Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott

[EpyonXero]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/19/arizona-official-threatens-cut-los-angeles-power-payback-boycott/

L.A. Mayor Dismisses Warning That Arizona Could Cut Off Power Over Boycott

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Wednesday defiantly rejected a warning by a top Arizona utilities official that the state could cut off power to Los Angeles should the city proceed with its boycott of all things Arizona.


Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Wednesday defiantly rejected a warning by a top Arizona utilities official that the state could cut off power to Los Angeles should the city proceed with its boycott of all things Arizona.

Spokesman David Beltran told Fox News that the message didn't even warrant a response.

"We're not going to respond to threats from a state which has isolated itself from the America that values freedom, liberty and basic human rights," Beltran said.

That was after Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote a letter to Villaraigosa slamming his City Council's decision to boycott the Grand Canyon State -- in protest of its immigration law -- by suspending official travel there and ending future contracts with state businesses.

Noting that a quarter of Los Angeles' electricity comes from Arizona power plants, Pierce threatened to pull the plug if the City Council does not reconsider.

"Doggone it -- if you're going to boycott this candy store ... then don't come in for any of it," Pierce told FoxNews.com.

In the letter, he ridiculed Villaraigosa for saying that the point of the boycott was to "send a message" by severing the "resources and ties" they share.

"I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the 'resources and ties' we share with the city of Los Angeles," Pierce wrote.

"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation."

Appearing to tap into local frustration in Arizona over the raft of boycotts and threatened boycotts from cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Pierce warned that Arizona companies are willing and ready to fight boycott with boycott.

"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Pierce wrote. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."

Pierce told FoxNews.com that he was speaking for himself, not the entire commission, though he has the support of at least one other member. But Arizona has some serious leverage over Los Angeles, as well as the rest of California. The state and city get electricity from a nuclear power plant outside Phoenix, as well as from coal-fired power plants in northern Arizona and two giant hydroelectric power generators along the Colorado River.

Despite that, the Los Angeles City Council voted overwhelmingly last week to ban future business with Arizona -- a decision that could cost Arizona millions of dollars in lost contracts.

Los Angeles officials were furious with the Arizona immigration law passed last month and joined local officials in cities across the country in pushing boycotts to register their dismay. Critics say the law will lead to racial profiling and civil rights abuses.

Arizona officials have defended the law, saying the state needed to take its illegal immigration problem into its own hands. Pierce said he's "supportive" of the state's efforts to control the border.

The law requires local law enforcement to try to verify the immigration status of anyone they have contact with whom they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. It empowers them to turn over verified illegal immigrants to federal custody. The legislation explicitly prohibits screening people based solely on race or national origin.

Fox News' Ron Ralston contributed to this report

[the chi]

Awesome. Go Arizona!!

Honestly, are we back to the civil war era? State against state? And WTH is so wrong with the law they passed? Verifying someone's legality to be in the good ole US of A is now a bad thing? Turning illegals into the feds to have them sent back pending they get their paperwork filed and become a tax paying citizen?

*i am not familiar with the new law, nor have I given it much thought, so forgive me if I am interpreting it from the article.*

[askmrjesus]

Awesome. Go Arizona!!

This I can agree with. Nice way to call a bluff.



Honestly, are we back to the civil war era? State against state? And WTH is so wrong with the law they passed? Verifying someone's legality to be in the good ole US of A is now a bad thing? Turning illegals into the feds to have them sent back pending they get their paperwork filed and become a tax paying citizen?

*i am not familiar with the new law, nor have I given it much thought, so forgive me if I am interpreting it from the article.*

It's a Fourth amendment issue.

Being brown, is not probable cause.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I would think most darker skinned Americans, would consider being pulled over for driving while brown, to be unreasonable.

JC

[Rider]

This I can agree with. Nice way to call a bluff.





It's a Fourth amendment issue.

Being brown, is not probable cause.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I would think most darker skinned Americans, would consider being pulled over for driving while brown, to be unreasonable.

JC

How many white people are illegal and how many brown people are illegal? Seems fair to pull them over.

[the chi]

While I see what you are saying, the intent of the law is not to pull someone over just because they are brown.

Will it get abused? I'm sure. But if its dark outside, someone has a headlight out, and they get pulled over, its not because they are brown, its because they have a headlight out. In the event they get pulled over and they cant establish legitimate residency or provide a valid drivers license or green card, are they supposed to get special treatment because they are brown, red or any other color? Illegal immigrants arent all brown you know...

[defector]

First off, I love this. Thunderdome rules apply!

Second: Read it for yourself, and come to your own conclusion.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

[askmrjesus]

While I see what you are saying, the intent of the law is not to pull someone over just because they are brown.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the intent is. Even though the new law requires police to stop anyone who "appears" to be an illegal, I have yet to hear how they are supposed to determine that, simply by looking at them.

