over?

        "In Tennessee nearly 70% of prison inmates are black.  Convicted felons that have been sentenced to prison for crimes COMMITTED."

        You tend to ignore the reality of this situation due to the poverty and legal representation afforded the poor to defend themselves.  So instead of fixing the problem you add to it?

        "This argument doesn't hold water on any level except as an attempt to support one's ideology." "I've been in law enforcement for 25 years now and the reason so many illegals and minorities get arrested isn't due to profiling or harrassment."

        Now we get to crux of the matter.  Are you sure your zeal to defend your profession isn't clouding your outlook on this issue?

      2. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        He's tying himself up into knots trying to make anything and everything about profiling.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Did you say something?  When you can tie two thoughts together I may respond to you.

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That's what I thought...

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Don't be so hard on yourself. smile

              1. Sab Oh profile image60
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Don't you have some running away to do?

                1. tobey100 profile image60
                  tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Now we see the normal progression of the liberal or should I say moderate argument.  Once the contorted logic runs out and the facts rear their ugly heads the slander begins.  Happens every single time.  It always reminds me of being on the play ground as a kid.  When you see you're losing an argument your only weapon left is to fall back on the tried and true 'Oh yeah? Well you're an idiot'  or the ever popular 'I don't care what you say, you're still wrong'.  The only thing you can say in return Sab is 'Oh yeah?  Well your mom dresses you funny.'  Makes about as much sense.

                  My point?  Sab Oh, you know you've hit the nail on the head when rhamson questions your intelligence.  Backed into a corner with no means to justified the chosen position but unwilling to break with the chosen ideology.  It must be profiling.  I can't prove it and the law specifically forbids it but...it must be profiling.

                  1. Sab Oh profile image60
                    Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL!

                  2. rhamson profile image76
                    rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Maybe when I am confronted with a non convoluted bias argument that espouses one size fits all logic I will linger and discuss the topic at hand.  But until then I have to put up with the nonsense you profer as truth.

                    I merely make observations and plausible solutions.  You and your cohort, (you really should watch who you align your views with in the future) seem to wish to make attacks and innuendo as your defense.

                    I am sorry, I did not realize that you and TK ...... uh Sab Oh were a tag team.  Otherwise I would have put the same value to your replies.

                    Have a nice life smile

                2. rhamson profile image76
                  rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sab Ho,

                  Running away from ignorance is never a good thing as I think it is better confronted and brought into the light.  I try with you but am always left with the bating and coyness that sillouettes itself as intelligence.

                  You have a good day as well smile

                  1. Sab Oh profile image60
                    Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    He's at it again, Tobey!

  4. luvpassion profile image59
    luvpassionposted 6 years ago

    In my opinion...this profiling buisness is alot of hoohaw. The police in Arkansas don't need to profile you in order to pull you over.

    In many instances minor traffick violations have led to huge drug arrests, paroll violators. You can't tie the hands of law enforcement simply on the basis of profiling.

    If you aren't a law breaker, you've nothing to worry about no matter the color of your skin.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree.  If they are not profiling.

  5. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 6 years ago

    I guess I don't understand the whole concept of racial profiling as it might relate to the Arizona law.  It seems that the term is being used to denote mexican citizens illegaly entering the country instead of actual race.

    If Florida enacted the same law, to enforce the same federal law, would they be profiling Cubans?  Would New York be profiling Europeans?  Would the north east states be profiling Chinese?  Minnesota maybe profiling Canadians?  Or must Arizona only arrest illegal aliens that are NOT Hispanic?  Now THERE would be a case of profiling!

    As a result of geography, Arizona has a large problem with Mexican citizenry entering the country illegally.  If the Arizona law is profiling, so is the federal law, but no one seems to make THAT claim - is it just the Arizona police that are profilers, not the federal enforcers?

    Nonsense.  EVERY law is directed to a small group of criminals.  That the group in a small geographic area is primarily of a particular nationality is immaterial and does not make the law racial profiling.

    1. Bill Miller profile image60
      Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly!

    2. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, Wilderness. Yup. You summed it up nicely indeed.

    3. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You really can't see the forrest for the trees.  Your supposition depends on the person being asked whether they are an illegal citizen to tell you the truth for one thing and that if he produces documentation that has proven to be very unreliable for the other thing that you will be able to send the illegals home in great numbers and make a real dent in the problem.

      That is what the problem already is.  True you will be able to pick off a few but most of the illegals working here already have suspicious documentation the employers already have to hire them.  Is the police officer the one to make the determination and arrest them or detain them because he does not trust the documentation.

      Too much red tape.

      Fine the employer who hires them heavily and the illegal immigrant worker will go home.  Very simple.  Or would you rather McDonalds and Walmart continue hiring them with their forged papers and scraping the profits off the top with their savings.

      1. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What a crock.

        You want to shoot employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens? Be my guest, but you still enforce our immigration laws against those who willingly and knowingly come here in violation of our sovereignty as well.

        Punishing business owners (liberalspeak = bad guys) feels good

        Punishing illegal aliens (liberalspeak = border victims) does not

        tough

        1. Bill Miller profile image60
          Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It seems the arguments against the law get less logical as time passes, his argument with me was the law could be abused by the police because of the language of the law. As I pointed out most laws use the word "reasonable" and the police are not the only people who decide what reasonable is.

