Arizona governor signs immigration bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wirelessly posted

Steinhauer said:
Wirelessly posted



All I see is that anyone that is white is legally allowed to be in the States, but must wait a few years after declaring their intents before being an American citizen with voting rights.

Radical in the sense religions and countries of origins didn't matter to the American government at the time.

That was 1790. :cool2:

Most Brits were white in 1790. Most Chinese were Asian in 1790 .... and etc.

But they were still allowed to settle in the States, regardless of origins; they just didn't have political rights extended to them until they became a citizen.
 
well first, you need to correctly interpret historical facts for me to explain them to you.
whoa look at what you just wrote. It's as perfect as perpetual motion. :shock:

You said, in colonial America, there was no concept of immigration, even illegal immigration.
correction - I said concept of ILLEGAL immigration. How can the foreigners be declared as illegal immigrants if there were no immigration laws in 1700's? no immigration agency? no border patrol agents? What were the legal parameters to declare one as "illegal immigrant" in 1700's? You have continued to fail to explain this to me.

I gave you the Naturalization Act of 1790 to dispel a notion you had that there was no concept of immigration in colonial America.
correction - I said concept of ILLEGAL immigration. That Act of 1790 was mainly reserved to "free white men" to be recognized as American citizen. It did not apply to women, slaves, servants, etc. so does that mean women, slaves, servants, etc. are illegal immigrants?

Then, I gave you direct quotes from Benjamin Franklin clearly indicating a concept of "illegal immigration" existed in Colonial America.
correction - nowhere in Ben Franklin's quote said anything about illegal immigrants. Ben Franklin referred "immigration plans" as British Empire shipping British felonies to America.

Do you need any further help in understanding these very foreign concepts? I will be happy to assist.
correction - errrr... I'll let somebody correct it for you.

Also, do you consider the colonists to be immigrants? Or, Brits?
colonists? they were born and raise in America unless some of them were still alive from Mayflower :lol:

Brits? sure they were immigrants. So were French, Italian, Polish, Greek, and any other European races who later were allowed to become American Citizen in 1795 which repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790.
 
Wirelessly posted

Hey, Jiro, you know technically creoles (ancestors of all Latinos) could settle in the United States AND become a citizen within 2 years notifying the local government as long they denounce their ties to the Spainish Empire?

I means there were no creoles in the States in 1790, but if one was to travel from the New Spain, they could become a citizen since they're white of Iberian origin?

I means the 1790 Naturalization Act has no restriction on people from nations and states becoming citizens as long they are visually white and denounce their ties to their former government.
 
Last edited:
I think about same with landlord whoever let illegal immigrants to rent the apartment so landlord should be fined as well.

Hazleton, PA already did three years ago or so.... Now, Hazleton closely is a "ghost town." Mayor of Hazleton had enough enough of high crime and school issues. He even fined some landlords who rented the apartments/houses to those illegal aliens.

Hazleton, Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I went there to meet a client for VR services...Hazleton is definitely a depressing town.
 
Can you really count on most Arizona police officers to be able to do behavior profiling without racial profiling?
I didn't say that. I simply explained that behavior profiling and racial profiling are not the same process. I can't say what individuals will do.
 
behavior profiling is primarily for terrorists.... but illegal immigrants? the one who lives here for too long? The illegal immigrant who lives here for a long time knows how to talk and act like legal resident and there are million of them like that.
I didn't say it would be effective in the Arizona situation. I just wanted to clarify the difference in the two procedures.

Don't you think we will see a rise in number of incidents of police officers asking legal resident or lawful immigrant for proof of immigration status? That would mean behavior profiling doesn't work.
I have no idea what we will see happen in the future with the Arizona police. Even if it doesn't work for them, it wouldn't prove that the process of behavior profiling doesn't work. All factors would have to be figured in.

yes I know Racial Profiling is technically not the same as Behavior Profiling because both profiling looks out for different primary variables but no matter what kind of profiling it is - any kind of profiling is always tightly interlaced together with racism on unconscious level. A person would have to have an advanced degree in behavior-related or intensive advanced training to make such distinction.
The people who develop the programs for behavior profiling and train the users do have advanced training and research to back them up. Racial profiling requires NO training.

I don't know if behavior profiling would apply to Arizona's plan but it has been used successfully elsewhere.