Will it get abused? I'm sure. But if its dark outside, someone has a headlight out, and they get pulled over, its not because they are brown, its because they have a headlight out. In the event they get pulled over and they cant establish legitimate residency or provide a valid drivers license or green card, are they supposed to get special treatment because they are brown, red or any other color? Illegal immigrants arent all brown you know...

Again, it goes to probable cause. I have no problem asking for proof of residence status, if you are stopped for an infraction.

Being pulled over solely based on your appearance, is a whole different thing, and that's exactly what this law allows.

JC

[askmrjesus]

How many white people are illegal and how many brown people are illegal? Seems fair to pull them over.

By that logic, any motorcyclist under 40, should be allowed to be pulled over just so police can check the max speed record on their GPS, since younger riders tend to ride faster.

Sounds "fair" right?

JC

[Rider]

By that logic, any motorcyclist under 40, should be allowed to be pulled over just so police can check the max speed record on their GPS, since younger riders tend to ride faster.

Sounds "fair" right?

JC

Not the same.

[askmrjesus]

Not the same.

Sure it is.

It's pulling someone over with no probable cause, other than a preconceived bias against a certain group of people.

Spin it anyway you want, it's the same thing.

JC

[pauldun170]

NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
Arizona has now annointed itself a division of the Department of Homeland Security.




FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR 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.
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.


As the new self appointed Homeland Security enforcers, cops now get to use the "REASONABLE SUSPICION" probable cause card to get their quota on.
White people generally do not understand why this is such a big deal, but most minorities do. Blacks are REAL familiar with this.
Generally its this vague section of the law that has caused the stink. Its not that (the stink about) Arizona wants to get all hardcore bout immigration. Its because their are millions of americans who have spent there lives dealing with being pulled over and questioned by police simply because of their color. Its folks who have dealth with being pulled over and questioned for driving through a neighborhood where they "don't fit in". Its being harrased for having a conversation in public on a sidewalk.

This issue with this law in Arizona is not so much that mexicans (legal are not) will have to deal with continual butt hurt every time they wear flannel or get caught in a pickup.
The issue is that a lot of Americans have negative experiences with law enforcement abusing power and violating basic rights of citizens and the law in question legitimizes that practice. Specifically if you have look spanish (I'm old school so go fuck your self with "Spain is in europe, your supposed to say Latin American"

Yall should be happy I'm not going around saying colored's and nips...

[Sean]

LA should leave federal policy to the feds. Pandering for votes is just a distraction...but they know that, that's why they're doing it.

[askmrjesus]

White people generally do not understand why this is such a big deal, but most minorities do. Blacks are REAL familiar with this.


Exactly.

If Arizona's immigration problems stemmed from an influx of pasty faced overwieght Scotsmen, people would be shitting kittens over this law.

JC

[EpyonXero]

LA should leave federal policy to the feds. Pandering for votes is just a distraction...but they know that, that's why they're doing it.

I doubt its about pandering, Im pretty sure that most of LA's city council would be considered suspicious by Arizona's standards.

[Sean]

I doubt its about pandering, Im pretty sure that most of LA's city council would be considered suspicious by Arizona's standards.

Ineffective laws that do nothing would be pandering in my book.

[Homeslice]

It's pandering. The only reason LA is boycotting AZ is because of all their Hispanic voters. Same with San Diego.

In fact I'm sick of how this entire country panders to Mexico. Fuck em, IMO. Why even have laws, if they're not going to be enforced?

[Tmall]

This I can agree with. Nice way to call a bluff.





It's a Fourth amendment issue.

Being brown, is not probable cause.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I would think most darker skinned Americans, would consider being pulled over for driving while brown, to be unreasonable.

JC

Is looking different not probable cause when the whole idea behind the law is that people who look different are there illegally?

Seems like there would be a lot of cases thrown out of court since most times people are arrested based on a physical description..

[askmrjesus]

Is looking different not probable cause when the whole idea behind the law is that people who look different are there illegally?

No, because there are tons of people in Arizona who "look different", who are there perfectly legally.

Seems like there would be a lot of cases thrown out of court since most times people are arrested based on a physical description..

One of these works, one doesn't:

It was a white guy.

It was a large white guy, about 6'2", 210 pounds, green eyes, brown hair, wearing a red shirt and blue pants.

The first description is completely worthless. The second at least narrows it down to a reasonable suspicion of said white guy.

JC

[Tmall]

No, because there are tons of people in Arizona who "look different", who are there perfectly legally.



One of these works, one doesn't:

It was a white guy.

It was a large white guy, about 6'2", 210 pounds, green eyes, brown hair, wearing a red shirt and blue pants.

The first description is completely worthless. The second at least narrows it down to a reasonable suspicion of said white guy.

JC

But, how many 6'2" 210lb white guys might have their rights violated because of this?

I'm not going to debate the issue too much, but you have to see what I was saying.

[askmrjesus]

But, how many 6'2" 210lb white guys might have their rights violated because of this?

