Arizona threatens to turn off power - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

rahl · 05-19-2010, 03:47 PM

Arizona energy official calls L.A.'s bluff on total boycott - Phoenix Arizona news, breaking news, local news, weather radar, traffic from ABC15 News | ABC15.com

Is this an actual possibility? I mean, can a state just deny another state electricity? I can't see how.

Your thoughts?

Baraka_Guru · 05-19-2010, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

Is this an actual possibility? I mean, can a state just deny another state electricity? I can't see how.

I don't know in this case. I think it's possible.

Cynthetiq · 05-19-2010, 03:56 PM

Sure why not. It's a commerce thing not any different from any other Right to refuse service.

pan6467 · 05-19-2010, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

Arizona energy official calls L.A.'s bluff on total boycott - Phoenix Arizona news, breaking news, local news, weather radar, traffic from ABC15 News | ABC15.com

Is this an actual possibility? I mean, can a state just deny another state electricity? I can't see how.

Your thoughts?

If LA is boycotting it's Az contracts, I would think that maybe one, can't pick and choose and AZ is calling the bluff.

rahl · 05-19-2010, 04:15 PM

It just seems more like political posturing to me, rather than an actual threat.

Baraka_Guru · 05-19-2010, 04:26 PM

Actual threats often are political posturing.

dc_dux · 05-19-2010, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

If LA is boycotting it's Az contracts, I would think that maybe one, can't pick and choose and AZ is calling the bluff.

LA is not boycotting any existing contract with AZ. The city is simply prohibiting any new travel or official business with AZ by city officials.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

It just seems more like political posturing to me, rather than an actual threat.

Agreed. An empty threat....as opposes to the boycott, which might be political but has the force of action behind it.

I would assume that AZ and LA have a binding intergovernmental agreement to provide electric power.

And,the fact that Southern California Edison, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and other California utilities have an ownership stake in major power plants in Arizona.

And finally, the dude making the "threat" is running for reelection to the AZ Utility Commission.

---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 PM ----------

Quote:

An Arizona electric-utility regulator is drawing national attention for threatening to black out Los Angeles because of that city's boycott over Arizona's immigration law, but actually cutting the juice is not in his power....

...But Southern California Edison, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and other California utilities have an ownership stake in major power plants in Arizona, including the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

The California utilities paid part of the cost of building Palo Verde, and pay their share of the fuel and operations, so Arizona can't take away the power they get from the plant. And the Corporation Commission has no jurisdiction over merchant power plants that sell power from Arizona to California.

Arizona electricity regulator threatens power supply to Los Angeles

telekinetic · 05-19-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

And,the fact that Southern California Edison, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and other California utilities have an ownership stake in major power plants in Arizona.

They only own 15%, and they use way more than 15% of the power, the balance of which is currently purchased from AZ utilities.

dc_dux · 05-19-2010, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by telekinetic

They only own 15%, and they use way more than 15% of the power, the balance of which is currently purchased from AZ utilities.

I havent seen the data that suggests that more than 15% of the power produced by facilities in AZ go to Los Angeles.

It may or not be the case, but that doesnt change the fact that the AZ Utility Commission does not have the authority to unilaterally cancel or renegotiate the interstate agreement.

telekinetic · 05-19-2010, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I havent seen the data that suggests that more than 15% of the power produced by facilities in AZ go to Los Angeles.

It may or not be the case, but that doesnt change the fact that the AZ Utility Commission does not have the authority to unilaterally cancel or renegotiate the interstate agreement.

They aren't threatening to cancel it, they are saying that if LA *really* wants to boycott, they need to stop buying our power also, otherwise it's just bluster.

Willravel · 05-20-2010, 02:31 PM

So instead of this being a moment of enlightenment, seeing the racist error of their ways, Arizona is critiquing Los Angeles' boycott? Holy shit, Arizona, you're quite the mess.

I wonder if it's even occurred to them to actually reverse the racist and unconstitutional law.

dogzilla · 05-20-2010, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

So instead of this being a moment of enlightenment, seeing the racist error of their ways, Arizona is critiquing Los Angeles' boycott? Holy shit, Arizona, you're quite the mess.

I wonder if it's even occurred to them to actually reverse the racist and unconstitutional law.

What's racist about wanting to kick people who are here illegally out of the country?

I found it particularly amusing that the President of Mexico was here complaining about how poorly the US was treating the illegal immigrants when Mexico itself has a much worse attitude towards people who are in Mexico without proper immigration papers. And that he was commiserating about this with a president whose own aunt is here illegally.

Baraka_Guru · 05-20-2010, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

What's racist about wanting to kick people who are here illegally out of the country?

