- This topic has 136 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
spdrun.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 27, 2012 at 10:10 AM #746623June 27, 2012 at 10:12 AM #746625
SK in CV
Participant[quote=deadzone]That is a bullshit assumption, show me some proof of that? AZ has a very large “brown” population, you are naive to belive that the police force does not include many “brown” people too.[/quote]
I’m reasonably sure no claim was made that arizona police forces don’t include many brown people.
June 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM #746626Anonymous
GuestHow about some evidence that AZ police intentionally are out to abuse “brown people”?
June 27, 2012 at 10:24 AM #746627Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Once again…
Why should we have a citizenship law that is not enforced?
Why even HAVE the law then?
This is not an Obama problem, it did not start with him. However the portion of the law that SCOTUS upheld was upheld because the feds argued that it PREVENTED them from enforcement of proper processing of illegal aliens… but they didn’t enforce the law from the beginning. Even SCOTUS could not believe that argument from the feds and thus upheld that portion of the AZ argument.
It really is comical…[/quote]
Not exactly. No claim was made that the law prevents enforcement by federal agencies. Only that the laws exceed the authority of federal law. The court ruled that Section 2, which was tentatively allowed to stand, is potentially constitutional, [essentially] dependent on how it is enforced.
June 27, 2012 at 10:27 AM #746629Participant[quote=deadzone]How about some evidence that AZ police intentionally are out to abuse “brown people”?[/quote]
The DOJ said so.
June 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM #746628bearishgurl
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Once again…
Why should we have a citizenship law that is not enforced?
Why even HAVE the law then?
This is not an Obama problem, it did not start with him. However the portion of the law that SCOTUS upheld was upheld because the feds argued that it PREVENTED them from enforcement of proper processing of illegal aliens… but they didn’t enforce the law from the beginning. Even SCOTUS could not believe that argument from the feds and thus upheld that portion of the AZ argument.
It really is comical…[/quote]
SDR, I drive straight thru AZ (or up to I-40 and then thru it) one or more times annually RT. The Feds ARE enforcing the “law” on the I-8/I-10 portion that lies near the int’l border. At all times, they have 2-3 “checkpoints” set up along this route in which all east/west motorists are stopped and asked about their “citizenship.” If it is dark, they shine a flashlight throughout the vehicles. Many, many drivers are engaged in conversation and a percentage of them are pulled over to “makeshift `secondary’ trailers” for further questioning, so the motorists can search for their documents, or because something about the vehicle makes them want to search it. Day and night, K-9 units are at the ready to circle around vehicles once or twice. The whole procedure could take 45 seconds to two hours, depending on many factors.
Note that “east-west” traffic is cross-country interstate traffic. These checkpoints are NOT set up on roads coming to/from the int’l border. This “procedure” has been going on since 9/11.
June 27, 2012 at 10:36 AM #746630SD Realtor
ParticipantSK here is the link I copied the text below from:
See below:
In enacting a state policy of “attrition through enforcement,” Arizona’s S.B. 1070 ignores every objective of the federal immigration system, save one: the immediate apprehension and criminal sanction of all unlawfully present aliens. See S.B. 1070 § 1. Arizona’s one-size-fits-all approach to immigration policy and enforcement undermines the federal government’s ability to balance the variety of objectives inherent in the federal immigration system, including the federal government’s focus on the most dangerous aliens. By requiring local police officers to engage in maximum inquiry and verification (on pain of civil suit) and by providing for the conviction and incarceration of certain foreign nationals in Arizona for their failure to register, for entering or traveling throughout the state using commercial transportation, or for soliciting work, the “balance” struck by S.B. 1070 is not only different from that of the federal government, but it will interfere with the federal government’s ability to administer and enforce the immigration laws in a manner consistent with the aforementioned concerns that are reflected in the INA. Despite the statute’s self serving claim that it “shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration,” S.B. 1070 § 12, the act mandates a conflicting, Arizona-specific immigration policy – “attrition through enforcement” – and prescribes various provisions that implement that policy in conflict with federal priorities. To permit a hodgepodge of state immigration policies, such as the one Arizona has attempted in S.B. 1070, would impermissibly interfere with the federal government’s balance of uniquely national interests and priorities in a number of ways.
******************************************************
Now I did not boldface the part about enforcement but it is in there……
Arguing semantics is not necessary.
However having a law that is not enforced just seems lame to me. If we don’t want to enforce immigration then don’t enforce it at all… Having some sort of bizarre selective enforcement is a joke.
June 27, 2012 at 10:48 AM #746632Participant[quote=SD Realtor]
However having a law that is not enforced just seems lame to me. If we don’t want to enforce immigration then don’t enforce it at all… Having some sort of bizarre selective enforcement is a joke.[/quote]I don’t disagree with this. But the fact is, every law enforcement agency across the country has to allocate resources. Those resources are directed at what the powers that be decide are the most pressing issues. Enforcement of other laws are either minimal or in some cases dismissed entirely. Immigration is no different.
Nothing in this ruling prohibits AZ from enforcing existing federal laws, to the same extent that federal agencies are allowed to enforce them. And with some very minor exceptions, there is little evidence that federal laws aren’t being enforced.
