Anyone avoiding Arizona?

[shoptb1]

Would you have preferred it if there was the more obscure The Republic by Plato (also rather old), or some Egyptian/Indian/Sumerian work?

Perhaps it's different in the United Kingdom, but in the United States, the majority of folks don't know that there is in fact any other religion in the world outside of Christianity.  My response was knee-jerk, and it's from the fact that 90% of the people that I am around think that the Bible is in fact the oldest (and only) religious text in the world.  This is not the case.

What's the largest then? AFAICS these two, in nominal terms (people applying the label to themselves) takes up 2.2 billion and 1.6 billion respectively. Hinduism comes third at 1.2 billion (lower end estimates for these three are 2.1 billion, 1.3 billion and 828 million). The top end estimates leaves just over 1.8 billion for such a bigger religion (so it's smaller than Christianity) if everyone else subscribed to the same religion (which they don't). The lower end figures leaves just under 2.5 billion, so it's possible if no more than 400 million of the rest doesn't subscribe to other things. 500 million say that they believe in Folk Religions and 500 million say that they are Buddhists. Seems like (nominally) they are the two largest religions.

I stand corrected, but again, my point was to illustrate that Christianity in itself is not the singularity in this world.  There seems to be this assumption in American social, professional, and political circles that all Americans identify with Christianity. I would just like for folks to not make those assumptions.

Judaism is generally considered old when it comes to recorded history.

Indeed.  Although they share historical roots, Judaism is also a separate religion from Christianity (and Islam).  Both of these religions began with Judaism, with different "prophets" (Jesus Christ, Muhammad ibn Abdullāh) respectively seen as the chosen messiah.  However, Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, and others are generally accepted to pre-date the Abrahamic religions. 

All of these things, however, are not germane to this discussion, and you're right that SP Cook's mention of this was probably just to establish historical credibility for his point. However, considering that two other folks also had the same misinterpretation of the comment, I think it's probably reasonable to say that it should have been clarified.

You intolerantly kneejerk as soon something vaguely alluding to anything religious is mentioned (ironically bringing religion up) - ditto deanj.
I read a lot of stuff elsewhere where religious points are made, and I am struggling to see anything resembling it except from those attacking SP Cook for mentioning the B-word.  If it's come to a point where anti-religion intolerance has come to a point where even mentioning religious writings for non-religious reasons fires up the "SUPPRESS IT" sirens, then we've come to a bad place.

Have you lived in the United States lately?  I really don't see Christianity in any danger of losing its strong foothold on American society, government, and politics any time soon.  Our separation of church and state is the biggest dotted-line separation I've seen, but my thoughts on our American society is probably a topic for some other discussion.

I do agree that it was a knee jerk reaction to SP Cook, and I apologize for that.  It's really fine to mention the Bible...but let's just remember that there are also other people with differing beliefs in this world (and surprise, surprise even America). 

[Scott5114]

Let's not discuss this religion stuff in this thread. We're not going to discover anything new by discussing it. Take it to PM if you must.

The thing that has people pissed about the immigration law is not that it causes illegal immigrants to be deported. That's been the law, and most people probably support that. The problem is that this establishes suspicion of foreign status as an acceptable reason (probable cause) to perform a search or arrest. This is a problem because this is less obvious than other kinds of probable cause. If you're veering off the side of the road, that's a red flag that shows you may be committing a crime (DUI). If they pull you over for speeding and you've got something other than keys stuck in the ignition, that's a red flag that shows you may be committing a crime (car theft).

So what's probable cause for detaining an illegal immigrant? Here's the issue: immigration status is independent from someone's appearance or actions. The only way you can tell for sure if someone is not a United States citizen is if you're actually looking at their documentation, and to see that documentation you need...probable cause. This attempts to short circuit that by saying "if they look illegal, detain them". That leads to the authorities equating "Mexican-looking = illegal". But that's not the case: there are tons of people of Mexican descent that are full United States citizens.

If you are in favor of this law, then how do you reconcile this?

[SP Cook]

This is really pretty simple, and it really does not go far enough.

This is, more than anything, about traffic.  Probable cause is not really an issue, because the law says that when law enforcement is already dealing with someone for another reason, it can inquire into citizenship and take appropriate action.  Clues?  People that do not have a US DL and cannot then produce a passport with an entry stamp.  People that are driving around with Mexican plates (it is very common for long term criminal aliens to register cars "back home" where taxes are tiny by US standards).   Currently law enforcement does nothing about this, because the federal government will not take custody and it ends up costing the state or county money.  If you move to Phoenix and keep your California plates (which is a crime) and drive too fast (which is a crime) you are in trouble.  If you have an unpaid ticket when you are pulled over, you will probably be arrested.  If you sneek illegally into Phoenix from Baja California, and have no right to be there, if you do those things, the police will, as a matter of economics, let you go.  You can drive with impunity.  That is dangerous and stupid.