Mark my word - If most Arizona police officers are able to use behavior profiling so effectively that only few legal residents/immigrants were asked to provide proof of immigration.... WOW! then I would support other state and my state to adopt Arizona's immigration law! no question asked!
Fair enough.
 
I read thru the story but I couldn't find how it was behavioral profiling that caused the problem. Is something missing?

The guy claims he was challenged by the airport police because of his race. Well, that's racial profiling, not behavior profiling.

If he was challenged by the police because he left the secure area of the terminal, that would be a behavior characteristic, not a racial characteristic.

Second, he refused to identify himself to lawful authorities. Certainly someone who is a professional traveler knows that ID verification is very serious at airports these days, and is not an unreasonable request.

We need more details about this event before saying it's proof that behavior profiling in general does not work.
 
The Truth about Behavioral Profiling - I see that KoKoNut keeps bragging about the success that Israelis is having at Ben Gurion International Airport. Let's find out how they do it, shall we yes?

59 pages paper written by 2 legal scholars for George Mason Law Review. Before I begin - I want to give you a little background on "Behavior Profiling". Because of 9/11 - Department of Homeland Security created Screening
Passengers by Observation Technique aka SPOT - a behavioral profiling program that trains "federal agents closely observe travelers’ faces for hints that they may be security risks. It is in operation in airports across the United States, and is used in other settings, such as urban mass transit." Israelis provided American an invaluable technical knowledge in this issue.

So as you see - Behavior Profiling looks for abnormal behavior.... not skin color or stereotypical image. Now I will show you how it works at Israel - Ben Gurion International Airport.

PROFILES IN TERROR: A LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE BEHAVIORAL PROFILING PARADIGM

background on those 2 legal scholars who wrote this incredibly detailed and well-researched report

so.... Arizona police officers. Let's see what is the requirement needed to become Arizona police officer.

Phoenix Police Department - * Applicant Requirements (I'm listing only most important criteria)

so can we count on most Arizona police officers to use behavioral profiling without racial profiling effectively with just 4 days of training when Israel hand-picked seasoned Israelis security guards with military backgrounds & 9 weeks of training in behavioral profiling to guard its airport? :hmm:
My point has been that the process of behavior profiling is not to be faulted if those using it are not using it properly. It's not the fault of the process but the fault of the users. It's also not applicable for every situation but that's not the fault of the process.
 
how is it draconian, racist, hate-filled policy to show a simple ID? please explain that to me. for love of god - please do that for me.

How about this for you - if showing an ID is not enough for security guard and you're required to show additional documents because you're being singled out by whatever the "profiling" they have... what do you think of that policy?
So it was NOT racist, hate-filled or draconian when this happened:

"The lawsuit was filed on behalf of King Downing, the National Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial Profiling, who was approached by law enforcement officials after arriving at Logan Airport on October 16, 2003 to attend a meeting on racial profiling in Boston. Upon arriving at the airport, Downing, an African-American who wears a short beard, left the gate area and was making a phone call in the public terminal when he was stopped by a state police trooper who demanded that he produce some identification. When Downing declined to do so without knowing the basis for the request, he was first told that he would have to leave the airport. However, when he attempted to leave the terminal building, Downing was stopped again, surrounded by four troopers and told that he was being placed under arrest for failing to produce identification. When Downing finally agreed to produce his driver's license, the troopers then demanded to see his airline ticket. Downing was told by the police that he could be barred from the airport if he did not cooperate. After the police inspected Downing's identification and travel documents, he was allowed to leave. No charges were ever filed against him."

He was "singled out" because he left the secure area of the terminal, and initially refused to show his ID.
 
So it was NOT racist, hate-filled or draconian when this happened:

"The lawsuit was filed on behalf of King Downing, the National Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial Profiling, who was approached by law enforcement officials after arriving at Logan Airport on October 16, 2003 to attend a meeting on racial profiling in Boston. Upon arriving at the airport, Downing, an African-American who wears a short beard, left the gate area and was making a phone call in the public terminal when he was stopped by a state police trooper who demanded that he produce some identification. When Downing declined to do so without knowing the basis for the request, he was first told that he would have to leave the airport. However, when he attempted to leave the terminal building, Downing was stopped again, surrounded by four troopers and told that he was being placed under arrest for failing to produce identification. When Downing finally agreed to produce his driver's license, the troopers then demanded to see his airline ticket. Downing was told by the police that he could be barred from the airport if he did not cooperate. After the police inspected Downing's identification and travel documents, he was allowed to leave. No charges were ever filed against him."