If it were only so simple, then LA probably wouldn't have a problem. But there's a problem for being centred out for walking while brown.

dogzilla · 05-20-2010, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

If it were only so simple, then LA probably wouldn't have a problem. But there's a problem for being centred out for walking while brown.

So let law enforcement in Arizona stop every single person who they spot heading north from the Mexico border. Or randomly stop every 10th car heading north. Or some other similarly racially neutral way of doing this.

That should satisfy the US Atty general who apparently decided the constitutionality of this law based on what he read in the newspaper and not by actually reading the law.

Holder hasn't read Arizona law he criticized - Washington Times

Quote:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television.

Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama's request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.

Baraka_Guru · 05-20-2010, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

So let law enforcement in Arizona stop every single person who they spot heading north from the Mexico border. Or randomly stop every 10th car heading north. Or some other similarly racially neutral way of doing this.

It's my understanding that nothing like this was built into the law, and I think that's the problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

That should satisfy the US Atty general who apparently decided the constitutionality of this law based on what he read in the newspaper and not by actually reading the law.

He was apparently making statements based on what others have been saying---others being the newspaper and television sources he trusts. He didn't make a judgement or challenge based on that information, and I don't think he would have.

Though it just might satisfy him if it were built into the law.

Rekna · 05-20-2010, 03:49 PM

I hope a cop pulls over Jan Brewer, John McCain or Jon Kyl and then asks them to produce their birth certificate. When they can't produce them then they should put them in jail until they can. I bet that won't happen.

Willravel · 05-20-2010, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

What's racist about wanting to kick people who are here illegally out of the country?

Racial profiling has nothing at all to do with illegal immigration.

Let's go ahead and actually read the bill in question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SB 1070

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
Cooperation and assistancE in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification

A. 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.

B. 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. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

E. 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.

F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.

2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.

3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.

4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.

2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.

I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.

J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (pdf), emphasis mine

Read that carefully: "...reasonable suspicion exists that a person is an alien..." If you're not thinking to yourself "this is racial profiling", you're fooling yourself. This is racial profiling made law in a state well known for having problems with racism against Mexican immigrants (which extends to many other immigrants from all over Central and South America), which is now requiring officers to develop a sixth sense in order to determine if someone is acting or appears in a way which suggests that he or she is an illegal immigrant.

This, of course, being absurd, the suspicion then falls to appearance. Brown skin? Check. Raggy shoes? Double-check. Riding four across in a pickup truck where at least one of the guys is wearing a cowboy hat? Book 'em.

It is racism regardless of the spin put on it by racists or overzealous anti-immigration advocates.

dogzilla · 05-21-2010, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Racial profiling has nothing at all to do with illegal immigration.

Let's go ahead and actually read the bill in question:

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (pdf), emphasis mine

Actually, I don't see what the big deal with law enforcement asking you to provide identification with proof of citizenship is. It's just a simple question. With as many as 12 million illegal immigrants, by some estimates in this country, I think it's a reasonable question.

One of my hobbies is photography, including big telephoto lenses. I've been stopped a couple times by law enforcement where they asked me what I thought I was doing. Big deal. I explained what I was doing and they let me go on my way. I got a couple funny stories out of it, one where the cops were called to investigate me for scoping out a chicken farm prior to stealing chickens.

Big deal.

But if President Calderon wants to criticize the US for illegal immigration policies, he best get his country in order. From what I read, sneaking into Mexico without proper immigration documents will land you in the Mexican slammer, where from what I've heard, you will not have a good time.

Slims · 05-21-2010, 03:01 PM

....If a cop has a 'reasonable suspicion' a child is too young to be driving he can pull him over and ask for his drivers license.

Likewise if a police officer has a 'reasonable suspicion' that I am a burgler rather than the owner of a house he can legally check to find out.

How is this any different from any other crime?

If the cop has a reasonable suspicion you are committing a crime, he can typically check to find out yes/no.

Also, if Arizona has decided Illegal Immigration has become too great a problem, they should have the power (with the consent of it's citizens, which they have) to take measures to curb the issue.

It doesn't require 'racial' profiling to wonder if maybe a person who speaks no English, has a "Viva Mexico" bumper sticker and who does not possess a valid in-state ID card might not be a local.

If this law is 'too much' I would, in the spirit of equality with our brothers to the south, be happy to support a bill that simply adopts Mexico's Immigration laws as our own.....Illegal Immigration would become a Felony with harsh prison terms for offenders.

dippin · 05-21-2010, 04:29 PM

Short of seeing someone crossing the border or by the border, what, exactly, constitutes "reasonable suspicion" in this case? Please cite a few things that would lead to that reasonable suspicion that would not disproportionately put a particular group of US citizens under the microscope as well.

telekinetic · 05-21-2010, 05:33 PM

I live in Arizona. I know dozens of of people who have gotten in car accidents where the other driver was uninsured, unlicensed, and known to be here illegally. Why they weren't deported as soon as the cops identified that fact at the scene always baffled me, and now they will be. Done, and done.