This is just treating this crime like any other.

It really does not go far enough.

Currently, in this country, these fugitives from justice can:

Appear in state courts, as defendants, as plaintiffs in civil cases, as witnesses, etc.

Sue one another for divorce, child support, etc.

Go into county welfare offices and apply for various programs.

Send children to schools.

Attend college as "state residents" (that is right, my niece who lives 0.4m from the Virginia line pays out-of-state tuition in Virginia, but a criminal with no right to live anywhere in the USA, walks into that same classroom, past the campus cops, and pays in-state).

Open bank accounts, apply for loans, record deeds and wills at courthouses.

None of those things could be done by someone who was, say, wanted for a misdemeanor traffic offense.  All this law says is that when you interact with someone who is commiting a crime, you call the cops, and the cops do what is right.

All this reasonable and limited law does is treat this crime like any other.  Because, IMHO, the federal government is not serious about enforcing this law, or, as others feel, is unable to do so.  Those who oppose it, either really do not understand it, or really oppose the concept of national citizenship.

[agentsteel53]

I am quite sure someone who is wanted for a misdemeanor traffic offense can appear in court...

maybe it's time to attack the problem where it is abused - namely, the welfare office and other places where people apply for benefits.

[J N Winkler]

maybe it's time to attack the problem where it is abused - namely, the welfare office and other places where people apply for benefits.

It is often claimed that illegal immigrants apply for benefits and even register to vote.  Where is the proof that this actually happens?  Do any of you have actual, firsthand experience of the process for applying for welfare benefits?

Edit:  the Washington Post has an editorial article by Michael Gerson, a former Bush speechwriter with whom I tend not to agree very often, which is surprisingly and sharply critical of the Arizona law:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/the_authors_of_arizonas_immigr.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Valentine to Jeb Bush it may be, but it makes some cogent points.

[shoptb1]

Interesting enough, Pima County (Tucson) Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, who is the longest standing sheriff in Arizona and is only 100 miles from the border has responded to the legislation by saying "he doesn't want this new law, he doesn't need it, and he is not going to enforce it."  

I do think, however, that this law even further highlights the need for comprehensive immigration reform, and as mentioned by many people in this forum...Arizona is enacting this legislation as what they see as a 'last-ditch-effort' since they don't feel that the federal government is providing the support that they want.  

I'm hoping that the law will be repealed (as it would most likely be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court), but be replaced by a much more effective federal solution that doesn't invite racial profiling, bullying, and create serious constitutional concerns.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

I am quite sure someone who is wanted for a misdemeanor traffic offense can appear in court...

maybe it's time to attack the problem where it is abused - namely, the welfare office and other places where people apply for benefits.

The abuse isn't at the welfare office, its the employers, across the United States, who use illigals because they'll work cheaper, won't question orders (all the boss has to do is threaten to deport any worker who questions their authority), and can be toss aside whenever they're no longer needed.
Just like coal miners in West Virginia.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

BTW, if you have a couple of hours to kill and like movies, check out Lone Star.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116905/
Illegal Immigration from Mexico to Texas is one of the themes (but not the main story) in this movie

[SP Cook]

Do any of you have actual, firsthand experience of the process for applying for welfare benefits?

Umm, yes.  Worked for state welfare department for several years until taking a better job recent.  You can confirm any of this on line with whatever state you wish to. 

Food Stamps, which is a form of welfare, (now called SNAP) are based on household size and income.  Pretty simple concept, really.  Except there are several catigories of people in households who do not count, for various public policy reason.  Drug fellons, people who have lied to the welfare office in previous cases and have been decleared ineligiable, what is known as an "ABWOD" which is government speak for somebody that just will not work for a living (Able Bodied Without Dependnets), full-time college students, and what they call "ineligiable aliens".  An "ineligiable alien" is an illegal alien.

Now technically, does that criminal get food stamp welfare?  No.  But he (or more often) she, can get them for her citizen children.  Do what?  You mean the government has certain knowledge of the exact residence of a person with no right to be here, who is commiting a crime every second of every day and the first thing it does is not to call the police?  Yes.  Cannot call the police.  Federal government policy.

