Arizona's Immigration Law

[TenPenny]

Do you seriously believe that any policeman in Arizona is going to ask a white person to pull over and ask for the immigration documents? If you believe that, I have some prime waterfront property you may be interested in buying. It is called the Brooklyn Bridge.

The way it will work is only brown people will be asked to prove their citizenship status. That is why there is so much outcry about it, why the bill is racist, both in intent and in implementation.

I don't think you understand the law or the documentation requirements fully.

If you are pulled over, you will be asked for a driver's license, same as always. If you bothered to read any of the information, you'd know that's all you will need to provide. Which, in fact, you are supposed to have with you when driving a car anyway.

 

[YukonJack]

"Sure it is great hardship. Especially when you know that if you happen to forget it at home and cannot produce it when asked for it, you probably will end up in jail."

So, don't forget it home!

Provided that you have it in the first place. And if you don't you belong in jail or back in the old country, regardless of skin colour.

 

[EagleSmack]

The problem of illegal immigration is not solved by passing an overtly racist legislation. That is like saying that let us cure the bowel cancer of a person by cutting him open and throwing sulphuric acid on the tumour. Sure, drown the patient's inside in sulfuric acid and it will destroy the tumour. But what will it do to the patient? In this case, the cure is worse than the disease.

Yeah... that's it. :roll:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If you are driving a car, you are supposed to have your driver's license with you.

Since the vast majority of people stopped under this law will be driving cars, they are supposed to have the required ID on them anyway.

Therefore, the problem is what?

The problem is that for a white person, driver’s license will be enough, the cop won’t suspect him/her of being an illegal alien. For a Hispanic, driver’s license won’t be enough; most cops will automatically suspect him to be an illegal alien. So in ADDITION to driver’s license, he will have to prove his citizenship status, either by green card, birth certificate or passport. If he does not carry any of these documents for whatever reason (he forgot, or didn’t have time to pick them up because he was in a hurry etc.) he will be thrown into jail.

If the white person forgets his driver’s license, very likely the cop won’t take any further action; he will let him off with a warning. This is very much different treatment of different races; the legislation is blatantly racist in nature.

 

[EagleSmack]

I don't think you understand the law or the documentation requirements fully.

If you are pulled over, you will be asked for a driver's license, same as always. If you bothered to read any of the information, you'd know that's all you will need to provide. Which, in fact, you are supposed to have with you when driving a car anyway.

Nah...it's just racist... (sarcasm added)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't think you understand the law or the documentation requirements fully.

If you are pulled over, you will be asked for a driver's license, same as always. If you bothered to read any of the information, you'd know that's all you will need to provide. Which, in fact, you are supposed to have with you when driving a car anyway.

I seriously doubt that is all that is required. A driver’s license does not prove citizenship, many illegal aliens have driver’s license (they do not ask for proof of citizenship when applying for driver's license). My understanding is that the Hispanic will have to prove his citizenship status, and driver’s license is no good for that.

Anyway, show me where it says that showing the driver’s license will be enough. If that is the case, then I will agree, the legislation is not racist in nature.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Sure it is great hardship. Especially when you know that if you happen to forget it at home and cannot produce it when asked for it, you probably will end up in jail."

So, don't forget it home!

Provided that you have it in the first place. And if you don't you belong in jail or back in the old country, regardless of skin colour.

Indeed, that is precisely my point. A Hispanic will have to prove his citizenship status or risk going to jail. A white person won't have to do that. Maybe you don't understand what is meant by the term racism, but that is clearly racist.

 

[TenPenny]

I seriously doubt that is all that is required. A driver’s license does not prove citizenship, many illegal aliens have driver’s license (they do not ask for proof of citizenship when applying for driver's license). My understanding is that the Hispanic will have to prove his citizenship status, and driver’s license is no good for that.

Anyway, show me where it says that showing the driver’s license will be enough. If that is the case, then I will agree, the legislation is not racist in nature.

Try reading post 61:

A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

 

[Liberalman]

The problem has to be solved then maybe a better idea is that all citizens must prove to police that they are legal not matter what race they are.

This would be the only fair solution.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I read that, and that is very surprising. Do they require proof of citizenship in Arizona before they will give out driver’s license? Most jurisdictions don’t require that, they simply ask you where you live.

If all they ask for is driver’s license, then I agree, the law is not racist. But then I don’t see how it is going to curb any illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants have driver’s license (unless Arizona is a special case, where they won’t give you driver’s license unless you produce your green card or your passport).

Anyway, I agree, if all they need is a driver’s license, then the law is not racist in nature.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The problem has to be solved then maybe a better idea is that all citizens must prove to police that they are legal not matter what race they are.