Three.

I'm not going to debate the issue too much, but you have to see what I was saying.

I do, and that's what worries me.

Here's the part nobody seems to have figured out:

Racial profiling is against the law. So, the cops will figure out that the only way to not be accused of racial profiling, is to pull over random white, black, beige and awkwardly tanned orange people.

Goodbye 4th amendment, it was great knowing you.

JC

[wildchild]

Sure it is.

It's pulling someone over with no probable cause, other than a preconceived bias against a certain group of people.

Spin it anyway you want, it's the same thing.

JC


except the fact that if you're pulled and don't have proper documents you are at that moment committing a crime of illegal immigration, where as checking the GPS you are not at that moment committing said crime. you may have committed it earlier, or you may have borrowed the bike to a friend, or you may have been riding at a track when that speed was hit, but yeah it's all the same.

[askmrjesus]

except the fact that if you're pulled and don't have proper documents you are at that moment committing a crime of illegal immigration, where as checking the GPS you are not at that moment committing said crime. you may have committed it earlier, or you may have borrowed the bike to a friend, or you may have been riding at a track when that speed was hit, but yeah it's all the same.

Do you carry your Passport or birth certificate with you?

Well guess what, if you don't, you could technically be detained by Arizona cops until someone shows up at the jail with it.

What fucking country is this again?

JC

[shmike]

Here's the part nobody seems to have figured out:

Racial profiling is against the law. So, the cops will figure out that the only way to not be accused of racial profiling, is to pull over random white, black, beige and awkwardly tanned orange people.

Goodbye 4th amendment, it was great knowing you.

JC

You posted it earlier:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It doesn't say anything about being pulled over.

Officer: "License, regstration and insurance."

Looks over paperwork.

"Have a nice night Mr. Jesus. Thanks for cooperating, too many awkwardly tanned orange people around here lately."

No search, no seizure, no warrants issued.

[Tmall]

Three.



I do, and that's what worries me.

Here's the part nobody seems to have figured out:

Racial profiling is against the law. So, the cops will figure out that the only way to not be accused of racial profiling, is to pull over random white, black, beige and awkwardly tanned orange people.

Goodbye 4th amendment, it was great knowing you.

JC

I agree. Racial profiling is against the law. That doesn't change the fact that Arizona has a problem with illegal immigration. I can't even decide if I agree with their solution, but at least it's a solution for now.

[wildchild]

Do you carry your Passport or birth certificate with you?

Well guess what, if you don't, you could technically be detained by Arizona cops until someone shows up at the jail with it.

What fucking country is this again?

JC

no I carry a DL which is required to be carried in state of Wis. (or state issued ID if you don't have a DL) and which requires a birth certificate to get. I also carry a Social Security card which requires a birth certificate to get. I also carry insurance documents, registrations, CC, and other forms of ID all ascertaining that I am an American citizen.

to the profiling issue, I have been stopped 5 times over the years for being white and driving into the hood at what officers considered weird times. first question "what are you doing here?" why because stupid white kids in trucks like to come to the hood and buy drugs at those times. I didn't take issue with it. Why? probably because I was doing nothing wrong and therefore they had no reason to ticket me or arrest me. I work in the hood.

Ever notice those who cry the most about profiling are those who Actually got introuble when they were stopped for what they say was profiling. Yeah they profiled me and just happened to get lucky and find me doing this or that.

[goof2]

Do you carry your Passport or birth certificate with you?

Well guess what, if you don't, you could technically be detained by Arizona cops until someone shows up at the jail with it.

What fucking country is this again?

JC

An Arizona drivers license, Arizona ID card, or tribal enrolment card are also sufficient.

[Inferno]

You all know California has a similar law? LOL

[askmrjesus]

no I carry a DL which is required to be carried in state of Wis. (or state issued ID if you don't have a DL) and which requires a birth certificate to get. I also carry a Social Security card which requires a birth certificate to get. I also carry insurance documents, registrations, CC, and other forms of ID all ascertaining that I am an American citizen.

Once more, I don't care what they ask for, if they pulled me over with probable cause.

to the profiling issue, I have been stopped 5 times over the years for being white and driving into the hood at what officers considered weird times. first question "what are you doing here?" why because stupid white kids in trucks like to come to the hood and buy drugs at those times. I didn't take issue with it. Why? probably because I was doing nothing wrong and therefore they had no reason to ticket me or arrest me. I work in the hood.


Well I guess that's just the difference between you and I.

I sure as hell would take issue with it. It's none of the cop's goddamn business where I'm going, or what I'm doing.

JC

[askmrjesus]

An Arizona drivers license, Arizona ID card, or tribal enrolment card are also sufficient.

That's great, if you happen to be from Arizona.

Last time I checked, Arizona was not an island.

JC

[azoomm]

You posted it earlier:

It doesn't say anything about being pulled over.

Officer: "License, regstration and insurance."

Looks over paperwork.