Another welfare benefit (run in my state by the welfare department, it varries in other places) is child support enforcement.  (Which means if you are having trouble collecting child support, a welfare department employee will enforce the law for you, rather than you having to get an attorney).  In my state we have hundreds of cases where an illegal alien female appears in court to get support (or an order which will probably never be enforcable) from an illegal alien male, for their mixture of illegal alien and citizen children. 

Do what?  A person can walk into an American courtroom, commiting a crime every second by simply being there and the judge will not simply direct the bailiff to arrest her?  No.  Cannot by federal policy.

Substitute "wanted for any other crime" for "criminal alien" and you see the absurd nature of the special treatment of this crime differently from all others.

[agentsteel53]

Now technically, does that criminal get food stamp welfare?  No.  But he (or more often) she, can get them for her citizen children.

I don't suppose you want a one-year-old to fill out the forms himself?

[vdeane]

I recently read a piece in the New York times that the whole uproar about illegal immigration has little to do with immigration but is instead part of a movement to prevent the racial demographics of the US from changing.

[J N Winkler]

Now technically, does that criminal get food stamp welfare?  No.  But he (or more often) she, can get them for her citizen children.  Do what?  You mean the government has certain knowledge of the exact residence of a person with no right to be here, who is commiting a crime every second of every day and the first thing it does is not to call the police?  Yes.  Cannot call the police.  Federal government policy.

I don't see what your problem here is.  The illegal alien is not eligible for food stamps; he or she is not getting them; what is the problem?  The illegal alien's US citizen children are eligible for food stamps; they are getting them; what is the problem?  Are you seriously suggesting that it is good public policy to deport the parent and break up the family?  This flies in the face of state policies which have as their explicit goal the preservation of functioning family units.  Or are you suggesting that parents and US citizen children should be deported to Mexico, notwithstanding the US citizen children having little to no experience of Mexico?  Been tried before (1930's), didn't work, was cruel, let's not go there again.

Another welfare benefit (run in my state by the welfare department, it varies in other places) is child support enforcement.  (Which means if you are having trouble collecting child support, a welfare department employee will enforce the law for you, rather than you having to get an attorney).  In my state we have hundreds of cases where an illegal alien female appears in court to get support (or an order which will probably never be enforcable) from an illegal alien male, for their mixture of illegal alien and citizen children.

Enforcement itself is not really a benefit.  To the extent that it is a charge on the state for a specific public policy purpose, what is the problem with delinquent parents--whether US citizens or not--being required to pay child support for their US citizen children?

Substitute "wanted for any other crime" for "criminal alien" and you see the absurd nature of the special treatment of this crime differently from all others.

I don't see the absurdity.  Being here illegally is an administrative violation.  Speeding, trespass, robbery, murder etc. are actual criminal offenses.  I don't ask to be protected from those here without papers; I ask to be protected from those who would do me genuine physical injury.

[shoptb1]

Another interesting angle to this debate is even simpler than most of the discussion up to this point.  Supply and Demand.  One of the reasons that Americans enjoy cheaper goods & services is the underground machine that allows individuals & corporations to continue employing illegal immigrants at a cut-rate hourly wage without health insurance/benefits/etc.  If all of the illegals are deported, will this need just magically go away?  I think not!  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Americans going south of the border to entice Mexicans to "jump the fence" in order to fill their under-the-table labor demands.

So I ask you...who's the real criminal in this situation?  What about the enforcement of laws regarding employing illegal immigrants? 

[mightyace]

Well, at the moment, it is.  And therefore, if you are a law enforcement officer, you are bound by duty and the law to uphold the law.  Whether you like it or not does not matter.  If you cannot enforce it in clear conscience you should resign.

That does not work in practice or even principle.  By the same logic, a police officer should have zero discretion to let you off without a ticket when you are clocked above the speed limit.

Unless the law gives the officer discretion, he/she should not let you off.

I've been pulled over twice for minor traffic offenses in the last 3 months and was let off with a warning both times.  I have to admit I felt both relieved and guilty when that happened.  i.e. The conflicting emotions joy for not be punished but feeling that I should have.  And, I cannot help but wonder if I was not a Caucasian, would I have gotten a ticket?  (Both traffic stops were in primarily white suburbs of Nashville.)

[agentsteel53]

discretion in enforcing the law is the mark of a reasonable society.  Taken to its logical extreme, one shouldn't be jailed for stealing a loaf of bread.