          The truth is arguments against the law boil down to two camps, those who have read the law and know its constitutional but don't care, and those who have no understanding of law but FEEL its wrong!

          Feelings tend to lead those who really have no argument.

          Just my opinion.

  6. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Okay, okay, okay,.....check it?

    "The Arizona immigration law requires law enforcement to inquire about an individual’s immigration status if there is suspicion they are in the country illegally. Supporters of the law say it will weed out illegal immigrants and help secure the border. Opponents say it opens the door to racial profiling. The Obama administration has come out against the law; President Obama has called it “misguided.”

    The above is a portion of the link provide in thread and just this paragraph alone, makes things for a quite disturbing situation and seems like it gives local police too much power(not that they did not already have too much) and not to mention, it appears as if too many people seem to be worried about it, a bit too much.

    First off, I would like to take the time to explain...the people who are claiming "rights" violations of citizens and illegals, regardless of how you look at is, is absurd.

    As for President Obama's words "misguided", he is the idiot and would not know what a "right" was even if it slapped him in the face.

    Secondly, police no longer perform racial profiling(which is profiling based on race), instead now profile a generic individual, for which, race is included. The FBI uses the same manner, searching for serial killers and terrorists on U.S. soil.

    Third, the argument of "illegal" aliens taking job away or voting in an Election?  IF either of those are truly happening, and YOU as a individual know it is happening- I guess the bigger question is "What did YOU DO about it?" or did you leave it unreported, but go home and complain to your family?

    The thought that "illegal" from another country, taking jobs from citizens is foolish, a distraction(if you will), so as to take the people's mind off more pressing things.

    Government has learned that make enough noise over there, and so to pass something not being paid attention to over here.

    The debate over "rights" is absurd. No rights are being violated. The "illegal" people in the country are NOT American citizens/resident and must be to get jobs. The simple fact that these people are taking jobs away from the public workforce is false. There are more "illegal" people doing specific jobs, that under other circumstances they would not do, not because they want to, but because they have to. There isn't a choice for them, because of how they got to the U.S. in the first place. do realize that the illegals(most) are people who have been smuggled into the country through various ways and means. These people who use these methods for getting to the U.S. are prisoners, to those who brought them. They become servants for those of wealth?(because the wealthy are trafficking in human slaves) Some are forced into prostitution, drug dealers have a second stream of income and keep control over these people because they cannot go to the police for help.

    So, in essence, if that is the jobs you claim that they are taking? Then, I would say that you do not know what you are talking about and placing blame on the wrong person. This entire conversation is about "illegals", but does not focus on WHO is actually using these people as a part of their workforce.

    Just my thoughts. However, I am sure there will be some back-lash for what I said, but so be it. Bring it? hmm

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Cagsil, I work as an electrician in the building trades.  A few months ago I was on a job with a framing crew that spoke, with the exception of the foreman, nothing but Spanish.  I felt kind of bad for them as they were forced to literally RUN all over the job site.  One day it got real quiet and I realized there were suddenly no framers.  Just piles of tools and empty cars in the parking lot.  Plus the INS.  Next day the tools and cars were gone.  Third day a new framing crew (same company).  All English speaking, that did not run everywhere they went.

      Now, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.  These people were not servants or prostitutes.  They were illegal aliens, working at a skilled job in the US.  They had, for a while, jobs that American workers wanted and took as soon as they could. 

      I don't claim to know how they do it.  Fake ID?  A company paying cash?  What about the companies own taxes and reporting?  I don't know.  I just know it happens, and on a regular basis, in the trades.  To believe all, or even a large percentage, of illegal aliens are drug runners, servants or prostitutes is to bury your head in the sand.

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, if it doesn't take a genius to figure it out, then what did YOU do about it? Did you report it? Or did you continue living your life? I'm sure it was the latter of the two, so you could protect your own a$$. On another note, if the were illegals, as you claim, then the "company" is illegally performing business. So, quit attacking the people, and attack the damn business.
        Actually, to deny "human trafficking" is a bigger issue, one for which, apparently you refuse to open your eyes to? roll
        You seem to be too busy about complaining about things you do not completely understand to begin with. Why? Because, you are not in their position and you do not come from where they come from. And, to think, you think you had it hard?? lol

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Cagsil,

          We are all not Don Quixote.  We are out there to make a living and have to leave the government to do their job.

          Maybe a little legislation that will put the second coyotes out of business would help.  The second coyote being the employer who hires the illegal immigrant worker.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Cagsil -
          You're right.  I did nothing.  Given that the INS raided the site, I thought it safe to assume they knew of the problem and would handle it.  Maybe they did - rumor was that they caught a couple.  Probably they didn't - about the worst case is a free ride home.  As far as I know the company can't get into trouble for hiring an illegal with even a modicum of paperwork - would you suggest that I become a politician to change the laws?

          As far as human trafficking, I understood from your post that you felt that there were more illegals victim of this than otherwiise.  I disagree in that I do not believe more than a very small percentage of illegals fall into this category.  While human trafficking is a much more serious crime than any the illegal or anyone who hires him has committed it is not causing the amount of trouble that the mere job seekers are.  DO NOT interpret this to mean it should not be dealt with - human trafficking (slavery for any purpose) is arguably the worst crime against a human being possible.  Any perpetrator needs to be disposed of.

