Holder: Feds Will Watch for Racial Profiling if Arizona Law Takes Effect
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:59:06 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Holder: Feds Will Watch for Racial Profiling if Arizona Law Takes Effect
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Holder: Feds Will Watch for Racial Profiling if Arizona Law Takes Effect  (Read 2453 times)
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2010, 10:36:10 PM »

Yeah, I'll tell "my president" to do something, that's a reasonable solution.  

I'll tell you what, I'll do that if you can go back in time and ask your president Bush to resign in 2002.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2010, 10:41:40 PM »

Obama has no clue what the bill actually says and is doing this for political reasons of building his base.

The problem is, not even those who wrote the law really cared about what the bill actually says. They passed it for the one and only reason: to build the base.

The law simply states what federal law already does. Should the state governments not bother to enforce federal drug laws because it's not their business?

Under federal law you don't have to carry proof of legal residence on your person, but should be able to produce it when asked (but which would not include when you are going to the grocery store). This law goes further than the federal law and it's sad you can't see it in your ignorance.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2010, 10:45:29 PM »

Obama has no clue what the bill actually says and is doing this for political reasons of building his base.

The problem is, not even those who wrote the law really cared about what the bill actually says. They passed it for the one and only reason: to build the base.

The law simply states what federal law already does. Should the state governments not bother to enforce federal drug laws because it's not their business?

Under federal law you don't have to carry proof of legal residence on your person, but should be able to produce it when asked (but which would not include when you are going to the grocery store). This law goes further than the federal law and it's sad you can't see it in your ignorance.

You're above personal attacks.

Secondly, again, the border is out of control, something has to be done. I'd prefer to have 50k troops sitting on the border but until that happens this will have to do. If the federal government refuses to do their job the states have responsibility to their citizens to defend their own citizens.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2010, 11:49:16 PM »
« Edited: July 12, 2010, 11:51:25 PM by Torie »

What is the penalty for failure to carry proof of legal residence under the AZ law? Suppose some cop stops me, Torie,  walking to the park, stumbling, and thinks that I am illegally drunk in public, and "legally" stops me on reasonable probable cause of being drunk as a skunk, and asks me to prove my legal status (he thinks I am Canadian, because in my drunken state I pronounced "schedule" without the hard K sound)?  I have nothing on me. What happens?  
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2010, 11:59:22 PM »

You know let's just say that Obama wins his little lawsuit and rallies the far left. All that's going to happen is armed militia are going to head to the borders to enforce the law. Common gun owners will be camped out instead and if the police ask (WHICH THEY WON'T) the citizens can just say they saw people trying to come here illegally. It's not that hard so Obama will lose one way or the other.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2010, 05:12:21 AM »

Obama has no clue what the bill actually says and is doing this for political reasons of building his base.

The problem is, not even those who wrote the law really cared about what the bill actually says. They passed it for the one and only reason: to build the base.

The law simply states what federal law already does. Should the state governments not bother to enforce federal drug laws because it's not their business?

Under federal law you don't have to carry proof of legal residence on your person, but should be able to produce it when asked (but which would not include when you are going to the grocery store). This law goes further than the federal law and it's sad you can't see it in your ignorance.

You're above personal attacks.


I'm sorry, but I find it very annoying when people say it's exactly the same as the federal law and will be enforced the same way. It is not functionally possible since it's supposed to enforced by local cops as opposed to immigration agents (ICE and other agencies). ICE won't interfere in your daily life, but can show up at your doors if they have information you are living here illegally.

Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2010, 05:26:02 PM »

Obama has no clue what the bill actually says and is doing this for political reasons of building his base.

The problem is, not even those who wrote the law really cared about what the bill actually says. They passed it for the one and only reason: to build the base.

The law simply states what federal law already does. Should the state governments not bother to enforce federal drug laws because it's not their business?

Under federal law you don't have to carry proof of legal residence on your person, but should be able to produce it when asked (but which would not include when you are going to the grocery store). This law goes further than the federal law and it's sad you can't see it in your ignorance.