They aren't going to start 'driving while brown' busts. If someone gets pulled over for drunk driving or is in an accident and they don't have ID and can't produce an SSN or other documentation of their legal residence, I have no problems sending them on their merry way, and don't understand people who do.

Marvelous Marv · 05-21-2010, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

So instead of this being a moment of enlightenment, seeing the racist error of their ways, Arizona is critiquing Los Angeles' boycott? Holy shit, Arizona, you're quite the mess.

I wonder if it's even occurred to them to actually reverse the racist and unconstitutional law.

Wait, saying they will enforce federal law is racist AND unconstitutional? You have a brother right here:

Cliffs: AG of the United States hasn't bothered to read a ten-page document before denigrating it, but he's "heard about the law." Perhaps you should see if you can be appointed AG.

FF to 3:20 if you're short on time.

YouTube - C-SPAN Ted Poe questions Eric Holder Arizona Immigration Law

filtherton · 05-21-2010, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

....If a cop has a 'reasonable suspicion' a child is too young to be driving he can pull him over and ask for his drivers license.

Likewise if a police officer has a 'reasonable suspicion' that I am a burgler rather than the owner of a house he can legally check to find out.

How is this any different from any other crime?

If the cop has a reasonable suspicion you are committing a crime, he can typically check to find out yes/no.

Also, if Arizona has decided Illegal Immigration has become too great a problem, they should have the power (with the consent of it's citizens, which they have) to take measures to curb the issue.

It doesn't require 'racial' profiling to wonder if maybe a person who speaks no English, has a "Viva Mexico" bumper sticker and who does not possess a valid in-state ID card might not be a local.

Ask anyone who has been pulled over for driving while black how well that reasonable suspicion thing can work out.

ASU2003 · 05-21-2010, 06:58 PM

I doubt they would really turn off the power. That is a lot of money, and AZ needs the jobs.

We need to come up with a 3rd option, but I think the reality isn't quite the same as what is being reported on. I am only 5 miles from the AZ-Mexico border right now, yet it doesn't seem like things are really bad here.

dippin · 05-21-2010, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by telekinetic

I live in Arizona. I know dozens of of people who have gotten in car accidents where the other driver was uninsured, unlicensed, and known to be here illegally. Why they weren't deported as soon as the cops identified that fact at the scene always baffled me, and now they will be. Done, and done.

They aren't going to start 'driving while brown' busts. If someone gets pulled over for drunk driving or is in an accident and they don't have ID and can't produce an SSN or other documentation of their legal residence, I have no problems sending them on their merry way, and don't understand people who do.

This is a false proposition (that anyone is in favor of keeping those who get into those accidents around).

Last I checked:
- Driving without a license or without insurance was already illegal.
- Illegal immigrants who were arrested are to be turned over to ICE anyways
- deportation is a federal matter. At the end of the day, the new AZ law does nothing about deportation. It just adds certain penalties before turning the person over to ICE anyways.

That is the problem with the debate over the Arizona law: people just don't know what it does.
The example you gave, of someone being not being deported after a car accident where they were found to be breaking the law, isn't really changed by the new law.

Marvelous Marv · 05-22-2010, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Racial profiling has nothing at all to do with illegal immigration.

Let's go ahead and actually read the bill in question:

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (pdf), emphasis mine

Read that carefully: "...reasonable suspicion exists that a person is an alien..." If you're not thinking to yourself "this is racial profiling", you're fooling yourself. This is racial profiling made law in a state well known for having problems with racism against Mexican immigrants (which extends to many other immigrants from all over Central and South America), which is now requiring officers to develop a sixth sense in order to determine if someone is acting or appears in a way which suggests that he or she is an illegal immigrant.

This, of course, being absurd, the suspicion then falls to appearance. Brown skin? Check. Raggy shoes? Double-check. Riding four across in a pickup truck where at least one of the guys is wearing a cowboy hat? Book 'em.

It is racism regardless of the spin put on it by racists or overzealous anti-immigration advocates.

404 Racism not found.

Unless you're racist enough to adopt the position that all illegal aliens are of a particular ethnic group.

Which you seem to be.

Willravel · 05-23-2010, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

....If a cop has a 'reasonable suspicion' a child is too young to be driving he can pull him over and ask for his drivers license.

Likewise if a police officer has a 'reasonable suspicion' that I am a burgler rather than the owner of a house he can legally check to find out.