          Your last paragraph is interesting.  You complain I do not understand, yet it is you who do not seem to have any concept of the damage that illegals are doing to this country.  Instead you complain I don't understand because I'm not in their position.  You're right - I'm not in their position.  But neither is it MY obligation, morally or legally, to improve their position.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I am not saying that they are not doing damage. My point is to show that there is more to the situation than realized. That simple. And, had you realized that, the subject would have been able to move forward on to the real problems.

            Oh, as for becoming a politician? No. There are already enough ignorant, jack A$$es in office, we do not need more. hmm

            You're right it is not morally or legally, to improve their position, nor is your obligation. But, you seem to fail to realize that YOU as a citizen, apparently do not know your own duty to this F**king country. And, I'll leave it at that.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "And, I'll leave it at that."  Probably best.  Have a nice day.

      2. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Wilderness,

        Same situation I encounter many times.

        The worst part is that as soon as the employer can he will just as quietly get rid of the legal workers and hire back the illegal ones so he can remain competitive and profitable.

        Do you know who is the most important guy on the jobsite?  The legal guy who speaks spanish.  He can hang up his tool pouch and just translate all day long.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          How is it that the problem is so very common and yet people refuse to see it?  Just don't want to?  Some other agenda? 

          You're right about the legal guy, too.  In my case it was the framing foreman.  Young guy, bossing a large, complex commercial job and doing well at it.  It cost him my respect, though, when he lost his entire crew to the INS - it's hard to believe he didn't know.  It's not likely to happen in my trade and location, but if it did I would report my own company.  There are other jobs.

  7. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    lol I have seen it!!!....

    Union no less... mad loot.

    Hahahaha... poor migrant workers in the fields my ass.

    And don't worry.

    The lefties have screwed us good...

    Fanny and freddy have done thier job. As sson as we start mass ejection of Illegals they will all sue the shit out of us and the banks.

    They, the banks, gave them all mortgages. So they now own private property. Hurmmm.... and you wonder why all this money to keep them in the homes is being pumped into the economy.

    Pretty funny eh...

    It is going to get ugly when we start evicting them right off thier property and out of the country.

    Mad constitutional issues. Could hold it up for decades.

    Yup, we are screwed.

    Oh... and note ONLY Mexican citizens can own property in Mexico.

  8. MikeNV profile image76
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    People believe whatever they want to believe.

    Most people don't take the time to actually educate themselves about the facts of the matter... they just immediately jump on the opinion band wagon.

    How people can be for spending billions chasing after the elusive USA created "Terrorists", while at the same time be against securing the boarders of our country is a real paradox.

    It's like saying I'm trying to lose weight... I only eat pink donuts now. There is simply no logic in that kind of "thinking".

    Homer Simpson Logic at play.

  9. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    If you study history, there was an attempt in the South to prevent blacks from voting. This was after the civil war and after the 15th amendment guaranteed voting rights to African-Americans. The law(s) usead a 'poll tax'- a fee to vote with a clever twist. If your grandfather had voted, then the fee was waived. Without saying 'negro' or 'black' or 'African-American' - that segment of the population was prevented from voting.

    I imagine the framers of the Arizona law are just as proud of their law. But the intent of the Arizona law is just as clear as the 'poll tax' and just as likely to be struck down in court.

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Remember...

      Racists always see race, in everything.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This is a racist law in it's intent - if it's implemented it will be racist in it's enforcement.. And I will protest it on the basis of it being racist.

        The defense that the law doesn't specify 'hispanic' doesn't change the fact that the law is worded in such a way that the officer is instructed to use discressionary power in who he 'suspects'. If Arizona wants to set up a police state where any segment of the population is required to carry papers, then ALL residents should be required to carry papers, and the inspections should be random and enforcement equivalent. Throw granny in jail for not having ID and the protest from conservatives will make it quite clear just how they wanted the law enforced. DARK SKIN!!!!

        Though it doesn't say so in the 10 pages - the desire and intent is to set up a police state for a specific segement who's 'suspect' - WASPs need not worry about being inconvenienced. That's RACIST!

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Doug, your conspriacy theories and hatred of white Americans doesn't make it racist either.  "Though it doesn't say so in the 10 pages - the desire and intent is to set up a police state for a specific segement who's 'suspect' ".  It's good, I guess, that you think you know the intent of the people that went to great effort to craft a law to solve a problem without causing another problem,  but I don't believe for a moment that the intent of the writer was to set up a police state OR to pick on a certain race. 

          "If Arizona wants to set up a police state where any segment of the population is required to carry papers, then ALL residents should be required to carry papers, and the inspections should be random and enforcement equivalent"  I presume that as there is no national ID required for American citizens (as opposed to aliens) that you would allow Arizona to require a Montana resident to obtain Arizona ID before visiting?  And perhaps checkpoints on the streets?  THAT'LL work well - even a drunk knows enough to go around, not through, a checkpoint!  Or maybe police should randomly knock on doors and demand Arizona ID?  Even you should be aware that both suggestions are unconstitutional and illegal under present US law.  And no, asking a suspected alien for ID is not only NOT illegal, it is required by federal law.  They just don't do it.

        2. Sab Oh profile image60
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "This is a racist law in it's intent "


          NO, it is not.


          " the desire and intent is to set up a police state for a specific segement who's 'suspect' "

          That is just pointless, empty, hysterical emoting driven entirely by political bias.