You're above personal attacks.


I'm sorry, but I find it very annoying when people say it's exactly the same as the federal law and will be enforced the same way. It is not functionally possible since it's supposed to enforced by local cops as opposed to immigration agents (ICE and other agencies). ICE won't interfere in your daily life, but can show up at your doors if they have information you are living here illegally.


As of now, there's no proof though that the cops will interfere with every day life any more than they already (legally) do.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2010, 10:01:53 PM »

For Hispanics it's THE issue.

Are you so sure? Is there data to back this up, or you simply restating a stereotype?

I don't have any stats, but I know what happened in California some years ago. My reading of the Hispanic reaction in AZ: the law was adopted as part of a strategy to excite the Anglos against Hispanics and any politician, who is in favor of the law, is in favor because he either hates Hispanics or because he wants to show his voters that he hates Hispanics. This, most definitely, was how this was covered in the Spanish-language media (both within the US and outside).

As a Jew, albeit non-practicing, I know, how I would react to a law banning the use  of human baby blood in ritual food made of wheat. No matter what else a politician, who proposed this law, would do, I would never vote for him. Even if we were to coincide on all other matters ideological, I'd rather vote for a Commie. I find it qutie plausible that, at least, AZ Hispanics will react similarly. I might be wrong, but Republicans in California have bet on that once a long time ago, and are still paying.
Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 14, 2010, 06:52:59 AM »

I don't have any stats, but I know what happened in California some years ago. My reading of the Hispanic reaction in AZ: the law was adopted as part of a strategy to excite the Anglos against Hispanics and any politician, who is in favor of the law, is in favor because he either hates Hispanics or because he wants to show his voters that he hates Hispanics. This, most definitely, was how this was covered in the Spanish-language media (both within the US and outside).

As a Jew, albeit non-practicing, I know, how I would react to a law banning the use  of human baby blood in ritual food made of wheat. No matter what else a politician, who proposed this law, would do, I would never vote for him. Even if we were to coincide on all other matters ideological, I'd rather vote for a Commie. I find it qutie plausible that, at least, AZ Hispanics will react similarly. I might be wrong, but Republicans in California have bet on that once a long time ago, and are still paying.

Um no.  In fact, many polls show that significantly more Hispanics approve of this law than voted for McCain in 08, so in terms of political fallout, don't expect anything dramatic.  The people who think this is a racist law targeting Hispanics were all planning on voting for the Democrats anyway, so there's really no movement.  Gallup polled this issue actually, and found that the only significant change between pre and post-AZ law voting intentions is that blacks got about 2 points more Republican.

What really pisses me off is that the Republicans continue to let this charade go on.  They should be storming Downtown Phoenix, pointing out how the ridiculous levels of crime (highest kidnapping rate in the western hemisphere for god's sake) are all tied to the massive amount of illegal immigration that comes through the Pinal county Border.  Instead they treat the law like some sort of poison that you shouldn't mention in polite company.

I guarantee you, that if you had an up-or-down vote on securing the Border of the United States with Mexico, Hispanics would support it.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 14, 2010, 06:18:12 PM »

I don't have any stats, but I know what happened in California some years ago. My reading of the Hispanic reaction in AZ: the law was adopted as part of a strategy to excite the Anglos against Hispanics and any politician, who is in favor of the law, is in favor because he either hates Hispanics or because he wants to show his voters that he hates Hispanics. This, most definitely, was how this was covered in the Spanish-language media (both within the US and outside).

As a Jew, albeit non-practicing, I know, how I would react to a law banning the use  of human baby blood in ritual food made of wheat. No matter what else a politician, who proposed this law, would do, I would never vote for him. Even if we were to coincide on all other matters ideological, I'd rather vote for a Commie. I find it qutie plausible that, at least, AZ Hispanics will react similarly. I might be wrong, but Republicans in California have bet on that once a long time ago, and are still paying.