How is this any different from any other crime?

Too young to drive:

Burglar:

Now post an image of someone that demonstrates they're an illegal immigrant that doesn't include them crossing the border.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Wait, saying they will enforce federal law is racist AND unconstitutional?

I'm saying in the real world it's impossible to tell if someone is an illegal immigrant just by looking at them. The idea that someone looks or acts in a way (other than actually crossing the border) that somehow leads a police officer to have a lawful, reasonable suspicion that they're illegal is outside reality. All the conservative and/or racist apologists in the world can't hide the reality of this situation.

The law is actually quite simple: it gives local police the power to act as federal immigration officers. It makes not having your papers on you a misdemeanor. Finally, and most importantly, the law gives Arizona police the power to detain anyone they consider to have a "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant.

"But Will, that's not racist!! 404, racism not found LOL!!!"

Only if you have your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears. Unfortunately, Arizonans can't choose to live in a perfect little bubble of Disney-esque innocence. Let's say you're a police officer in Arizona. Just recently, a law passed that said if you didn't enforce the new law, you would be sued. The law requires you to demand proof of legal residence on THE SUSPICION of not having papers. So, as you're walking down the street looking at people, you think to yourself 'who doesn't have papers?'

"Hmmm... there's a white family—ma, pa and two kids—coming out of a pizza parlor. I'd better check them... but that'd never hold up. Arizona doesn't have an Anglo-Saxon illegal immigration problem. We don't have Germans crossing the border so they can send money back to their impoverished country to put food on their family's table.

"Maybe it's the black man walking out of the grocery store? He's certainly not of European descent. Then again, it's more likely his ancestors were kidnapped and brought here to perform slave labor (or "fun happy times cooperation work", as the Texas Board of Education calls it). And, again, it's not like we share a border with Liberia or Chad. Hm....

"Hey, it's a Mexican woman! She's wearing cheap clothing, worn out shoes and... yes... she has an early 90s Ford Escort that probably hasn't been washed in months! Shoot, looks like the registration is paid. Still, we share a border with Mexico, and most of the illegal immigrants in Arizona are from Mexico."

I'll tell you what, give me a situation in which, aside from crossing the border, an Arizona police officer would have the suspicion that someone is undocumented. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

aceventura3 · 05-27-2010, 10:22 AM

Obama would not denounce a boycott of the State of Arizona. He did not say that a boycott was not the way for "our" nation to respond to the issue of Arizona attempting, in good faith, to do what it can to protect US citizens from illegal immigration. This is unbelievable!

Also, for liberals, I am curious - call it a test of are you really blinded by ideology:

You don't want trained law enforcement officials to enforce immigration laws by asking people who have violated at least one law if they have a legal right to be in this country...

but..

you expect, i.e. a painting contractor, to enforce immigration by asking people for their "papers" or face fines or criminal prosecution????

Do you think a person like a small business painting contractor is better able to enforce immigration laws compared to trained law enforcement officials???

You folks can't be serious!

Jinn · 05-27-2010, 11:51 AM

An employer has the responsibility to maintain all sorts of paperwork on his or her employees, everything from contracts to immigration status to tax documentation. They have a legitimate reason for asking for it, and a person can readily refuse to work at a place if they ask for the legally required paperwork.

Police, on the other hand, can see you on the street, initiate 'lawful contact' by saying "Hello!" and then ask for your immigration paperwork based on a 'reasonable suspicion.' They're so far from being analogous that I'd be surprised to see the argument made, but I saw the username first.

The problem with 'reasonable suspicion' is that it requires one identifying characteristic not tied to race or ethnicity in order to not qualify as racial profiling under federal law. You've trapped LEOs into a situation where the only reasonable suspicion they have is the race, and they can't use it as RS. As soon as someone is deported as result of AZ's new law, it will be immediately thrown out when the LEO can't articulate the RS/PC for detaining the person (other than their race).

If you can't understand a lawful citizen's objection to being stopped and asked for immigration paperwork simply because of your race in the 'land of the free' then you simply don't have any empathy, and don't understand the reasons we have for protecting our citizens from search and seizure.

aceventura3 · 05-27-2010, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

An employer has the responsibility to maintain all sorts of paperwork on his or her employees, everything from contracts to immigration status to tax documentation. They have a legitimate reason for asking for it, and a person can readily refuse to work at a place if they ask for the legally required paperwork.

Police, on the other hand, can see you on the street, initiate 'lawful contact' by saying "Hello!" and then ask for your immigration paperwork based on a 'reasonable suspicion.' They're so far from being analogous that I'd be surprised to see the argument made, but I saw the username first.