    2. DevLin profile image60
      DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Just curious here, but what about the legal Mexicans that favor this law? Are they racist?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You mean both of them?

        1. DevLin profile image60
          DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Whatever. Are they?

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            From what I have seen the support polls showed 73% for this bill in AZ.. I am sure there are Hispanics in there.

            But I don't know if I have seen a poll specifically aimed at Hispanic Americans?

            1. DevLin profile image60
              DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'm just curious about liberals calling mexicans racist wanting illegals kicked out. I just want someone to explain that to me. It's kind of confusing. To me, and those here legally, and those born here, tired of jobs being undercut and taken away, while we're also expected to learn spanish. Some of the legals don't. They hate being talked to in spanish.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You and Mason keep trying to twist what I'm saying. (and what Ron says, too, but he doesn't need my help) The law is INTENDED to be applied unequally - to a hispanic population most of them legal.

                In a situation where two traffic stops are made and both drivers don't have ID, the one with dark skin will be hauled in as a 'suspect' - and the white dude will get a ticket & be told to be more careful abut remembering his wallet.

                1. DevLin profile image60
                  DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Huh. As much as so many use the term racist, I guess I was asking too much to explain what I wanted. I didn't want a scenario, but an answer. There's a lot on LEGALS that would like the answer as well. Some think they'd better drive better, but other than that, they're happy with the new law, and called an arizona racist. How? Just hgow, can a mexican be racist, towards mexicans? That's the only question we have.

                2. TMMason profile image72
                  TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Not if the one with the white skin has an accent also.  It is usually pretty obvious when your talking to an Eastern European or Canadian or anyone else not from America,  in America.

                3. Sab Oh profile image60
                  Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "The law is INTENDED to be applied unequally "

                  NO it is not, and all your emoting will not make it so.

                4. Bill Miller profile image60
                  Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Its a good thing that all States can look up a Drivers License or state issued ID with the name and date of birth of the one being questioned, its also a good thing there are descriptions of the holder of the ID also.

                  Keep screaming racist and maybe someone will listen, doubt it, reasonable people reason!

              2. TMMason profile image72
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you.

                What amazes me is they think all the Hispanic Police in AZ will be racists also.

                lol what a joke.

    3. Bill Miller profile image60
      Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What year is this? Why is the argument always taken back to when there was real racism against CITIZENS of this Country? I am just guessing but I bet you have a history of using the injustices of the past to make a point in the present, problem is these are two separate issues, and no, it won't be struck down.

  10. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    The police in Massachusetts do not need a reason to ask you for ID.

    They can ask and you must provide it. Everyone is required to have an ID, either driver's license or state issued ID.

    Plain and simple.

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yup they will.

      And they will cuff you for, "Your protection and thiers", while they check your ID and run you.

      Been there, done that

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        They cannot cuff, unless you refuse.

        1. Bill Miller profile image60
          Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes they can and they will.

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            In Mass, they cannot cuff for no reason.

            If they ask you for ID and you refuse, then they can. But, they cannot cuff, just because they want to. It's illegal.

            1. Bill Miller profile image60
              Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Supreme Court rulings apply to every state, the Supreme court ruled on this years ago.

              You certainly don't have to believe me that's up to you.

    2. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, back to the USSR lol

      Is it a coincidence that Massachusetts is the most socialist state? I don't think so. smile

      1. Fluffymetal profile image77
        Fluffymetalposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Did you get my email?

        1. Misha profile image75
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yep, did you get my reply? smile

      2. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, Mass is the most socialist state, if there ever was one. It down right appalling, because of the suppression of individual rights and choices.

        It sucks. Hence, why I am working on a solution for getting out of here, while leaving my mark here. When I leave Mass, I will have a full function working business model, and will have begun to implement it. I am almost finished. wink big_smile

        1. Misha profile image75
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Good luck with that, Ray smile

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you. smile

    3. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Do you know if a Mass. cop can require me, from a different state, to provide ID?  I have a driver's license, but my mother (87) does not.  Can they really haul her off for visiting without a state ID?

      1. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If you have no ID of any kind technically you are a vagrant, but it's not likely to come up.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          PROFILING!  And she has more money than I'll ever see!  lol  Oh well, maybe they'll take mine.  She's mostly blind and won't leave her own yard without someone holding her hand.  Although we did take her on a cruise to Mexico this spring..........

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I hope you had your papers with you!

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Back to the serious side.  Of course we all had passports on our persons every time we left the cruise ship.  It seemed a reasonable precaution in a foreign country and could have been required if stopped by federales.

              In addition, I might add, we had to show those passports to get back into the US.  I never considered we were being profiled as passengers on a ship coming from Mexico, but I guess we were, in the truest sense of the word.  Didn't bother me, though - I welcomed it.

              1. Bill Miller profile image60
                Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Really, you didn't mind proving you were an American? Some posting here would be "humiliated"!

                I am not among them.

  11. livelonger profile image88
    livelongerposted 6 years ago

    I have a question:

    Would you support the police having the right to enter and investigate any house where they had reasonable suspicion of adults allowing children to drink alcohol?

    1. Misha profile image75
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If you ask me - it is none of their business. So I would not support it. smile

      I am not even touching on American legislation on the matter that I honestly deem idiotic. smile

      1. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, you are certainly consistent. smile

        I'm hoping to hear from those who support the Arizona law.