  They should be storming Downtown Phoenix, pointing out how the ridiculous levels of crime (highest kidnapping rate in the western hemisphere for god's sake) are all tied to the massive amount of illegal immigration that comes through the Pinal county Border. 

They are going to be building a new bridge accross that huge river in Downtown Phoenix. Are you interested in investing?
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2010, 08:16:13 AM »

I agree with Inks, he other lawsuit was pointless. This is where the justice department needs to focus their energy if they want to challenge this law. Or find cases of people being put in jail for not carrying their green cards when going to the grocery store or whatever. Although I'm not sure how good of a case that would be.

Not very.  Holder's public opinion ratings would drop, and if the cops didn't racially profile the people when they arrested them for not carrying their greencard, he'd look like an even bigger idiot.  The smart thing for him to do here is find a CLEAR case where racial profiling occurs and challenge that - but if he tries to get the sentence on the illegal immigrant overturned, he ends up hurting himelf.

Yes, politically he should only focus on blatant racial profiling.

But practically speaking, challenging a case if a cop doesn't accept a valid driver's licence as ID would make sense. I think the law is unclear here, isn't it?

Please read A.R.S. 11-1051.B.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2010, 08:38:44 AM »

I agree with Inks, he other lawsuit was pointless. This is where the justice department needs to focus their energy if they want to challenge this law. Or find cases of people being put in jail for not carrying their green cards when going to the grocery store or whatever. Although I'm not sure how good of a case that would be.

Not very.  Holder's public opinion ratings would drop, and if the cops didn't racially profile the people when they arrested them for not carrying their greencard, he'd look like an even bigger idiot.  The smart thing for him to do here is find a CLEAR case where racial profiling occurs and challenge that - but if he tries to get the sentence on the illegal immigrant overturned, he ends up hurting himelf.

Yes, politically he should only focus on blatant racial profiling.

But practically speaking, challenging a case if a cop doesn't accept a valid driver's licence as ID would make sense. I think the law is unclear here, isn't it?

Well, I see no reason a cop would do that, and wouldn't the immigrant simply challenge it?  Why would Holder even get involved in that?  And again, why would a cop not accept a valid ID as proof that the person is here legally?

But doesn't the law require immigrants to carry proof they are legal immigrants, in the form of green card or whatever other documentation the immigrant has?

Not from what I've looked at of the law.

Please consult 8 U.S.C.A. 1304 (e)

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
 
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2010, 09:15:14 PM »

I agree with Inks, he other lawsuit was pointless. This is where the justice department needs to focus their energy if they want to challenge this law. Or find cases of people being put in jail for not carrying their green cards when going to the grocery store or whatever. Although I'm not sure how good of a case that would be.

Not very.  Holder's public opinion ratings would drop, and if the cops didn't racially profile the people when they arrested them for not carrying their greencard, he'd look like an even bigger idiot.  The smart thing for him to do here is find a CLEAR case where racial profiling occurs and challenge that - but if he tries to get the sentence on the illegal immigrant overturned, he ends up hurting himelf.

Yes, politically he should only focus on blatant racial profiling.

But practically speaking, challenging a case if a cop doesn't accept a valid driver's licence as ID would make sense. I think the law is unclear here, isn't it?

Well, I see no reason a cop would do that, and wouldn't the immigrant simply challenge it?  Why would Holder even get involved in that?  And again, why would a cop not accept a valid ID as proof that the person is here legally?

But doesn't the law require immigrants to carry proof they are legal immigrants, in the form of green card or whatever other documentation the immigrant has?

Not from what I've looked at of the law.

Please consult 8 U.S.C.A. 1304 (e)

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
 

Right, but that's not the Arizona law (I assumed that's what he meant by "the law").
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 18, 2010, 06:31:52 AM »

The feds look pretty silly right now in the eyes of the people. You know what scrap the bill. All that's going to happen is gun owners stationed along the borders who shoot at anyone who tries to get it.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 11 queries.