The problem with 'reasonable suspicion' is that it requires one identifying characteristic not tied to race or ethnicity in order to not qualify as racial profiling under federal law. You've trapped LEOs into a situation where the only reasonable suspicion they have is the race, and they can't use it as RS. As soon as someone is deported as result of AZ's new law, it will be immediately thrown out when the LEO can't articulate the RS/PC for detaining the person (other than their race).

If you can't understand a lawful citizen's objection to being stopped and asked for immigration paperwork simply because of your race in the 'land of the free' then you simply don't have any empathy, and don't understand the reasons we have for protecting our citizens from search and seizure.

I feel like Alice in Wonderland.

A small business owner who may hire an illegal may collect "papers" and is required under some circumstances. In other circumstances, like day labor, use of temps through an "agency", or subcontractors they may not collect "papers". In any of those circumstances, including with "papers" the business owner may suspect illegal status. But that business owner is also subject to EEO. What is being discussed is that the business owner be subject to fines, punishment and damages, as if he/she will be an expert in this. So we want the business owner to walk this tight-rope and potentially just start discriminating under the radar, while...

On the other hand we can have trained law enforcement officials with the responsibility and we don't want them to do what their job is! And, if law enforcement is acting in a discriminatory manner, judicial action can be taken to protect and make whole any victims.

dc_dux · 05-27-2010, 02:24 PM

ace...I really dont get your incredulity or righteous indignation.

There are several legitimate constitutional issues with the law....particularly regarding the federal v state role in legislating immigration enforcement and civil rights.

As well as concerns expressed by law enforcement professionals of the potential adverse impact on community policing in Hispanic communities. The law undermines trust within the Hispanic community...knowing that you can be approached anytime by a cop, based solely on "suspicion" or "reasonable cause" and asked to prove your citizenship. Would you be more inclined to report crimes to cops or avoid them?

aceventura3 · 05-27-2010, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...I really dont get your incredulity or righteous indignation.

Perhaps, being a business owner forms the basis of my incredulity or righteous indignation. Do you support more responsibility for controlling illegal immigration should be placed on the shoulders of business owners?

Quote:

There are several legitimate constitutional issues with the law....particularly regarding the federal v state role in legislating immigration enforcement and civil rights.

Not in dispute by me. However, federal or local law - laws should be enforced by law enforcement officials - do you disagree with that premise?

Quote:

As well as concerns expressed by law enforcement professionals of the potential adverse impact on community policing in Hispanic communities. The law undermines trust within the Hispanic community...knowing that you can be approached anytime by a cop, based solely on "suspicion" or "reasonable cause" and asked to prove your citizenship. Would you be more inclined to report crimes to cops or avoid them?

I clearly illustrated an unintended consequence of putting business owners at greater risk in this area. Discrimination based on race/national origin is wrong and illegal. However, it is easy to see how business owners (if the potential costs are too high) may take steps to avoid hiring legal immigrants. Do you not see the potential problem and how having trained law enforcement officials handling this may be better than increasingly punitive to business owners.

Again, you respond to my point in a dismissive manner, but the issues rased are very real - you and other liberal have a pattern of doing this - I think it is condescending - why do you do it? Do you know you do it?

dc_dux · 05-27-2010, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Perhaps, being a business owner forms the basis of my incredulity or righteous indignation. Do you support more responsibility for controlling illegal immigration should be placed on the shoulders of business owners?

Not in dispute by me. However, federal or local law - laws should be enforced by law enforcement officials - do you disagree with that premise?

I clearly illustrated an unintended consequence of putting business owners at greater risk in this area. Discrimination based on race/national origin is wrong and illegal. However, it is easy to see how business owners (if the potential costs are too high) may take steps to avoid hiring legal immigrants. Do you not see the potential problem and how having trained law enforcement officials handling this may be better than increasingly punitive to business owners.

Again, you respond to my point in a dismissive manner, but the issues rased are very real - you and other liberal have a pattern of doing this - I think it is condescending - why do you do it? Do you know you do it?

*shrug"

I dont why I bothered....its the same old story.

Derwood · 05-27-2010, 03:37 PM

why did you put papers in quotation marks?

aceventura3 · 05-28-2010, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

why did you put papers in quotation marks?

Because an illegal can easily obtain the "papers" needed for employment. Those "papers" can easily be fraudulent or forgeries. I am not clear on what people who want more punitive actions against employers expect? Do they expect a guy who runs a small painting contracting company to become an expert in detecting bad documents or run the risk of being forced out of business? But on the other hand we can have trained law enforcement people doing the job.

Again the problem with the boycott is that only a selected few put the Arizona bill into law, but a boycott will harm millions including small businesses and employees. We should have a President who says a boycott is the wrong approach.