        1. DevLin profile image60
          DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Me. I also just read California's version of the same law. They're pretty much identical.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Having seen first hand the results of one such liquor fueled teen party, I would have to say yes.  In addition, it is well within most, if not all, state laws.

      Why do you ask?  As most such parties are probably white does that make it racial profiling?

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, first off, the last thing we need is more police purposely sitting in their cars watching what people do inside their own home. No, that's absurd.

        Incorrect.
        It wouldn't be a matter of racial profiling, it would be the basic privacy laws, that requires that no police may enter without a warrant. Just because they see people in a house drinking...it isn't for him to investigate something being done in the privacy of someone's home.

        I think that is point to make. Unlawful searches and seizures. Probably cause is not proof. You would have cops running around claim I had probably cause, doing whatever the hell they wanted. And, that is not an option.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You make a very good point with privacy laws, and I jealously guard my own privacy.  However;

          police often put a residence under surveillance, often with binoculars and a wiretap. 

          Do police need a warrant to enter a residence where they hear gunshots and screams?  I think not, and whether they see OR hear something it can become probable cause.

          Upon being stopped for a traffic violation police may search my person for weapons.  Anything else they find is inadmissable in court UNLESS THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE.  They may search my vehicle with probably cause.

          The concept of probable cause is a slippery one and easily subject to abuse.  You're right in that probable cause is not proof, but proof is not needed for a search.  If police already have proof of a crime then a search is not necessary - just a trial to verify the proof is sufficient.  Instead probable cause is a REASON for a search (or perhaps arrest). 

          Whether we, the common citizen, wishes it or not we MUST give police a degree of autonomy to do their job and the concept of probable cause is one way we do that.  We also monitor that autonomy very closely; let an officer search without real probable cause in the eyes of the court and any evidence will be discarded as illegally obtained.  Cops don't like that and will avoid it where possible.

          1. Bill Miller profile image60
            Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You said this
            "Upon being stopped for a traffic violation police may search my person for weapons.  Anything else they find is inadmissable in court UNLESS THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE.  They may search my vehicle with probably cause."

            The police may conduct a search of your person for weapons, if they find an 8ball of speed during that search then you will be charged with possession of a controlled substance.

            I think that you may be confused with this

            If the police think you have stolen a TV and they get a warrant to search your home then they can only search where a TV can be hidden. In other words they cant go into your sock drawer to look for a 25" console.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              As a matter of fact my son (17) was stopped on a traffic charge and cigarettes found on him during the search.  An attorney explained later that the evidence could have been voided had we done it in time as there was no probable cause for such a search.  The search of a stopped motorist without other probable cause is limited to weapons only and is intended as a safety feature for police and not to be used for evidence.  Legally the cigarettes could not even be removed from his pocket - it was obvious sight unseen to be something other than a weapon.  Unfortunately we did not know that; the request to suppress evidence must be within 30 days and it took over a year to go to trial, so he was convicted and sentenced to community service. 

              And that shows perhaps the concept of probable cause and the possible abuse of it.  The law is a reasonable one - search a motorist for weapons as needed for police safety, but nothing else.  A dirty cop will sometimes get around the law, as this one did.

              1. Bill Miller profile image60
                Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                If he charged him with possession of cigarettes he's worse than a dirty cop he's chickenshit!

                But, the search is known as a Terry frisk, named after the defendant of a case that went to the supreme court. Any illegal substance on a subject is reason to arrest, the substance was found incidental to a lawful action.

                I am talking about my hypothetical scenario not what happened to your son.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No - you're right about the illegal substance, which would include cigarettes for a minor.  I wonder if our attorney gave us bad advice or if the law has changed in the last 10 years or so.  It looks like the "Terry Frisk" case was in 2006 - my son's episode was in 1998.  Or maybe it was a local law.

                  1. Bill Miller profile image60
                    Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Terry V Ohio was settled in 1968 long before 2006, I'm not sure which case you refer to.

                    The Terry frisk or Terry stop is a pat down of the outer clothing of a suspect, it is used to determine if the suspect has a weapon that can be used against the officer.

                    During the pat down if evidence is seen then that evidence can be used against the suspect, that is what happened with your son. If during this frisk the officer feels something on the person that is not a weapon then that is not probable cause to obtain whatever is felt.

                    The trick is to determine what is an unreasonable search, that is what the 4th amendment protects against.

      2. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know if mostly white people allow their kids to drink at home, but it is clearly not restricted to ethnic minorities.

        I'm just wondering how many people who have been complaining about illegal immigration and its lack of enforcement would be keen to have all laws, including those they break themselves, be enforced to the full extent of the law.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think you would find that most (meaning over half) of all laws are primarily on the books in order to convict someone of SOMETHING even if it's not the charge that's really wanted.  If that makes any sense.

          Government found a massive weapon against undesirables when it began convicting mob bosses of tax evasion.  It wasn't what was wanted, but it put them behind bars.  Courts have found an easy method of getting a guilty plea by dropping the desired charge to a lesser charge.  They get a conviction without a costly trial.  It has become little more than a legal game to be played by lawyers and courts.

          That does not mean that all, or even most, laws are bad laws or even undesirable ones.  Specifically, it does not mean that we should abolish immigration laws or fail to enforce them.

          1. livelonger profile image88
            livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I understand exactly what you are saying, but what that amounts to is selective enforcement.