[agentsteel53]

I recently read a piece in the New York times that the whole uproar about illegal immigration has little to do with immigration but is instead part of a movement to prevent the racial demographics of the US from changing.

boo M. F. hoo.

if Whitey is headed for extinction, so be it.  I'm doing my part by not reproducing!

[mightyace]

Could somebody please put a lock on this thread?

This is turning my stomach and I now think less of some people than I would have before this.  And, I'm sure some can say the same of me.

This alleged "discussion" is not doing anything constructive. IMHO.

I thought that most people on this thread could discuss/argue/debate constructively.  Apparently, I am mistaken.

It makes me wonder whether or not to continue being a part of this forum.  Of course, some of you might say, don't read this thread.  This is true, but the damage has already been done.

[agentsteel53]

I thought that most people on this thread could discuss/argue/debate constructively.  Apparently, I am mistaken.

on the contrary, other than the occasional flip remark referencing Whitey, and one unfortunate veer towards the absurdly theological (which was quickly moderated back to a sensible course), I think the discussion has been quite civil.

[yanksfan6129]

yeah, I generally think that this has been a productive debate.

[corco]

This is turning my stomach and I now think less of some people than I would have before this.  And, I'm sure some can say the same of me.

This alleged "discussion" is not doing anything constructive. IMHO.

I thought that most people on this thread could discuss/argue/debate constructively.  Apparently, I am mistaken.

This is an immigration debate on a road forum on the internet. It means nothing. Nothing! None of us have any political pull whatsoever, and like most political issues people have their minds made up one way or another, right or wrong. Nobody is going to change their minds on anything.  Constructive debate is out of the question here, the best one can hope for is civil, and I think that's been the case here.

[mightyace]

Constructive debate is out of the question here, the best one can hope for is civil, and I think that's been the case here.

If this is civil debate, then I certainly don't want to see uncivil.

[agentsteel53]

If this is civil debate, then I certainly don't want to see uncivil.

don't go to 4chan, then.

what precisely is uncivil about it?  (other than the religious stuff, which has already been dealt with)

[shoptb1]

Constructive debate is out of the question here, the best one can hope for is civil, and I think that's been the case here.

If this is civil debate, then I certainly don't want to see uncivil.

I think this has been a very civil debate; religious tangent aside.  I've seen some interesting points from both sides of the argument.  I, for one, would gladly prefer a healthy debate over political topics vs. being completely uneducated about what's going on in the world around us.   

[US71]

You probably should have clarified that.  It looked like you were saying "the Bible says so, so it's LAW".

Sadly, I know many folks (Roadgeeks included) who feel that way.

[J N Winkler]

Unless the law gives the officer discretion, he/she should not let you off.

I've been pulled over twice for minor traffic offenses in the last 3 months and was let off with a warning both times.  I have to admit I felt both relieved and guilty when that happened.  i.e. The conflicting emotions joy for not be punished but feeling that I should have.  And, I cannot help but wonder if I was not a Caucasian, would I have gotten a ticket?  (Both traffic stops were in primarily white suburbs of Nashville.)

I don't see anything wrong with letting you (or, in other contexts, me) off without a ticket in contexts similar to the ones you describe.

It is important to distinguish between duties and powers.  A duty is an obligation on someone in authority to perform a specific thing.  It precludes the exercise of discretion.  A power, on the other hand, is the legal capacity to do something, without necessarily being obliged by law to do so.  Typically, the police have powers but not duties to enforce the law.  Similarly, highway agencies have powers but not duties to maintain the highway network.  (Highway agencies even used to have sovereign immunity.  In other words, if your car was damaged through no fault of your own but rather a defect in the highway which the agency had the option of repairing, but chose not to repair, you had no right to sue.)

In carrying out functions which are supported by legal powers (but not duties), agencies generally have an obligation to exercise discretion reasonably.  In other words, if I am a police officer, I can decide to let some drivers go and write other drivers up based on my perception of the relative seriousness of each offense, but I am not (for example) allowed to write up all the black drivers, and let all of the white drivers off.

The problem with the Arizona law is that it tries to convert what is in effect a power (to check the legal status of people who might have come from abroad) into a duty, by allowing persons and groups to sue the police for not exercising that power.  Moreover, notwithstanding the recent amendment to the law to explicitly ban racial profiling, it is not clear what the police can go on other than the skin color of the potential immigrant.  If the police proceed on a basis of "looks Mexican, maybe illegal," that pushes them into an unreasonable exercise of discretion which puts them in violation of federal civil-rights statutes.  There is no way for the police to win and that is why SB 1070 has been opposed by police chiefs and middle-ranking police brass.