He was "singled out" because he left the secure area of the terminal, and initially refused to show his ID.

:gpost:.....right on the $$, Reba....
 
yes. Even I am concerned. Looks like I have to carry additional document when visiting my friend in Phoenix. :roll:
What specific documents are required by the Arizona law?
 
in this article - why is it that some Arizonians and college students have to carry 3 additional pieces of identification to prove their citizenship or immigration status?
"The law also requires legal immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times. But U.S. citizens like Mejia, who identifies herself as Chicana, says she carries her driver's license, voter registration card and school fingerprint card at all times out of fear of being racially profiled."

So legal immigrants have to carry their alien registration documents. OK.

But why would a US citizen like Mejia have to carry other documentation? Does the law require that? Or is that something she decided to do for herself but not required?

Side note: I don't see how a school fingerprint card would prove citizenship any better than a state drivers license would.
 
Last edited:
And yet no benefit of the doubt will be granted in this case when it was made clear that racial profiling is illegal. I supposed it's better to let the crime continue than do nothing at all?

Not better. Just much more likely.
 
My point has been that the process of behavior profiling is not to be faulted if those using it are not using it properly. It's not the fault of the process but the fault of the users. It's also not applicable for every situation but that's not the fault of the process.

Which is the whole point. Even if the AZ bill specifies behavioral profiling, we can't rely on every user not to fall into racial profiling, especially since racism these days tends to be on the subconscious level and flavors actions before the conscious rational mind has a chance to kick in and say "hey buddy, you're being racist." I know some people can catch themselves but most people either can't or don't bother to. Racial profiling already happens but the people doing it usually aren't aware of it and wouldn't admit it in a million years.

Here's a more concrete example. When my wife and I go to Walmart, employees keep a much closer eye on the black woman (or "guy" since she's pretty tomboyish) with baggy clothes than the white blind guy, and that's just shopping for food. My wife has been falsely accused of stealing several times. She even got kicked out once. No one's ever even thought to suspect me. I've had the same security guard that suspected her come up to me and offer to help me with my shopping. Do you think that security guard thought he was being racist? Do you think he even realized what he was doing? Probably not. The whole dynamic happens "below the surface," so to speak.

The situation of asking cops to be on the look out for illegals is setting up a perfect situation for the same dynamic, only with legal aspects tied to it, where the officer has the power to ask for documentation and arrest the person. Of course not every cop is a racist bigot, but everyone is a little racist. And cops, like everyone else, are subjected to the same social dynamics and subconscious messages that lead to the subconscious racism I just illustrated. The only difference now is that they have another legal tool they can wield.

Racial profiling already happens. There's no reason to believe it won't keep happening.
 
"The law also requires legal immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times. But U.S. citizens like Mejia, who identifies herself as Chicana, says she carries her driver's license, voter registration card and school fingerprint card at all times out of fear of being racially profiled."

So legal immigrants have to carry their alien registration documents. OK.

But why would a US citizen like Mejia have to carry other documentation? Does the law require that? Or is that something she decided to do for herself but not required?

because of the language of this bill - the officer CAN question and arrest people without warrant if there is "reasonable suspicion" about your immigration status. An American citizen (non-Caucasian race).... lot of them do not have passport because I suppose they just don't have any need for it.

So what other document to prove his/her immigration status? Birth Certificate? Voter Registration Card? I think handful of them do not have those documents. so is this measure necessary to inconvenience American citizens? my answer is "no. try again."

I'm all for tough immigration law but this is not the way to do it. Arizona government should reallocate all funds, training, and manpower to do some hard serious crackdown (with hefty penalty) on employers hiring illegals and smugglers, not watching out for indicators and checking their immigration status. That is the job for I.C.E. Federal Agent and only the federal government can deport the illegals so the illegals caught by police will have to be handed over to I.C.E.

Big Question is - Do we want our local police officers to do the federal job as I.C.E. Federal Agent in town? This would cause the police officers to neglect our public safety due to lack of manpower and resource.

Side note: I don't see how a school fingerprint card would prove citizenship any better than a state drivers license would.
the more proof you have, the more convincing it is. Kinda like "6-points ID Verification" Policy
 
I'm all for tough immigration law but this is not the way to do it. Arizona government should reallocate all funds, training, and manpower to do some hard serious crackdown (with hefty penalty) on employers hiring illegals and smugglers. Only the federal government can deport the illegals so the illegals caught by police will have to be handed over to I.C.E.