This would be the only fair solution.

Quite so, that will make it non racist.

 

[TenPenny]

I read that, and that is very surprising. Do they require proof of citizenship in Arizona before they will give out driver’s license? Most jurisdictions don’t require that, they simply ask you where you live.

If all they ask for is driver’s license, then I agree, the law is not racist. But then I don’t see how it is going to curb any illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants have driver’s license (unless Arizona is a special case, where they won’t give you driver’s license unless you produce your green card or your passport).

Anyway, I agree, if all they need is a driver’s license, then the law is not racist in nature.

Well, at least you now agree that it isn't racist.

 

[YukonJack]

"Indeed, that is precisely my point. A Hispanic will have to prove his citizenship status or risk going to jail. A white person won't have to do that. Maybe you don't understand what is meant by the term racism, but that is clearly racist."

SirJosephPorter, once again you quoted me, but ignored the last sentence of my post. (#105). If you can show me the part of the law that excludes white people from proving their legality, while asked for proof when the law officer has a valid reason to do so, I will agree with you that thelaw is racist.

So far you've kept on repeating the tiresome talking points without substance, just your opinions, sadly and blindly influenced by racist Anti-Americans who are ready to hand their country over to those who are ready to turn it into another Mexico.

 

[Liberalman]

I read that, and that is very surprising. Do they require proof of citizenship in Arizona before they will give out driver’s license? Most jurisdictions don’t require that, they simply ask you where you live.

If all they ask for is driver’s license, then I agree, the law is not racist. But then I don’t see how it is going to curb any illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants have driver’s license (unless Arizona is a special case, where they won’t give you driver’s license unless you produce your green card or your passport).

Anyway, I agree, if all they need is a driver’s license, then the law is not racist in nature.

I knew of a person who moved to America for a year and went the illegal route.

This person went to the seedy part of town to get his fake ID and a very well produced green card for about three hundred bucks.

This person worked at a factory to get money and got benefits.

Then after a year this person came back to Canada.

One has to remember that in order to have ten million illegals there is a sophisticated underground network to get good quality identification.

If America was serious about the illegal immigration problem they have to redesign the ID with better high security features.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Well, at least you now agree that it isn't racist.

Well, yes. Tentatively I agree it is non racist, subject to my verifying the information (that a driver's license is indeed enough).

 

[TenPenny]

It's on page 2 of the text.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It's on page 2 of the text.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

Looks good. It is mentioned in the text of the law itself, it is not somebody's interpretation of the law.

OK, so I agree it is not racist. But I fail to see how it will curb illegal immigration (unless Arizona requires proof of citizenship before they will issue a driver's license).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Indeed, that is precisely my point. A Hispanic will have to prove his citizenship status or risk going to jail. A white person won't have to do that. Maybe you don't understand what is meant by the term racism, but that is clearly racist."

SirJosephPorter, once again you quoted me, but ignored the last sentence of my post. (#105). If you can show me the part of the law that excludes white people from proving their legality, while asked for proof when the law officer has a valid reason to do so, I will agree with you that thelaw is racist.

So far you've kept on repeating the tiresome talking points without substance, just your opinions, sadly and blindly influenced by racist Anti-Americans who are ready to hand their country over to those who are ready to turn it into another Mexico.

It doesn’t have to say so in the law, there are very few white illegals in Arizona, a policeman is invariably going to suspect a Hispanic of being an illegal, not a white.

As I said before, there are ways of writing racist and sexist laws without actually mentioning race and sex. Thus in the old days, one of the criteria for many jobs was that the person must be at least six feet tall (the most famous of them being the London ‘Bobby’). While not mentioning sex anywhere, this effectively kept women out of the profession (and of course, the very few that may apply could always be rejected on some trumped up reason).

So just because race is not mentioned anywhere in the law, does not mean that the law is not racist.

 

[YukonJack]

First of all, TenPenny, I know we did not see eye to eye sometimes, I thank you for presenting the actual law. I wish I had thought of that.

You saved us a whole lot of time and wasted effort. You also accomplished something that was hitherto thought impossible:

SirJosephPorter admitting that he was wrong.

THANK YOU!!!

 

[YukonJack]

"It doesn’t have to say so in the law, there are very few white illegals in Arizona, a policeman is invariably going to suspect a Hispanic of being an illegal, not a white."

There are also very few white babies or white grandmothers or any other white people committing terrorist acts. Yet they have to go through the same rigorious examination as the proven suspects at any and all airports.

But of course, no discrimination can be committed against white people. Anything they get, they deserve. Right?