"Have a nice night Mr. Jesus. Thanks for cooperating, too many awkwardly tanned orange people around here lately."

No search, no seizure, no warrants issued.

ORLY?

From the bill:
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.

That is line 37. So, don't do anything wrong and they won't bother you.... seems rather subjective, doesn't it?

[defector]

Do you carry your Passport or birth certificate with you?


When I am in another country I do.

[askmrjesus]

I agree. Racial profiling is against the law. That doesn't change the fact that Arizona has a problem with illegal immigration. I can't even decide if I agree with their solution, but at least it's a solution for now.

It's no solution at all.

It's a desperation move, to draw attention to the fact that the Federal government has done exactly dick to solve the problem.

Arizona will go completely broke, fending off the shit ton of civil rights lawsuits that will spring from this, if in fact, they even enforce this law.

JC

[shmike]

ORLY?

From the bill:


That is line 37. So, don't do anything wrong and they won't bother you.... seems rather subjective, doesn't it?


I'm not sure I get your point.

[azoomm]

I'm not sure I get your point.

They don't need a warrant.

[shmike]

They don't need a warrant.

Nobody said they did. Warrants are not needed to make an arrest for citizens either.

If I am walking out of a bank in my hamburglar mask and carrying a bag of money while the bank alarm is wailing, does the cop need a warrant to arrest me?

No, he has probable cause that I have committed a crime. He can and will arrest me.

I'm trying to connect the "unreasonable search or seizure" line to asking a driver for their driver's license. :idk:

[Homeslice]

Nobody said they did. Warrants are not needed to make an arrest for citizens either.

If I am walking out of a bank in my hamburglar mask and carrying a bag of money while the bank alarm is wailing, does the cop need a warrant to arrest me?

No, he has probable cause that I have committed a crime. He can and will arrest me.

I'm trying to connect the "unreasonable search or seizure" line to asking a driver for their driver's license. :idk:

What they're saying is that in order to ask someone for their driver's license, you first need to stop/detain them for some reason. Ordinarily that is because you saw them doing something wrong, like run a red light........Now it could be just because they're Hispanic.

[askmrjesus]

Nobody said they did. Warrants are not needed to make an arrest for citizens either.

If I am walking out of a bank in my hamburglar mask and carrying a bag of money while the bank alarm is wailing, does the cop need a warrant to arrest me?

Of course not. That's perfect definition of reasonable suspicion.


I'm trying to connect the "unreasonable search or seizure" line to asking a driver for their driver's license. :idk:

From Wiki:

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity.

JC

[shmike]

What they're saying is that in order to ask someone for their driver's license, you first need to stop/detain them for some reason. Ordinarily that is because you saw them doing something wrong, like run a red light........Now it could be just because they're Hispanic.

I agree the profiling issue is sticky.

I'm with Tmall on this. I don't like it but I'm not sure of any better options.

However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity.

JC

See above.

I don't necessarily agree with profiling.

However, if Jose is pulled over for a headlight out, he needs to have a DL on him.

Do we agree on that?

[goof2]

That's great, if you happen to be from Arizona.

Last time I checked, Arizona was not an island.

JC

Arizona has recognized this and as a result the law also states any federal, state, or local government issued ID is acceptable as long as proof of legal residence in America is a required condition for its issuance.

What they're saying is that in order to ask someone for their driver's license, you first need to stop/detain them for some reason. Ordinarily that is because you saw them doing something wrong, like run a red light........Now it could be just because they're Hispanic.

No it can't. Right on the first page of the law it states:

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.

What you describe is prohibited. There must at the very least be some other pretext for pulling the person over besides their being Hispanic.

[askmrjesus]

I don't necessarily agree with profiling.

However, if Jose is pulled over for a headlight out, he needs to have a DL on him.

Do we agree on that?

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along.

JC

[askmrjesus]

Arizona has recognized this and as a result the law also states any federal, state, or local government issued ID is acceptable as long as proof of legal residence in America is a required condition for its issuance.

So if you are a person of Hispanic descent, with a Cali DL, you are shit out of luck.

No it can't. Right on the first page of the law it states:

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.

What you describe is prohibited. There must at the very least be some other pretext for pulling the person over besides their being Hispanic.

But what pretext would that be? Possession of an excessive amount of water bottles? Failure to be able to name the Yankee's starting line up? An aversion to apple pie?

JC

[pauldun170]

All I know is that if I travel to Arizona, I'm going to find myself being followed by cop cars very closely waiting for me make the slightest mistake.

[azoomm]

I agree the profiling issue is sticky.

I'm with Tmall on this. I don't like it but I'm not sure of any better options.

See above.

I don't necessarily agree with profiling.

However, if Jose is pulled over for a headlight out, he needs to have a DL on him.

Do we agree on that?
Yes, because to DRIVE it's required. What about walking down the street? Or, sitting on the bus?

[shmike]

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along.

JC

Yes and no.