Most people who support the Arizona law may not have given any serious thought to the Constitutionality of the law and are frustrated. We should have a President who understands that and says a cycle of you boycott me, I boycott you is wrong for this nation.

Arizona did not pass this law in secret. We should have a President who is not surprised by things like this. He could have met with the Govenor and state legislative leaders before the law passed and discussed his plans to address concerns. He could have lead, but he did not. And he does not have the guts to say a boycott is not the best response and that he would do his job to resolve the matter and make sure everyone is equally protected under the law.

Are you o.k., with how Obama is handling this? What would you do different if anything?

Sun Tzu · 05-30-2010, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Because an illegal can easily obtain the "papers" needed for employment. Those "papers" can easily be fraudulent or forgeries. I am not clear on what people who want more punitive actions against employers expect? Do they expect a guy who runs a small painting contracting company to become an expert in detecting bad documents or run the risk of being forced out of business? But on the other hand we can have trained law enforcement people doing the job.

Again the problem with the boycott is that only a selected few put the Arizona bill into law, but a boycott will harm millions including small businesses and employees. We should have a President who says a boycott is the wrong approach.

Most people who support the Arizona law may not have given any serious thought to the Constitutionality of the law and are frustrated. We should have a President who understands that and says a cycle of you boycott me, I boycott you is wrong for this nation.

Arizona did not pass this law in secret. We should have a President who is not surprised by things like this. He could have met with the Govenor and state legislative leaders before the law passed and discussed his plans to address concerns. He could have lead, but he did not. And he does not have the guts to say a boycott is not the best response and that he would do his job to resolve the matter and make sure everyone is equally protected under the law.

Are you o.k., with how Obama is handling this? What would you do different if anything?

EDIT People slam the new law and fall back on the catch phrase “but we need comprehensive immigration reform”. What does that mean exactly? Well the Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to review and set aside an Arizona law that sanctions employers who hire illegal immigrants, saying it would disrupt the "careful balance" that Congress struck in federal immigration law.

Im trying to understand the reasoning behind this. It seems the troops being sent to the border are a dog and pony counter to what appears to be an agenda to disolve the border. With Obama putting a La Raza council member into the Supreme Court his actions are speaking loud.
Nice motivating speech by a teacher at a La Raza rally; UCLA

The interesting point is the reality of how Mexico treats what it considers illegal immigrants south of its own borders contradicts he delusionary rhetoric. It also shows Felipe Calderon to be a hypocrite as he slams Arizona.

aceventura3 · 06-01-2010, 02:19 PM

This is not an example of leadership from the Obama administration, why won't they act in good faith in an open and honest manner to resolve this matter?

Quote:

"For some inexplicable reason, the Department of Justice officials met with the Arizona Attorney General hours before meeting with the State of Arizonas legal team, and then allowed the Attorney General to hold a press conference to discuss the meeting. This level of coordination between the Attorney General and the Obama Administration is disturbingly similar to the coordination with Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords earlier this week on President Obamas still unclear plan to deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border.

DOJ Officials Meet in Phoenix with Arizona AG

raging moderate · 06-03-2010, 10:09 AM

The problem with this whole controversy surrounding the law is that enforcement agents were already doing this, and will continue to do this (stopping those who "look" illegal for whatever crime and demanding papers). This isn't going to start, or stop, just because of this one law.

On the other hand, if you've ever been pulled over late at night and asked if you've been drinking, you've been a victim of this same situation. It's 2AM, on Saturday, and you're driving, so it's possible you've been drinking and you stand a decent chance of getting pulled over for any reason just so they can check and see. I've always thought of it as "fishing." Ever been pulled over with an out taillight and then have your license and insurance ran through the database, asked if you'd been drinking, etc.?

Speaking of which, if there's anyone involved in this discussion that has been pulled over EVER and then not asked for identification, please speak up. You can't really cry racism if everyone is subject to this type of treatment, which they are. Driving is not a RIGHT.

whether you need another reason (ie driving to fast/slow/swervy/straight/etc) to pull someone over or not, cops are still going to "fish" and, in our country, that's pretty much how it goes. If one takes a step back and looks at the big picture, they will realize that this law, unspecific and hazy as it is, actually enacts very few real-world changes.

The only major issue with the law is this: E. 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. This pretty much means that anyone can be arrested for any reason, at any time, without a warrant. This provision definitely makes the whole damn thing unconstitutional because, as far as I understand, the Supreme court does not have a line item veto. This is so vague and broad-based as to be inarguable. ANYONE could be an illegal.