            Now the Arizona law will toughen enforcement of immigration laws, but it will undoubtedly do so with an additional burden on people here legally who look ethnically like those who comprise the largest illegal ethnic groups. Lots of people seem to say that's "not a big deal" but, conveniently, none of these people seem to look Hispanic.

            Laws that place an additional burden on people with considerably more political power (like conservative white families who let their sons drink with their friends to "grow hair on their chest") will benefit from highly selective enforcement, and will never get any teeth from the likes of Jan Brewer.

            1. Bill Miller profile image60
              Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I know lots of liberals and conservatives, the conservatives I know do not, would not let their minor children drink in the manner you describe or any manner for that matter.

              The liberals I know, well, they're a little more liberal on these type of things.

              Not all of them, but some.

              1. livelonger profile image88
                livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That hasn't been my experience. Only the religious have (sometimes) been like that. There are tons of other secular or otherwise conservatives who condone alcohol-fueled parties among their kids.

                But, regardless, my point is that in this scenario I proposed, the police could simply verify any time they had reasonable suspicion that there was no alcohol, in fact, being drunk by minors. Even parents who never allowed it would still be checked by the police every now and then, if the police had reasonable suspicion (like lots of teenagers congregating at a house).

                1. Bill Miller profile image60
                  Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You said
                  "Even parents who never allowed it would still be checked by the police every now and then, if the police had reasonable suspicion (like lots of teenagers congregating at a house)."

                  Here is the part you don't seem to be getting, why is it reasonable to assume that there is an alcohol fueled party because there are "lots of teenagers"?

                  If you have a large group of Hispanic males standing outside a home depot then you have reasonable suspicion to ask for ID's. It is also a public place which makes a huge difference.

                  1. livelonger profile image88
                    livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I think a group of teenagers congregating at a house for a party are just as likely, if not more, to involve underage drinking, than a group of Hispanic men outside a Home Depot including illegal immigrants. In a 2006 survey, 28% of teens had been to a party where alcohol was served to minors and parents/adults were present.

    3. Bill Miller profile image60
      Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      In most states its legal for the parents or legal guardians of minors to provide them alcohol in their residence and bars as long as they are together.

      If you are talking about any adult providing alcohol to any minor then the appropriate action is to investigate the offense, but, that does not mean the police have the right to enter a private residence unless the offense is committed within their view.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You are, I believe, correct about parents and their own children; I took the meaning to be a case other than that.

        What about a neighbor report?  Or a complaint from a supposed participant?  Of a youngster leaviing the house drunk and driving off?  Or 1/2 dozen of them?

        Must the police see the offense to investigate?  If yes, may they clear the house of people, administer blood tests and wait outside for a search warrant?  It's most likely late at night - the party will be over and done before police can locate and wake a judge, explain and get a warrant.

        What constitutes probable cause for investigation?  Would it change if the party were outside on the street?

        1. Bill Miller profile image60
          Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          A simple complaint from a neighbor is enough to warrant investigation, that does not give an officer the right to enter the house.

          An offense committed within the view of an officer is reason enough to enter the residence, however, how can anyone be sure that the alcohol was passed by an adult to a minor?

          Its a tricky situation that I don't believe has any bearing on the Arizona law at all.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I took the original question of underage drinking to instigate a discussion of "probable cause", which seems to be root of much opposition to the Arizona law for expected racial profiling.  Perhaps I read too much into it.

      2. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not in Arizona. Parents can not allow their children to drink, even if it is under their supervision.

        The police, in this instance, would just be using "reasonable suspicion" to decide which house to check for underage drinking. Parents who were not allowing underage drinking in their house would have absolutely nothing to worry about. A quick check of the house, and off scot-free if nothing untoward was going on (and jail for the parents, foster care for the kids, if there were - can't deport them, can we?).

        1. Bill Miller profile image60
          Bill Millerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You're not comparing apples to apples as far as I can tell, I have no idea what the laws in Arizona say about parents allowing their kids to drink is.

          I guess I don't understand your point.

          1. livelonger profile image88
            livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Arizona is one of the states that does not allow parents to permit minors in their presence to drink alcohol. So, it is illegal for adults to condone underage drinking in their presence, kind of like it's illegal for an immigrant without papers to remain in the country.

            The majority of Americans don't mind Hispanic or even other brown people to be asked by the police for their papers, because they're not brown themselves and won't have to deal with a humiliating pattern.

            I'm wondering how most would feel if a law that's so far been very lax in enforcement that would make them a target would be acceptable to them.

  12. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    Not in California....

  13. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    Sab...a vagrant is someone who has nowhere to live, not someone without an i.d..

    1. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And if you have no ID, and hence no proof of an address, you are considered vagrant.

    2. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Actually Mike, you would be wrong.

      A "vagrant" is a person who has no money in their pocket or less than stipulated by law? roll

      Your individual "vagrant" status is determined by Laws and the fact of the amount of money you have in your pocket at the time a Police officer has engaged you.

      In Mass, if you have less than a $1.00 in your pocket, regardless of whether or not, you have ID, you are considered a "vagrant" as defined by law.

      So, if a Police officer wants to push the envelope, then they could arrest anyone who had less than $1.00 in their pocket and be in the "right".

  14. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    "Loitering" is one of the easiest laws to break, and one of the most selectively enforced...

