Arizonans and The Nation Torn On Immigration Bill

[Peikko 1,575]

I think "can't speak English" is enough for probably cause, or at least for further inquiry, as people who live in this country are assumed to speak the language of the country they live in.

If I live in in Italy, I'm assumed to speak Italian, if I live in France, I'm assumed to speak French, if I live in Mexico, I'm assumed to speak Spanish, and if I live in the US, I'm assumed to speak English.

So if I was a cop and noticed that somebody can't speak English, I would guess that the person is either:

1) a tourist,

2) a fairly new LPR or lawful non-resident, or perhaps

3) an undocumented immigrant.

Usually, tourists are dressed hidiously and carry a camera, and students are mostly young people who carry books or a laptop. Members of both groups can easily prove that they are legally in the US. If somebody waves down trucks in front of Home Depot, doesn't speak English, and has no ID, I don't see how it would be racial profiling, if cop inquires about such person's immigration status.

And yet, you are not being satirical at all are you?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think "can't speak English" is enough for probably cause, or at least for further inquiry, as people who live in this country are assumed to speak the language of the country they live in.

If I live in in Italy, I'm assumed to speak Italian, if I live in France, I'm assumed to speak French, if I live in Mexico, I'm assumed to speak Spanish, and if I live in the US, I'm assumed to speak English.

So if I was a cop and noticed that somebody can't speak English, I would guess that the person is either:

1) a tourist,

2) a fairly new LPR or lawful non-resident, or perhaps

3) an undocumented immigrant.

Usually, tourists are dressed hidiously and carry a camera, and students are mostly young people who carry books or a laptop. Members of both groups can easily prove that they are legally in the US. If somebody waves down trucks in front of Home Depot, doesn't speak English, and has no ID, I don't see how it would be racial profiling, if cop inquires about such person's immigration status.

English is not the language of the US legally. In fact I remember a NYPD story where a cop cited a driver with not speaking English, he got in to big trouble as the law in NY states that only cabs,buses etc must have english speaking drivers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Did you know that you can identify Japanese tourists by the large cameras they wear around their necks?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Did you know that you can identify Japanese tourists by the large cameras they wear around their necks?

...and an excessive use of the piece sign.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And did you know that a tourist with a mustache has a 13.25% chance of being an Italian and 98.1% of those will either be plumbers or Pizza chefs.

[Heracles 417]

Based on the 2000 US census, 96% of the population speaks English. Interestingly enough only 92% of Australians speak English.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Booyah!

[_Simpson_ 250]

I don't think its reasonable for the police to make (or be appear to make) that assumption. Whether or not you want to admit it, there is a racial component to the subject of illegal immigration. If you want the police to operate on a basis where assumptions can be made on the balance of probability you run the very real risk of encouraging racial profiling.

So how does your logic work when cops are patrolling a predominantly black neighborhood? Should we not enforce laws in these neighborhoods because the officers are more likely to think that the criminal will be black. Your logic is flawed.

Could. Not "will".

Regardless you didn't address the point that was made and once again you are reverting to semantics. Do you think the German man I spoke of would be ignored?

If you read the background to the Sus laws in the UK, you will see that the police needed probable cause to stop and search people too. And this wasn't a matter of a few rogue officers.

So then the law didnt discriminate the cops did,bad cops. Maybe cops here in the states could teach them a thing or two. Once again you are as Obama so eloquently put it "misguided".

Your "analysis" amounted to nothing more than "it was 20 years ago and it's a different country". So no, I don't find your reasons valid, (or convincing).

That was the last thing I said, I have addressed this in a lot of my posts.

Edited April 29, 2010 by _Simpson_

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Simpson, I'm going to save myself the job of repeating myself yet again, because whenever I talk to you, you tell me that you understand what I've said (but disagree with it); but then you proceed in a manner that suggests that you really don't and never did understand.

[mawilson 2,133]

Not to mention the cost aspect - filling the jails with suspected illegal aliens. And how long can they keep them in jail for anyway? Unless they've changed something very drastic - there is a legally proscribed limit to how long you can detain someone without charge.

It's a house of cards that relies on the Federal authorities to operate in an efficient manner. If they are overstretched, they will have to let people go.

They can charge them with criminal trespassing, can't they?

[mawilson 2,133]

Inevitably the US ends up a second world country with few that are mega rich, a non-existent middle class and the rest being dirt poor. Welcome to Mexico 2.0 - The future United States.

And a tyranny of the majority who receive services yet don't pay any taxes (already we have 47% who don't pay any income taxes).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They can charge them with criminal trespassing, can't they?