You claimed that the law allows the police to pull over anyone for being brown.

We know profiling isn't allowed.

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

According to the law, the contact must be legal. Therefore, we must assume that if Jose is pulled over, the officer had a reason to do so.

[askmrjesus]

All I know is that if I travel to Arizona, I'm going to find myself being followed by cop cars very closely waiting for me make the slightest mistake.

That's what you get for being suspicious looking.

If you truly loved your country, you'd whiten up a little (more).

JC

[shmike]

Yes, because to DRIVE it's required. What about walking down the street? Or, sitting on the bus?

We were talking about DWB.

[pauldun170]

Yes and no.

You claimed that the law allows the police to pull over anyone for being brown.

We know profiling isn't allowed.



According to the law, the contact must be legal. Therefore, we must assume that if Jose is pulled over, the officer had a reason to do so.




" WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN "

Come on guys

How come noone has made the joke yet. at least some photoshops are in order.

That's what you get for being suspicious looking.

If you truly loved your country, you'd whiten up a little (more).

JC

:lol:

[askmrjesus]

Yes and no.

You claimed that the law allows the police to pull over anyone for being brown.

We know profiling isn't allowed.

According to the law, the contact must be legal. Therefore, we must assume that if Jose is pulled over, the officer had a reason to do so.

That's just it.

Short of walking through the desert, from the direction of Mexico, wearing an "I'm a Mexican" t-shirt, what criteria exists for identifying an illegal?

Neither the people who made the law, nor the cops that have to enforce it, have been able to answer this as far as I know.

JC

[goof2]

So if you are a person of Hispanic descent, with a Cali DL, you are shit out of luck.

No because California requires you to prove your legal presence in the United States to get a drivers license or state ID.

But what pretext would that be? Possession of an excessive amount of water bottles? Failure to be able to name the Yankee's starting line up? An aversion to apple pie?

JC

The cop would need one of two reasons to pull that person over. The first is the cop having a reason to question a person's immigration status other than that person being Hispanic. I'm not sure how they would do this while driving.:idk: The second would be pulling them over for any other lawful reason (busted taillight, weaving, speeding, expired registration).

[shmike]

That's just it.

Short of walking through the desert, from the direction of Mexico, wearing an "I'm a Mexican" t-shirt, what criteria exists for identifying an illegal?

Neither the people who made the law, nor the cops that have to enforce it, have been able to answer this as far as I know.

JC

This is really more of a Homeslice question.

It's not how they look as much how they accessorize.

Dirty jeans and an undershirt says: I work outdoors.

Add in a leaf blower, weed whacker or mop and bucket: instant illegal.

Also, standing up while riding in the back of a landscape truck is a dead give away.

[KSGregman]

This is really more of a Homeslice question.

It's not how they look as much how they accessorize.

Dirty jeans and an undershirt says: I work outdoors.

Add in a leaf blower, weed whacker or mop and bucket: instant illegal.

Also, stanidng up while riding in the back of a landscape truck is a dead give away.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[Homeslice]

This is really more of a Homeslice question.

It's not how they look as much how they accessorize.

Dirty jeans and an undershirt says: I work outdoors.

Add in a leaf blower, weed whacker or mop and bucket: instant illegal.

Also, stanidng up while riding in the back of a landscape truck is a dead give away.

This.

The odds climb to 99.999% if it's an 80's Nissan Hardbody or Mazda B2000 with blue smoke coming out the tailpipe.

[shmike]

This.

The odds climb to 99.999% if it's an 80's Nissan Hardbody or Mazda B2000 with blue smoke coming out the tailpipe.

:lol

[goof2]

This.

The odds climb to 99.999% if it's an 80's Nissan Hardbody or Mazda B2000 with blue smoke coming out the tailpipe.

When I was in Houston the common mode of transportation was a former UHaul truck (outline of company stickers still visible) with the roll up door open and a half dozen guys and lawn equipment in the back.

[askmrjesus]

No because California requires you to prove your legal presence in the United States to get a drivers license or state ID.

My mistake, I thought they had passed that law.



The cop would need one of two reasons to pull that person over. The first is the cop having a reason to question a person's immigration status other than that person being Hispanic. I'm not sure how they would do this while driving.:idk:

Neither is anyone else.

The second would be pulling them over for any other lawful reason (busted taillight, weaving, speeding, expired registration).

I don't see anything in the statute that requires any more than a "reasonable suspicion" that the subject may be here illegally.

JC

[101lifts2]

Sure it is.

It's pulling someone over with no probable cause, other than a preconceived bias against a certain group of people.

Spin it anyway you want, it's the same thing.

JC

You can only pull over someone if they have commited a cirme or an infraction. The law clearly states this. If the officer pulls people over soley because they are brown, then makes up an excuse it is no different then them planting drugs on a suspect. It's not ethical.