June 27, 2012 at 10:56 AM #746633ParticipantI think we are very much in agreement except for the last line about little evidence that federal laws aren’t being enforced. I believe the entire premise for AZ coming up with all of this was because of the lack of enforcement. True the lack of enforcement could be due to lack of resources. Possibly true the lack of enforcement could be due to a decision at the federal level not to allocate those resources.
Note… NOT unique to Obama.
June 27, 2012 at 12:41 PM #746641Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=deadzone]How about some evidence that AZ police intentionally are out to abuse “brown people”?[/quote]
The DOJ said so.
This looks like a political move to me. We’ll see where this lawsuite goes if anywhere, but no proof yet. If anything Sheriff Joe is well known to treat all prisoners bad and is a bit of a nutcase. AZ is over 30% hispanic, and if you included illegal residents it is surely much more than that, hardly what you would consider a minority group.
June 27, 2012 at 1:08 PM #746644briansd1
Guest[quote=sdrealtor]Brian
You got out just in time. July in Philly is notoriously the Dog Days of Summer. The weather changes quickly for the worse around July 4th. Stay away for the next 4 weeks as the heat/humidity breaks around Aug 1st each year as well.The only people in Philly on weekends during July are those that don’t have a place down the shore to go to.[/quote]
I’m in Philly about once per month so I’ve experienced the weather at its best and worse. It’s fine if you have a home with good insulation and mechanicals.
Lots of old run-down houses in Philly. A friend of mine is a postdoc at UPenn. Her apartment has a window A/C that hardly cools below 80F. Hard to find modern, comfortable housing in the city.
I think that back East, the summer heat was a rite of passage for kids, especially before central air-conditioning become common place.
I think that central AC is the best invention ever and is a human right issue:
June 27, 2012 at 1:37 PM #746646desmond
Participantbg-
La Fonda is in the old section of Flagstaff and it is near the train tracks.Not sure where the dinosaur are but the
Meteor Crater is located off I-40 at exit 233, then 6 miles south on the paved road. 35 miles east of Flagstaff, 20 miles west of Winslow, in Arizona, USAAnother place to stop, not sure if the kids would like it, is the Petrified Forest:
June 27, 2012 at 1:59 PM #746651Participant[quote=desmond]bg-
La Fonda is in the old section of Flagstaff and it is near the train tracks.Not sure where the dinosaur are but the
Meteor Crater is located off I-40 at exit 233, then 6 miles south on the paved road. 35 miles east of Flagstaff, 20 miles west of Winslow, in Arizona, USAAnother place to stop, not sure if the kids would like it, is the Petrified Forest:
http://www.arizona-leisure.com/petrified-forest.html%5B/quote%5D
I HAVE eaten at La Fonda last summer then. It was REALLY crowded and the food was good.
Oh, I see now, the dino fast-food truck stop is between Winslow and the Petrified Forest (near Holbrook), probably 30-50 mi EAST of Winslow.
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7HRW_Truckstop_Dinosaurs_Sun_Valley_Arizona
[img_assist|nid=16375|title=Truck Stop Tyrannosaurus Rex|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=300]
I’ll have to take the time to see the Petrified Forest sometime! I’m usually in a hurry for a “late check-in” at my ABQ hotel when I’m traveling that route :=]
btw, the Conoco dinosaurs serve an assortment of good fast food!
June 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM #746655Guest[quote=SK in CV][quote=deadzone]How about some evidence that AZ police intentionally are out to abuse “brown people”?[/quote]
The DOJ said so.
Statistically, racial profiling is without a doubt unless everyone had an equal probability of getting screened. I doubt that a fair mechanism can be established.
Opponents are expected to ask a judge in the coming days to put the requirement on hold while they argue that the law can’t be enforced without racially profiling people
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-says-arizona-immigration-ruling-wont-take-effect-until-at-least-july-20/2012/06/26/gJQASGZJ5V_story.htmlI expect the last standing part of the AZ law to eventually get struck down.
June 27, 2012 at 2:58 PM #746656spdrun
ParticipantStory to tell — this crap doesn’t only happen in AZ:
I was driving from AZ to CA, and I took the scenic route to San Diego about 2 years ago. I’m pretty much straight-up white, but I was pulled over by Border Pigs twice.Once on I-8 about 15 min after the CA border. The second time on Rt. 94 at the Dulzurra(?) checkpoint. The swine at the second stop didn’t stop at asking my citizenship, checking ID/passport, and asking if I was carrying anyone else in the car.
They asked me: how long was I planning to be in CA? Where was I staying in CA? What was my business in CA?
None of which I was prepared to answer, since as an American citizen, I have the RIGHT to travel in my own damn country without being harassed and interrogated. So I answered that I was an American citizen traveling in my own country, and that anything else was none of their business. They tired of the game after about 5-10 minutes, checked the trunk and waved me to go. All was recorded by me, of course.
Frankly, thinking back on this treatment *still* enrages me. Granted, I was driving a dusty rental with Zonie plates, but this still disgusted me. Interestingly, I’ve never been harassed in this way since, mostly in vehicles with CA plates. Could this have been a bit of quid-pro-quo – maybe the checkpoint officer’s cousin was harassed by some AZ cops?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.