This is a much better approach because it's based on what people actually do, and not just what they look like.
 
So it was NOT racist, hate-filled or draconian when this happened:

"The lawsuit was filed on behalf of King Downing, the National Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial Profiling, who was approached by law enforcement officials after arriving at Logan Airport on October 16, 2003 to attend a meeting on racial profiling in Boston. Upon arriving at the airport, Downing, an African-American who wears a short beard, left the gate area and was making a phone call in the public terminal when he was stopped by a state police trooper who demanded that he produce some identification. When Downing declined to do so without knowing the basis for the request, he was first told that he would have to leave the airport. However, when he attempted to leave the terminal building, Downing was stopped again, surrounded by four troopers and told that he was being placed under arrest for failing to produce identification. When Downing finally agreed to produce his driver's license, the troopers then demanded to see his airline ticket. Downing was told by the police that he could be barred from the airport if he did not cooperate. After the police inspected Downing's identification and travel documents, he was allowed to leave. No charges were ever filed against him."

He was "singled out" because he left the secure area of the terminal, and initially refused to show his ID.

Notice that the Logan Airport uses the "Behavioral Assessment" Program modeled after Israelis' program since 2002 and also notice that kokonut said in his post #414 - "I've been hearing that this BPR won't work in Arizona even though it has worked extremely well at the Ben Gurion Airport? BPR is being implemented at the Miami International Airport, by the Massachusetts State Police, at Logan International Airport, the NYPD – Counter Terrorism Bureau, at the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport , the Park Police – Statue of Liberty, the University of Maryland Police Department, and at San Francisco International."

So King Downing was singled out due to Behavior Profiling Program and then he was later determined not a threat. So what does this mean? It failed. I've pointed out the shocking difference between Israelis' and American's Behavior Profiling Program & Training.

Israelis
The Israelis select officers––the vast majority of whom have military backgrounds—and subject them to tests in order to select those with above-average intelligence and particularly strong personality types. The Israeli recruits then benefit from nine weeks of training in behavior recognition where they practice identifying terrorists who may have been trained to evade behavioral pattern recognition. These highly trained Israeli aviation security agents develop advanced skills in order to recognize the precise behaviors exemplified by potential hijackers or terrorists.

Americans
The training of security personnel differs significantly between the U.S. and Israel. As outlined above, BDOs are typically culled from the ranks of routine security screeners at TSA and need only a high school degree or GED equivalent. By contrast, BDOs receive just four days of classroom instruction and analysis––which relies in part on watching videotapes with known visual cues of deception––and twenty-four hours of on-the-job training in an airport security checkpoint environment.

only 4 days of class? 24 hours of on-the-job training? that's it?

so.... Downing left the gate area and made a phone call at public terminal. The officers approached him. What's so suspicious about it? Thousand of flyers do this but why him? Behavioral Profiling? I think not.
 
I didn't say it would be effective in the Arizona situation. I just wanted to clarify the difference in the two procedures.
yes I do understand the difference but in America - for many officers... Behavioral Profiling is influenced by Racial Profiling. For many including me - you cannot separate those. However - this usually does not apply to specialized type of law enforcement such as Secret Service, some FBI agents, etc. Can I count on police officers to make that kind of distinction between behavioral profiling and racial profiling? nope. why? the decades of history, covert racism, and terrible news have supported my concern.

I have no idea what we will see happen in the future with the Arizona police. Even if it doesn't work for them, it wouldn't prove that the process of behavior profiling doesn't work. All factors would have to be figured in.
indeed. we shall see. my prediction is that this new immigration law will be struck down as it cannot supersede the federal law and Constitution.

The people who develop the programs for behavior profiling and train the users do have advanced training and research to back them up.
but the people (like police officers or TSA agent) USING behavior profiling taught by highly-qualified people are not adequately qualified to use it properly and effectively.

Racial profiling requires NO training.
You are correct that racial profiling does not require training. It's based on one's stereotypical & racist view of others. That's why Racial Profiling does not work as kokonut has already demonstrated its ineffectiveness.

I don't know if behavior profiling would apply to Arizona's plan but it has been used successfully elsewhere.
where? Israel? I've already showed you why and how it worked for Israelis. But I've also told you that if it worked successfully in Arizona - then I support this law and would like my state to adopt it.
 