Read the law. It is a mirror of the federal law which states that all persons who have committed a federal crime must have a citizenship check. Also, IIRC, 42 other states have adopted the federal law into state law. The only reason this is even coming up is becuase the feds failed to protect the borders of AZ.

IMO...fuck CA for boycotting AZ and good for AZ for taking a stance. I'll have to go buy a generator now....:lol

[askmrjesus]

You can only pull over someone if they have commited a cirme or an infraction. The law clearly states this.

No, it does not.

It states that they may check status during any "Lawful Contact".

Don't waste your time Googling a legal definition of "Lawful Contact", because there isn't one. It's a made up term, and it doesn't mean dick.

For all you or I know, asking someone if they want a delicious cookie, is "Lawful Contact".

JC

[goof2]

Neither is anyone else.

I already posted the relevant section of this law. It clearly states that a cop cannot stop someone (while driving or anywhere else) and ask for proof of legal immigration status based solely on ,color, or national origin. The source of our unsurety is they aren't allowed pull that person over. What it would take in addition to that person looking Hispanic, I don't know. That will be balanced between cop's judgment and judicial interpretation.

I don't see anything in the statute that requires any more than a "reasonable suspicion" that the subject may be here illegally.

JC

Restating what I said above, it requires "reasonable suspicion" based on something other than race, color, or national origin. Homeslice's statement was "Now it could be just because they're Hispanic". Not only are the cops not able to do so, this law specifically prohibits the cops from doing so.

[pauldun170]

I already posted the relevant section of this law. It clearly states that a cop cannot stop someone (while driving or anywhere else) and ask for proof of legal immigration status based solely on ,color, or national origin. The source of our unsurety is they aren't allowed pull that person over. What it would take in addition to that person looking Hispanic, I don't know. That will be balanced between cop's judgment and judicial interpretation.



Restating what I said above, it requires "reasonable suspicion" based on something other than race, color, or national origin. Homeslice's statement was "Now it could be just because they're Hispanic". Not only are the cops not able to do so, this law specifically prohibits the cops from doing so.

We have cute little policies against racial profiling here in NYC.
There is always some reason that can be used to pull someone over if you really wanna pull them over.

[pauldun170]

Any thoughts on Arizona House Bill 2281.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281s.pdf

[goof2]

We have cute little policies against racial profiling here in NYC.
There is always some reason that can be used to pull someone over if you really wanna pull them over.

It is the same everywhere. That is why I said they need to at least find a pretext.

[101lifts2]

No, it does not.

It states that they may check status during any "Lawful Contact".

Don't waste your time Googling a legal definition of "Lawful Contact", because there isn't one. It's a made up term, and it doesn't mean dick.

For all you or I know, asking someone if they want a delicious cookie, is "Lawful Contact".

JC

You know that Lawful Contact means the cop needs a valid reason to pull you over or ask for ID. Why don't you just say police are going to abuse the law like you would like to say and quit saying the law states you can pull someon over because of race? And I do agree they will abuse it (like most other shit cops have power over), regardless, that is not what we are discussing.

[askmrjesus]

You know that Lawful Contact means the cop needs a valid reason to pull you over or ask for ID.

Funny thing. "Lawful Contact" has been removed from the law, and replaced with "Lawful stop, detain or arrest". Why? Like I said before, "Lawful Contact" is not an enforceable legal term. There is no legal definition, so it can't be proved or disproved. It was a built in loophole.

The word solely, has also been removed after 3 Federal law suits were filed. Why is that important? It's important because in the original version, officers were allowed to take race or nationality into consideration, as long as it wasn't the only thing on their minds.

B. For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest 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.......... 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.


So, the original intent and spirit of the law was pretty clear. It's been forced to change into it's Sunday School clothes, but it's still based on shaky constitutional grounds.


Why don't you just say police are going to abuse the law like you would like to say and quit saying the law states you can pull someon over because of race? And I do agree they will abuse it (like most other shit cops have power over), regardless, that is not what we are discussing.

Maybe that should be what we're discussing, since we both seem to know that's what's going to happen.

JC

[101lifts2]

Funny thing. "Lawful Contact" has been removed from the law, and replaced with "Lawful stop, detain or arrest". ......

Ok it was removed, so what are you still bitching about? :lol


...Maybe that should be what we're discussing, since we both seem to know that's what's going to happen.

JC

Do you honestly think police don't pull people over because there is a black guy driving a brand new car? Come on. This law is really going to do nothing other than put thousands upon thousands of illegals in the hands of INS because citizenship has to be determined.

[goof2]

This law is really going to do nothing other than put thousands upon thousands of illegals in the hands of INS because citizenship has to be determined.

At which point ICE will "not necessarily process" them if you believe the head of the agency.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/homeland-security-official-weighs-in-on-arizona-law.html

Homeland Security official weighs in on Arizona law
May 19, 2010 1:32 PM | 16 Comments
Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigration is not "good government," a top Department of Homeland Security official said in Chicago Wednesday.