    1. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well of course it is!  We all know the Arizona police make thousands of arrests each year for loitering don't they?  And an asteroid could hit the earth tomorrow.  I think the argument against the Arizona bill is getting alittle thin at this point.  Yes, any officer could find a way to 'profile' in Arizona just like they can on just about any activity in the other 49 states (or as Obama would say...in the other 56 states)

  15. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    Yet Sab....if a police officer asks for your i.d., and you tell him or her that you do not have it on your person, the officer does not assume that you are a vagrant.

    That is just ridiculous.

    1. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Laws vary by state, but ridiculous is up to you.

  16. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    And I have looked up 'vagrancy' and have found that it refers to someone with nowhere to live, no job, and no income...

    If I am walking down the street with no money or id in my pocket, but do have a home I cannot be cited or arrested.

    According to my own research, the Massachusetts vagrancy law reads that "Vagrants are idle persons who, not having visible means of support, live without lawful employment: persons wandering abroad and visiting tippling shops or houses of ill-fame, or lodging in groceries, out-houses, market-places, sheds, barns, or in the open air and not giving a good account of themselves..."

    I can find no evidence to refute this claim.

    Cags, can you provide links to back your claims?

    Do you have any statistics to point out regarding the arrests for people without a dollar in their pocket?

  17. tdarby profile image60
    tdarbyposted 6 years ago

    What a novel concept?  A state government that chooses to enforce their laws.  Too bad the US government doesn't choose to do the same.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The state of Arizona won't be enforcing SB1070 even if by some miracle it clears the court challenges.  Arpaio has already been informed by the Maricopa county attorney that cases he brings to him under this bill will not be prosecuted.  Joe is the only law enforcement official who even wants to arrest people under this law; the other county Sherriffs understand what a joke it (and he) is.

      The law was intended to assuage the irrational fears of ignorant rednecks who (unfortunately) are allowed to vote in this country.  It was never going to be implemented as a law enforcement tool.

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image91
        Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        Cool word I had to Google it. smile

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I heard a guy say it in "Saving Private Ryan."  I've been waiting over a decade to use it. smile

          1. Arthur Fontes profile image91
            Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Someday I am going to be presented with a perfect time to use the word pontificate.

            1. KFlippin profile image61
              KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'll be glad to help you recognize perfect opportunities to use the word 'pontificate' -- excellent examples occur on almost a daily basis, I'd say near perfect examples of pontificating have been regularly visited on the American people for many, many months.  Pomposity and Arrogance -  Just Ask the Press.

            2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Spending too much time on such endeavors instead of more useful activities might leave you impecunious.

              1. KFlippin profile image61
                KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That's the idea isn't it?  The threat of being locked up or shaken down, left poor and bereft, if you speak up in support of the American people.  You are right, he should not spend too much time comprehending and using the word pontificate, nor should I or anyone else point out the clear examples of pontification that occur regularly from our US government, as many of the lefty trolls here make it clear that real change, it is a coming, so objections to pontification are a waste of time and will lead to poverty -- or worse.

                It's kind of funny......trying real hard to choke out a laugh...that so many object to Americans being concerned about America's future as a Democracy...yet those same people can't seem to choke out the word 'terrorist' or 'radical Islam' -- we are headed toward more rights for the bomber than for the bombastic Patriot who loves the 'inane freedoms' of the USA.

                Good advice Ron, maybe we should all exit any participation in these forums full of bogus lefty trolls who seem to be intent on inciting distress, rather than providing valid and informed debate, otherwise, we all could shortly be a government created 'vagrant'.

                Yeah, I read a lot into your 'impecunious' post.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, perhaps you should.  You're really not accomplishing anything are you?

                  1. livelonger profile image88
                    livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Didn't she say she was off to attend a tea party rally?

      2. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Irrational rednecks that vote, eh?...

        Well its a good thing there aren't many of them...


        About 73% of AZ's likely and registered voters is all. And a good chunk of America.... I dare say most of it actually.

        Since you don't like this law Ron. How does it feel to be a minority? Feeling opressed yet?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You really don't understand polling methods do you?

          1. DevLin profile image60
            DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You still haven't explained how a mexican that agrees with this law, is a "redneck." How do you explain their being  racists?

  18. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Please, let's not get on to the voting topic. That's a whole other story in itself. hmm

  19. Arthur Fontes profile image91
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    I just read that Arizona supplies California with electricity. 

    If California boycotts Arizona are they going to refuse the power?

    LOL

    1. DevLin profile image60
      DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Announced today. APS supplies 25% of their power.

  20. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Can someone say the beginning of a civil war? roll

    I know, it's a bit extreme, but wars have been started for less. hmm

  21. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    I want to see AZ shut shut Cali's power down.

    I don't think it'll happen, but...

    It would be worth a lugh.

    From what I heard the owners of the AZ power plants, are Cali Companies. So...

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      They don't have the authority to do that.  California owns about as much of our power grid as we do.

  22. KFlippin profile image61
    KFlippinposted 6 years ago

    I hope they do, LA is trying to hurt Arizona economically for simply trying to uphold the laws of the USA and protect their citizens -- tit for tat, for too long libs think their actions have zero consequences, they can babble and boycott at will.