I had a quick look at the State law and the Criminal Trespass laws seem to apply specifically to private property (residential and commercial buildings).

[skidivawannabe 2]

No, you can't tell by simply looking at someone but my guess is, out of those three, the citizen and the LPR will have no problem proving their status when called upon to do so simply by carrying a color photocopy of the biographic page of your passport or your Green Card or whatever valid visa you're on (F-1, B-2) etc. I still don't see the big deal. Yes, unfortunately, Hispanics and Asians might get called upon to produce ID more than a white, blond, blue-eyed chick would be asked to, but hey, that's how the cookie crumbles. If you wanna live there, you gotta follow the laws.

As for the illegal alien, if this law gets even one of them deported, then more power to it!

I was in the U.S. for four years on a F-1 student visa. I always kept a copy of the visa in my wallet. I am Indian, brown-skinned, could easily pass for a Mexican and have often been mistaken as one. I also plan to keep a copy of my Green Card in my wallet and will produce it when called upon to do so. It seems to me only illegals need to fear this law. If you're a legal alien or a citizen, there's no need to get your panties up in a bunch. Produce your ID, and you'll be on your way.

I don't think it's fair to the non-white to be assumed to be illegal. Yes, I can carry a copy of my Greencard w/ me everyday. Yes, I can face an officer w/o batting an eyelash, but the point is, in a street - - the non-white legal alien or citizen vs the white illegal alien (I'm sure there are some, let's be realistic) - - who's most likely to be harassed?

Don't get me wrong, I'm against illegal immigration. There are so many ways to make ones residency or stay here legally, but I'm against the possibility of being harassed due to my dark hair, bulbous nose, dark eyes and un-american accent. It's not fair to anyone who is non white, legal immigrant or citizen. Sure, it's no big deal if you can prove your legal status or citizenship, but at the end of the day, no one wants to be harassed.

What's scary here is how the authorities who are not aptly trained will implement this law. Admit it, there are bigots and jerks out there who just want to power-trip and this will surely be an avenue for them.

[Andy and Kayla 45]

I think this is a great law, personally.

These arguments that asking for ID are against civil rights are, for one, unapplicable. Civil rights refers to CITIZENSHIP. Illegal immigrants do not have civil rights; what they do have is human rights. They aren't going to be executed in the streets for not having ID. If they don't have it on them, they aren't going to be deported instantly. There can be checks done at the police station, and yes that is inconvenient but technically you should have your ID on you anyway.

Especially if you're pulled over driving, for example. It's the law to have your driver's license and if you're a legal immigrant, you should have your GC on you at all times anyway.

IMO, it's vote buying to fight this. If someone is a legal citizen, hand over the ID and everything will be fine; only illegals have to worry, and quite frankly it's the people who do that and who undermine the immigration process that make it harder for the rest of us who are trying to do it properly. The government is not infringing on anyone's rights by asking for ID.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think this is a great law, personally.

These arguments that asking for ID are against civil rights are, for one, unapplicable. Civil rights refers to CITIZENSHIP. Illegal immigrants do not have civil rights; what they do have is human rights. They aren't going to be executed in the streets for not having ID. If they don't have it on them, they aren't going to be deported instantly. There can be checks done at the police station, and yes that is inconvenient but technically you should have your ID on you anyway.

Especially if you're pulled over driving, for example. It's the law to have your driver's license and if you're a legal immigrant, you should have your GC on you at all times anyway.

IMO, it's vote buying to fight this. If someone is a legal citizen, hand over the ID and everything will be fine; only illegals have to worry, and quite frankly it's the people who do that and who undermine the immigration process that make it harder for the rest of us who are trying to do it properly. The government is not infringing on anyone's rights by asking for ID.

You're missing the point though. This law would place a burden on the USCs to provide additional identification over and above the commonly accepted driver's license. That's exactly what the OP article is saying.

Say I have a greencard and a driver's license - what would happen if I were to leave the GC at home and then get pulled over for speeding? I would still have a driver's license to present to the cop (the same driver's license that a USC would have - don't forget in many States, there is no mention of immigration status on the driver's license).

If commonly accepted proof of ID for a USC is a driver's license, how exactly would it be determined whether or not I am a citizen, an LPR or an illegal immigrant?

The only way it could possibly be effective is if the cops start profiling people.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Andy and Kayla 45]

It's federal law to carry your GC on you at all times, anyway, though.

And anyway, if someone was here illegally, I don't even know if they could obtain a driver's license (I could be wrong, I've never attempted it, myself) and, immigrant or not, driving without a license is also a felony.