John Morton, who heads U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, not a patchwork of state laws, he said.

"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton said during a visit to the Tribune editorial board.

While Americans frustrated over illegal immigration urge the Obama administration to do more, officials also have been criticized by Latino activists over the increase in immigrants deported back to their home countries. Despite the outcry, Morton said his agency intended to step up enforcement in places like Illinois.

A former federal prosecutor, Morton said his agency intends to expand the Secure Communities initiative, which gives local sheriff's departments and police access to a Homeland Security database that includes fingerprints. The initiative recently grew to include most of Chicago's suburbs.

Morton also said the agency intends to increase scrutiny of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

"If we're going to bring about meaningful changes in behavior, you have to do that by focusing on the employer," he said.

Morton acknowledged that a wide spectrum of Americans is frustrated over the immigration system - from pro-reform activists upset that Obama has not aggressively pushed a legalization bill to immigration hawks who perceive that the U.S.-Mexico border remains porous.

"In the immigration business, if they are against you on both sides, it's generally a sign that you're doing something right," he said.

-- Oscar Avila

[askmrjesus]

Ok it was removed, so what are you still bitching about? :lol

Simple. It should not have been there in the first place.

Do you honestly think police don't pull people over because there is a black guy driving a brand new car? Come on.

Of course they do. That why I don't like any like law that has the potential to make matters worse.

This law is really going to do nothing other than put thousands upon thousands of illegals in the hands of INS because citizenship has to be determined.

I'm ok with that. I don't think you understand my position at all. If there were a magic beam you could shoot at someone, and determine their legal status, I'd say lets buy one, and going shining for illegals.

But there isn't.

What bothers me most about this, is the tone. Every time the economy goes bad, people come out of the woodwork with their torches and pitchforks. All of a sudden, it's ok to hate people.

WTF is that all about? It's bullshit, and frankly, it's decidedly un-American.

JC

[goof2]

What bothers me most about this, is the tone. Every time the economy goes bad, people come out of the woodwork with their torches and pitchforks. All of a sudden, it's ok to hate people.

WTF is that all about? It's bullshit, and frankly, it's decidedly un-American.

JC

Why do you make the assumption that this is about hate? I can only speak for myself, but I don't hate immigrants from anywhere regardless of their immigration status. According to a few polls I have seen a majority of Americans support this law. I seriously doubt it is because they all hate "brown people". I'm sure there are some who support it for the motivation you are implying but I'll bet there are some who support the financial reform bill for no other reason than "it sticks it to those Jew bankers" too. The fact remains that our immigration and border security policies have been ineffective for a long time. This law attempts to force the federal government to change that and that reason alone is acceptable to me.

[Inferno]

Simple. It should not have been there in the first place.



Of course they do. That why I don't like any like law that has the potential to make matters worse.



I'm ok with that. I don't think you understand my position at all. If there were a magic beam you could shoot at someone, and determine their legal status, I'd say lets buy one, and going shining for illegals.

But there isn't.

What bothers me most about this, is the tone. Every time the economy goes bad, people come out of the woodwork with their torches and pitchforks. All of a sudden, it's ok to hate people.

WTF is that all about? It's bullshit, and frankly, it's decidedly un-American.

JC

I don't have the time or energy to pick apart your posts. What's Un-American? I'll tell you what is Un-American...

How about having the White House hold a Dinner for the Mexican President, and having him BASH a state in OUR country while giving a speech to OUR Congress and OUR OWN CONGRESS has a standing ovation for him BASHING OUR OWN STATE AND IT'S PEOPLE!!!! That is what is wrong.

NO MATTER THE TOPIC, right or wrong. They are still a state in OUR country!

[Homeslice]

What bothers me most about this, is the tone. Every time the economy goes bad, people come out of the woodwork with their torches and pitchforks. All of a sudden, it's ok to hate people.

WTF is that all about? It's bullshit, and frankly, it's decidedly un-American.

JC

My opinion is that not ENOUGH people cared about immigration during good times. Tough enforcement is something that should have been in place ALWAYS.

Illegal immigrants:
1) Use our roads & hospitals without paying for them (unless they pay taxes, but I would like to see hard data on what % of them actually do)
2) Send a substantial portion of their earnings back home, OUT of the American economy
3) Are often involved in drug smuggling (National Forest land in CA is often stolen by these people in order to grow weed)
4) Do not care about integrating into America as much as those who are legitimately pursuing citizenship (Many plan on just making some money and then leaving after a few years)

Not to mention, if this government really cares about terrorism, like they claim to, then why not focus their attention on what is currently the easiest way for terrorists & weapons to get into this country? Wouldn't that be a more effective approach than all this Patriot Act/Echelon crap?

[askmrjesus]

I don't have the time or energy to pick apart your posts.

Is it just my posts you don't have the time or energy to pick apart, or do you just lack time and energy in general?

What's Un-American? I'll tell you what is Un-American...