Napolitano has 'deep concerns' over immigration law
Washington (CNN) -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Tuesday that she has "deep concerns" with a new Arizona law designed to crack down on illegal immigration.

Napolitano, who noted that the Justice Department is reviewing the measure, said she fears that it would siphon away resources that would otherwise be used to pursue individuals who commit major crimes while in the country illegally.

"I think these kinds of laws are not value-added to law enforcement," she the Senate Judiciary Committee. "There's a reason most law enforcement groups ... oppose them."

They put an "undue barrier" between victims of crime and law enforcement officials, she said.

Napolitano, who served as Arizona's governor before joining President Obama's Cabinet, refused to offer an opinion on the constitutionality of the law.

The new law requires Arizona police to determine whether people are in the United States legally if there is a reason to suspect they aren't. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed the controversial legislation into law Friday. Supporters say it is needed to control illegal immigration.

The law, scheduled to go into effect 90 days after the close of the state's legislative session, would require immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times. Currently, officers can check someone's immigration status only if that person is suspected in another crime.

Critics say the law could foster racial profiling and prompt businesses, conventions and tourists to stay away from the state.

The bill has prompted rallies by opponents and supporters, and some prominent politicians in Washington and Arizona have criticized the measure. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a Democrat, has said he'll file a lawsuit to block the law.

Last week, Obama called the legislation "misguided" and said the federal government must act on the immigration issue.

"Our failure to act responsible at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," he said.

Napolitano told the Judiciary Committee members that the "passage of laws like [Arizona's] at the state level indicate the need to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform."

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, blamed federal authorities for undermining the push for comprehensive immigration reform by failing to more effectively secure the Mexican border.

"Our borders are broken ... [and] there's a war going on" with drug cartels in Mexico that is spilling over into the United States, he argued.

"Good people are so afraid of an out-of-control border that they had to resort to a law [in Arizona] that I think is unconstitutional," he said. The federal government has to prove "that we can secure our borders" before Congress can pass an immigration reform bill.

Over the weekend, Graham withdrew his support for what had been a bipartisan plan to pass climate change legislation because, he claimed, Democrats were trying to ram through a polarizing immigration reform bill.

Some political observers have said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, is trying to push a reform plan in order to boost his standing among Hispanic voters and bolster his re-election prospects in November.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, acknowledged Tuesday that congressional Democrats are divided over how to proceed with an immigration reform bill. He also said House members are expecting the Senate to take the lead in crafting a proposal.

"In part, of course, what the people of Arizona are saying is that the feds haven't done their job. I think they're right," he said.

But Hoyer criticized the new state law, arguing that it is "very inconsistent with past practices in America. ... We don't go around asking people for I.D. cards."

He said it is "very difficult to see how that's going to be carried out in a way that's consistent with the civil liberties of citizens."

Napolitano acknowledged that more work has to be done along the southern border, but she also expressed frustration with GOP arguments on border security. She claimed that the overall situation has improved and questioned whether the goal of "securing the border" could ever be fully reached.

Napolitano declined to provide a direct answer when asked whether the Arizona law could negatively impact race relations. But "if this law goes into effect," she warned, "there are a lot of questions about what the real impact on the street will be."

mind you - Napolitano was the former Arizona Governor in 2003-2009... former Arizona District General (1999-2002).... and former US Attorney for Arizona (1993-1998). She clearly knows how it works - inside out.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer - the one who signed this immigration law... I think she doesn't have a dang clue. She's new to job.
 
because of the language of this bill - the officer CAN question and arrest people without warrant if there is "reasonable suspicion" about your immigration status. An American citizen (non-Caucasian race).... lot of them do not have passport because I suppose they just don't have any need for it.
Does the Arizona law require a passport for proof?

So what other document to prove his/her immigration status? Birth Certificate? Voter Registration Card? I think handful of them do not have those documents. so is this measure necessary to inconvenience American citizens? my answer is "no. try again."
What specific documentation does the Arizona law require an American citizen to show?

Non-citizens will have other documentation for their legal status, of course.

...Big Question is - Do we want our local police officers to do the federal job as I.C.E. Federal Agent in town? This would cause the police officers to neglect our public safety due to lack of manpower and resource.
That was one of my prior questions. Is it realistic to assume that the Arizona police departments will dedicate the manpower and expense required to make all these stops and checks?

the more proof you have, the more convincing it is. Kinda like "6-points ID Verification" Policy
That might give a person a sense of security but is that what the law requires?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top