    On the profiling -- today a clerk in a local gas station was really upset and telling her friends what had happened to her the past week.  She was stopped for a traffic violation in a  town about an hour away that has ... a State medical facility that duns folks based on income (imagine that), her purse was checked for no apparent reason, a single pill was found loose in her purse, it was determined to be a controlled substance, and despite her protestations that she had a prescription and was in fact in town to see her doctor, she was thrown in jail for having a controlled pill, suspicion of intent to distribute, and she is poor and couldn't get bail, she was in jail for going on 4 f'ng days, her husband and children more than 70 miles away, and finally the charges were dropped as the bogus BS they were.

    Profiling, alive and well, but nobody cares if it's the profiling of a poor white girl from the country.  Enforce the laws of this Nation, and drop the PC BS that has everyone tiptoeing around using race as part of profiling by police authorities.  Just what do libs think a human can do otherwise?

    Sherriff Joe -- Kudos to you for being an American and a law enforcement official who knows how to do his job.  And did any of you hear that he has been shadowed by civil rights legal eagles for more than a year, and it started within a few months of Obama's election, and so far they haven't locked the patriot up, so I'd say he must be doing a pretty fair job.

    The more this keeps up, the more I think it's time to find the nearest Tea Party group.

    1. Registered Nerd profile image59
      Registered Nerdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yea, while Sheriff Joe goes after the illegals, the rest of his office provides subpar protection for the rest of county because police are overextended while chasing ghosts.  Sheriff Joe's greatest attributes are his flare for self-promotion and the aggrandization of his own office. 

      Meanwhile, violent crime rates increase and 911 response times are exploding in Maricopa County.  Adding increased task load onto local police officers is not only unfair to the individual officers but to the constituency at large. 

      Political arguments aside, this policy does more to harm to the residents of Maricopa County than good.  Simply put, Arpaio's office is simply not equipped for this undertaking and should not be wasting the Arizona taxpayers' dollars.

      1. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sounds like illegal immigration is really hurting the county.

        1. Registered Nerd profile image59
          Registered Nerdposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes but I think you're ignoring the larger issue and that is the local government in AZ is squandering tax dollars on a problem that cannot be fixed by the current legislation--and probably any legislation that employs the 'round 'em up' strategy. 

          http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Commo … lished.pdf

          This study was done by the Goldwater Institute, of all organizations, and clearly outlines Maricopa County's misallocation of funds and manpower towards illegal immigrants. 

          "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

          It's not that most people condone illegal immigration, it's that nobody has outlined an effective plan to deal with the problem.  It's quite the logistical problem to identify and deport 12 million people scattered throughout the country. 

          So rather than backing tired policies that clearly do not work (as proven by the increased  number of illegal immigrants) why not back a plan that makes sense, not only financially but logistically?  Yea right, nobody has come up with one yet.

          1. KFlippin profile image61
            KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Tired policies....budgets that are constrained....sounds like the fed should be stepping in to help enforce 'fed' law, as well as with funding those budget shortfalls......just a thought.

          2. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "  It's quite the logistical problem to identify and deport 12 million people scattered throughout the country.  "

            Liberal fall back point. It would not be necessary to deport 12 million to have a very significant impact.

            1. 0
              kimberlyslyricsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              big_smile

      2. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thats funny, a majority of the AZ people think they should. And also a majority of the American people.

        You know all you lefties cry about how you love democracy.... till your ideas are voted out.

        Then its crying time again.

        1. Sab Oh profile image60
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Gonna be a flood of tears in Nov.

  23. JON EWALL profile image46
    JON EWALLposted 6 years ago

    HUBBERS
    what's so difficult in understanding the English language, sounds familiar is is or ??????

    Summary of Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 USC 1324
    "Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
    Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
    A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
    assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
    encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
    knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
    Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.

    TAKE NOTE WHO IS MAKING THE MOST NOICE ABOUT THE AZ LAW. LABOR, AFL-CIO,TEACHERS,SEIU ,LA RAZA AND OTHER RADICAL GROUPS INCLUDING ELECTED OFFICIALS OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

    US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
    The Oath Of Office By Elected Officials

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

  24. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    Well, I know in terms of commerce, the states' will is trumped by federal jurisdiction...in most cases at least.

    If California felt that the federal government was not doing an adequate job in creating or maintaining trade related policies the state could not jump in and start making laws...or start enforcing federal laws..for they lack jurisdiction.

    I see the immigration issue similarly.

    Calfornia is having difficulty with its marijuana legalization policy making because federal drug enforcement laws stand over anything created by the state...

    What is the precedent, and what will be sent down through new rulings?

    We shall see.

  25. Arthur Fontes profile image91
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    Rhode Island lawmaker files bill that follows Arizona immigration law

    http://www.projo.com/news/content/RI_AR … 59e50.html

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And so the rest of the country begins to fall in line.  And started by a Democrat!  Rhode Island won't be the last.

      A interesting article.  I wonder just which race the Rhode Island bill is supposed to be profiling?  I would'nt have thought there were enough people of hispanic descent, legal OR illegal, to make such a claim.  I guess it's as we've seen in this forum - facts aren't necessary to claim racial profiling, just rhetoric.

  26. Onusonus profile image87
    Onusonusposted 6 years ago

    I despise the new law, I think as a punishment for the very thought of it, we should force the federal government to apologize to other countries with much worse immigration laws in force like China and Mexico.

    1. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent plan.......

 
working