How about having the White House hold a Dinner for the Mexican President, and having him BASH a state in OUR country while giving a speech to OUR Congress and OUR OWN CONGRESS has a standing ovation for him BASHING OUR OWN STATE AND IT'S PEOPLE!!!! That is what is wrong.

NO MATTER THE TOPIC, right or wrong. They are still a state in OUR country!

How ABOUT this: I AGREE WITH YOU!!! I don't give a RATS ASS about how Felipe FUCKING Calderon feels about OUR BORDER LAWS!

(We have a right to secure our borders, and deport anyone without documentation, and DUDE! Why didn't you tell me about the RANDOM CAPS thing earlier? This is THE SHIT!!)

JC

[EpyonXero]

I don't have the time or energy to pick apart your posts. What's Un-American? I'll tell you what is Un-American...

How about having the White House hold a Dinner for the Mexican President, and having him BASH a state in OUR country while giving a speech to OUR Congress and OUR OWN CONGRESS has a standing ovation for him BASHING OUR OWN STATE AND IT'S PEOPLE!!!! That is what is wrong.

NO MATTER THE TOPIC, right or wrong. They are still a state in OUR country!

I guess you would have preferred this:
"Booo!!! I completely agree with what youre saying about Arizona Mr. Calderon but I have to boo you because this is America and youre a dirty foreigner."

[Smittie61984]

Illegal immigrants:
1) Use our roads & hospitals without paying for them (unless they pay taxes, but I would like to see hard data on what % of them actually do)
2) Send a substantial portion of their earnings back home, OUT of the American economy
3) Are often involved in drug smuggling (National Forest land in CA is often stolen by these people in order to grow weed)
4) Do not care about integrating into America as much as those who are legitimately pursuing citizenship (Many plan on just making some money and then leaving after a few years)

Not to mention, if this government really cares about terrorism, like they claim to, then why not focus their attention on what is currently the easiest way for terrorists & weapons to get into this country? Wouldn't that be a more effective approach than all this Patriot Act/Echelon crap?

1) Roads are in general paid for by the gasoline taxes which many illegal aliens pay. Hospitals are a fucked up mess but I'm betting that there are just as many American citizens who skip on hospital bills.

2) I can't blame them one bit there. Our tax system sucks and would love to see a revolution of tax payers sending their money overseas somehow to force the government to change our fucked up tax system.

3) Drug smuggling can be fixed with repealing the prohibition of narcotics.

4) It isn't our business wether people in the United States integrate into our society. We are a free country (or suppose to be) and if someone wants to print their lunch menu in Spanish, Italian, or Latin then that is the business owner's business. But I feel all government business should be handled in English.

The last part is where my problem with illegal immigration lies. The defense of our country. I've always believed in stronger borders on both sides. I know we don't have a problem with Canadians coming in but overall our country's defense falls on us. We can't depend completely on Canadian immigration or government to prevent terrorists from entering their country and then into ours. But the Mexican border is where we should start.

For funsies...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMeukdRDt8

[101lifts2]

I don't have the time or energy to pick apart your posts. What's Un-American? I'll tell you what is Un-American...

How about having the White House hold a Dinner for the Mexican President, and having him BASH a state in OUR country while giving a speech to OUR Congress and OUR OWN CONGRESS has a standing ovation for him BASHING OUR OWN STATE AND IT'S PEOPLE!!!! That is what is wrong.

NO MATTER THE TOPIC, right or wrong. They are still a state in OUR country!

The president of Mexico is a hypocrite IMO. Does the dude even read his own laws? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1612377/posts Maybe somebody needs to give him a copy.

And for Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Democrats giving him a standing ovation is beyond commical. But...what can you expect from Democratsheep.

[Inferno]

I guess you would have preferred this:
"Booo!!! I completely agree with what youre saying about Arizona Mr. Calderon but I have to boo you because this is America and youre a dirty foreigner."

LOL, that would be funny

But really, I dont think the issue matters, it is the fact that congress shit on Arizona sided with a foreign country.

[Inferno]

Is it just my posts you don't have the time or energy to pick apart, or do you just lack time and energy in general?



How ABOUT this: I AGREE WITH YOU!!! I don't give a RATS ASS about how Felipe FUCKING Calderon feels about OUR BORDER LAWS!

(We have a right to secure our borders, and deport anyone without documentation, and DUDE! Why didn't you tell me about the RANDOM CAPS thing earlier? This is THE SHIT!!)

JC

My caps lock gets stuck somtimes :lol

[Homeslice]

I guess you would have preferred this:
"Booo!!! I completely agree with what youre saying about Arizona Mr. Calderon but I have to boo you because this is America and youre a dirty foreigner."

No........What I'd actually prefer them to say/think is this: "I respect your opinion Mr Calderon, and I might even agree with it to some extent, but I don't feel the need to stand up and applaud for you just to "fit in" with all the Democrats trying to suck up to each other and to the Obama adminstration"