Arizona's Immigration Law

[AxisMundi]

Originally Posted by Mister_T

Speaking of spelling things out for people, it really pays to actually read what you link.

From your own link:

But I really didn't need to point all that out since you already contradicted yourself when you said "Nothing has changed," followed by "only certain portions."

"Obviously" they had to change it to make it more defensible in court when they get sued, or as you like to call it "political hysteria":

It has already been explained repeatedly to you througout this thread how it imposed on civil rights, you just choose to willfully ignore it apparently. Maybe you should try using some of that working knowledge of the English language.

Speaking of the English language, many places around the world, especially places where English speaking people vacation to, have people that are bilingual or multilingual in English. Shocking, I know. Many people in Europe are multi-lingual something this country could use a little more of.

I have no doubt that a rudementry understanding of English is part of the naturalization process. Learning English here is a good idea and can be a great benefit to yourself. However, we do not have an official language that we must learn, and one does not have to be fluent, or even semi-fluent in English to function properly here. They certainly don't need to be fluent in English in orderto be a citizen.

1. Read past the word "Changes", you will see that nothing new is added, only certain aspects are stregnthened, and clarified for that matter. Like I said, nothing is changed.

2. I have been shown examples of non sequturs and pure hysteria, not "how it imposes on civil rights".

3. Speaking of non sequitures catering to one's primary mode of national income does not relate, or equate, to becoming a citizen.

[AxisMundi]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

The very fact that you are unable to discern between verifying personal identity when transacting business or applying for benefits and the unwarranted verification of identification by authorities based on accent, language barrier, or association, shows a complete lack of forethought in your statement.

The very fact that you haven't read the Bill is quite appearent.

[tumbleweed41]

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

Remember that picture next time you get ID'd to cash a check or sign up for unemployment insurance bennies.

Your response is pure hysterics.

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

The very fact that you are unable to discern between verifying personal identity when transacting business or applying for benefits and the unwarranted verification of identification by authorities based on accent, language barrier, or association, shows a complete lack of forethought in your statement.

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

The very fact that you haven't read the Bill is quite appearent.

Wrong. As I have pointed out before, just one of the troubling items is as follows.

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.



This has been interpreted by Legal Analyst's as giving Law Enforcement the authority to check the immigration status of anyone with a "strong Hispanic accent", anyone limited to Spanish speaking, and anyone who "has the appearance of not being a naturalized citizen". (This would be 'probable cause' of suspecting an otherwise law abiding person. and justification for checking identification--after arresting them for said probable cause)

Now, would you care to justify your inability to discern between verifying personal identity when transacting business or applying for benefits and the unwarranted verification of identification by authorities based on accent, language barrier, or association?

[Mister_T]

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

1. Read past the word "Changes", you will see that nothing new is added, only certain aspects are stregnthened, and clarified for that matter. Like I said, nothing is changed.

I did read past the work "changes". Apparently you didn't read past the "clarification" part and in the same breath, declared "changes were made" but "nothing has changed."

"Strengthening" aspects of the bill so they cannot be sued for it, is indeed a change no matter how colorfully you try and twist that.

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

2. I have been shown examples of non sequturs and pure hysteria, not "how it imposes on civil rights".

You have been shown reasonable explanations a number of times from different people, that you apparently either have no rebuttal to, or choose to ignore and are trying to cop out of answering. Apparently reality also has an "undocumented immigrant" bias like everyone else.

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

3. Speaking of non sequitures catering to one's primary mode of national income does not relate, or equate, to becoming a citizen.

How does this relate to my response again? Speaking of coping out, apparently you don't have a counter-rebuttal to your "working knowledge of the English langauge" remark because you are yet again, going off on another tangent to aviod any kind of direct response (which I will probably have to try and rebuttal again and keep the vicious circle going). How about you try sticking to one thing instead of adding more branches to this ever-growing tangent tree you keep creating?

[AxisMundi]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

Wrong. As I have pointed out before, just one of the troubling items is as follows.

Now, would you care to justify your inability to discern between verifying personal identity when transacting business or applying for benefits and the unwarranted verification of identification by authorities based on accent, language barrier, or association?

And once again, probrable cause has been in the LEOs arsenal for many decades.

It's nothing new.

[The Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

What year? Where did they land?

What is this? Are you channeling Torquemada?

Does Mr. Cheese have some history of lying?

[tumbleweed41]

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

And once again, probrable cause has been in the LEOs arsenal for many decades.

It's nothing new.

Good, now tell me, what is probable cause to " BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."

[Smoke]

How Arizona law enforcement works on the ground:

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/***..._mcdonalds.php

If you're Hispanic in Maricopa County, Sheriff Joe's goons have probable cause to arrest you on suspicion of being undocumented. Hey, they can always release you later.

That's the word from the elephant's mouth after an MCSO raid on four area McDonald's yesterday that netted an American citizen, Viridiana Ramirez, who was cuffed and held for four hours as she pleaded with MCSO thugs that she was born in this country and could prove it.

What was Arpaio's response to the news that his Kris Kobach-trained deputies has violated the civil rights of a single mother and terrorized her no end?

"That's just normal police work, " he shrugged in a news conference following the raid. "Sometimes you do have probable cause, you do take people in for questioning, and they're released."

Note, once again, that this was before the law under discussion was passed. Note also that -- contrary to claims made on this thread -- neither the new law nor the revision of it strengthens the restriction (not prohibition) of racial profiling in Arizona.

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed41

Good, now tell me, what is probable cause to " BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."

Just being in the U.S. without a visa would be such an offense for a Mexican citizen. So if you are an American citizen who looks Mexican and sounds Mexican to any hood-wearing, mouth-breathing cop in Arizona, and you don't have a visa on you (as you wouldn't, being a citizen), said hood-wearer can claim he has probable cause to detain you and hold you until such time as you prove that you're a citizen.

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

What the "undocumented aliens" crowd fails to recognize is that, since day one this Nation has had some form of control over naturalization and immigration.

Provided that "Day One" is 8 May 1882. Congress passed laws governing naturalization beginning in 1790, but immigration was unregulated for quite some time.