EDIT: PS as far as the situation stands with Obama and whether or not he should step in and moderate the boycott, it really should fall to someone in his administration such as the VP or attorney general or someone to deal with the boycott, if it needs to be dealt with at all. If the state governments are not appealing to the fed for moderation, the fed should stay out of it. The stance that Obama took - that is not the job of the president of the USA to determine what boycotts should be taken and when, etc. is exactly right. Enough time is spent on this at the state and local level as it is, getting the federal gov't involved would undoubtedly only draw out the debate and make the problem worse. It's all pretty much political posturing anyway, as discussed earlier.

Baraka_Guru · 07-29-2010, 09:40 AM

Quote:

UPDATE 7-Key parts of Arizona anti-immigration law blocked

Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:06am EDT

Judge bars police from determining immigration status
Arizona governor says will appeal
Victory for Obama administration
Rep. Kirkpatrick sees "no winners" in costly court fight
Senators McCain and Kyl "disappointed," take aim at Obama
Police arrest four activists in crane protest

[...]

UPDATE 7-Key parts of Arizona anti-immigration law blocked | Reuters

kutulu · 07-29-2010, 10:43 AM

The teabaggers here is AZ are pissed!!!! I love it.

05-19-2010, 03:47 PM	#1 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	Arizona threatens to turn off power Arizona energy official calls L.A.'s bluff on total boycott - Phoenix Arizona news, breaking news, local news, weather radar, traffic from ABC15 News \| ABC15.com Is this an actual possibility? I mean, can a state just deny another state electricity? I can't see how. Your thoughts? __________________ "Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

05-19-2010, 03:56 PM	#3 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Sure why not. It's a commerce thing not any different from any other Right to refuse service. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

05-19-2010, 04:15 PM	#5 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	It just seems more like political posturing to me, rather than an actual threat. __________________ "Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

05-19-2010, 04:26 PM	#6 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Actual threats often are political posturing. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-21-2010, 03:01 PM	#19 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	....If a cop has a 'reasonable suspicion' a child is too young to be driving he can pull him over and ask for his drivers license. Likewise if a police officer has a 'reasonable suspicion' that I am a burgler rather than the owner of a house he can legally check to find out. How is this any different from any other crime? If the cop has a reasonable suspicion you are committing a crime, he can typically check to find out yes/no. Also, if Arizona has decided Illegal Immigration has become too great a problem, they should have the power (with the consent of it's citizens, which they have) to take measures to curb the issue. It doesn't require 'racial' profiling to wonder if maybe a person who speaks no English, has a "Viva Mexico" bumper sticker and who does not possess a valid in-state ID card might not be a local. If this law is 'too much' I would, in the spirit of equality with our brothers to the south, be happy to support a bill that simply adopts Mexico's Immigration laws as our own.....Illegal Immigration would become a Felony with harsh prison terms for offenders. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 05-21-2010 at 03:05 PM..

05-20-2010, 02:31 PM	#11 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	So instead of this being a moment of enlightenment, seeing the racist error of their ways, Arizona is critiquing Los Angeles' boycott? Holy shit, Arizona, you're quite the mess. I wonder if it's even occurred to them to actually reverse the racist and unconstitutional law.

05-20-2010, 03:49 PM	#16 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I hope a cop pulls over Jan Brewer, John McCain or Jon Kyl and then asks them to produce their birth certificate. When they can't produce them then they should put them in jail until they can. I bet that won't happen.

05-21-2010, 04:29 PM	#20 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Short of seeing someone crossing the border or by the border, what, exactly, constitutes "reasonable suspicion" in this case? Please cite a few things that would lead to that reasonable suspicion that would not disproportionately put a particular group of US citizens under the microscope as well.

05-21-2010, 05:33 PM	#21 (permalink)
telekinetic zomgomgomgomgomgomg Location: Fauxenix, Azerona	I live in Arizona. I know dozens of of people who have gotten in car accidents where the other driver was uninsured, unlicensed, and known to be here illegally. Why they weren't deported as soon as the cops identified that fact at the scene always baffled me, and now they will be. Done, and done. They aren't going to start 'driving while brown' busts. If someone gets pulled over for drunk driving or is in an accident and they don't have ID and can't produce an SSN or other documentation of their legal residence, I have no problems sending them on their merry way, and don't understand people who do. __________________ twisted no more

05-21-2010, 06:58 PM	#24 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I doubt they would really turn off the power. That is a lot of money, and AZ needs the jobs. We need to come up with a 3rd option, but I think the reality isn't quite the same as what is being reported on. I am only 5 miles from the AZ-Mexico border right now, yet it doesn't seem like things are really bad here.

05-27-2010, 10:22 AM	#28 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Unbelievable - Obama's News Conference. Obama would not denounce a boycott of the State of Arizona. He did not say that a boycott was not the way for "our" nation to respond to the issue of Arizona attempting, in good faith, to do what it can to protect US citizens from illegal immigration. This is unbelievable! Also, for liberals, I am curious - call it a test of are you really blinded by ideology: You don't want trained law enforcement officials to enforce immigration laws by asking people who have violated at least one law if they have a legal right to be in this country... but.. you expect, i.e. a painting contractor, to enforce immigration by asking people for their "papers" or face fines or criminal prosecution???? Do you think a person like a small business painting contractor is better able to enforce immigration laws compared to trained law enforcement officials??? You folks can't be serious! __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

05-27-2010, 11:51 AM	#29 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	An employer has the responsibility to maintain all sorts of paperwork on his or her employees, everything from contracts to immigration status to tax documentation. They have a legitimate reason for asking for it, and a person can readily refuse to work at a place if they ask for the legally required paperwork. Police, on the other hand, can see you on the street, initiate 'lawful contact' by saying "Hello!" and then ask for your immigration paperwork based on a 'reasonable suspicion.' They're so far from being analogous that I'd be surprised to see the argument made, but I saw the username first. The problem with 'reasonable suspicion' is that it requires one identifying characteristic not tied to race or ethnicity in order to not qualify as racial profiling under federal law. You've trapped LEOs into a situation where the only reasonable suspicion they have is the race, and they can't use it as RS. As soon as someone is deported as result of AZ's new law, it will be immediately thrown out when the LEO can't articulate the RS/PC for detaining the person (other than their race). If you can't understand a lawful citizen's objection to being stopped and asked for immigration paperwork simply because of your race in the 'land of the free' then you simply don't have any empathy, and don't understand the reasons we have for protecting our citizens from search and seizure. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 05-27-2010 at 11:55 AM..

05-27-2010, 02:24 PM	#31 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace...I really dont get your incredulity or righteous indignation. There are several legitimate constitutional issues with the law....particularly regarding the federal v state role in legislating immigration enforcement and civil rights. As well as concerns expressed by law enforcement professionals of the potential adverse impact on community policing in Hispanic communities. The law undermines trust within the Hispanic community...knowing that you can be approached anytime by a cop, based solely on "suspicion" or "reasonable cause" and asked to prove your citizenship. Would you be more inclined to report crimes to cops or avoid them? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-27-2010 at 02:29 PM..

05-27-2010, 03:37 PM	#34 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	why did you put papers in quotation marks? __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-03-2010, 10:09 AM	#38 (permalink)
raging moderate Insane Location: Whatever house my keys can get me into	The problem with this whole controversy surrounding the law is that enforcement agents were already doing this, and will continue to do this (stopping those who "look" illegal for whatever crime and demanding papers). This isn't going to start, or stop, just because of this one law. On the other hand, if you've ever been pulled over late at night and asked if you've been drinking, you've been a victim of this same situation. It's 2AM, on Saturday, and you're driving, so it's possible you've been drinking and you stand a decent chance of getting pulled over for any reason just so they can check and see. I've always thought of it as "fishing." Ever been pulled over with an out taillight and then have your license and insurance ran through the database, asked if you'd been drinking, etc.? Speaking of which, if there's anyone involved in this discussion that has been pulled over EVER and then not asked for identification, please speak up. You can't really cry racism if everyone is subject to this type of treatment, which they are. Driving is not a RIGHT. whether you need another reason (ie driving to fast/slow/swervy/straight/etc) to pull someone over or not, cops are still going to "fish" and, in our country, that's pretty much how it goes. If one takes a step back and looks at the big picture, they will realize that this law, unspecific and hazy as it is, actually enacts very few real-world changes. The only major issue with the law is this: E. 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. This pretty much means that anyone can be arrested for any reason, at any time, without a warrant. This provision definitely makes the whole damn thing unconstitutional because, as far as I understand, the Supreme court does not have a line item veto. This is so vague and broad-based as to be inarguable. ANYONE could be an illegal. EDIT: PS as far as the situation stands with Obama and whether or not he should step in and moderate the boycott, it really should fall to someone in his administration such as the VP or attorney general or someone to deal with the boycott, if it needs to be dealt with at all. If the state governments are not appealing to the fed for moderation, the fed should stay out of it. The stance that Obama took - that is not the job of the president of the USA to determine what boycotts should be taken and when, etc. is exactly right. Enough time is spent on this at the state and local level as it is, getting the federal gov't involved would undoubtedly only draw out the debate and make the problem worse. It's all pretty much political posturing anyway, as discussed earlier. __________________ These are the good old days... formerly Murp0434 Last edited by raging moderate; 06-03-2010 at 10:21 AM..

07-29-2010, 10:43 AM	#40 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	The teabaggers here is AZ are pissed!!!! I love it.