Legal Showdown - Arizona's Immigration Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, we would be paying twice.

Once, our taxes pay for our public services.

Twice, our private money to pay for private services.

If we pay our taxes for public services, then we should get what we pay for. We shouldn't have to pay additional money.

Otherwise, give us taxpayers a refund so we can apply that money towards private services.

since Philadelphia, LA, Camden, New Orleans, Jacksonville, Cleveland, etc. have bad crime rates... I suppose they should not pay tax to them?

"As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." -Rumsfeld
 
Private service is optional.
It shouldn't even be necessary if the public service is adequate.

That's the point. We taxpayers should be getting our money's worth and not have to pay for extra private services just to get adequate services.
 
since Philadelphia, LA, Camden, New Orleans, Jacksonville, Cleveland, etc. have bad crime rates... I suppose they should not pay tax to them?
Are you saying that the taxpayers of those cities should not only be stuck with the bill for police services but they should also have to pay for private security on top of that?

Do you also realize that private security is not the same service as what police can provide for public safety? Private security, regardless of price, does not have the same authority as public police agencies have. So really, there is no equivalent service that people can hire.

"As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." -Rumsfeld
What are you saying? We should also hire mercenaries for our armed forces if the army we get with our taxes isn't adequate?
 
Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) -- Margarito Blanco trains his camcorder on the officer approaching a Chevy pickup, while his friend Andrew Sanchez furiously scribbles notes on a pad.

They are not working for the police. They're watching them.

It's about 8:10 p.m. on a recent Thursday and the turquoise S-10 is pulled over at a Circle K gas station in Phoenix.

Anywhere else in the United States, this might appear to be nothing more than a routine traffic stop. But Phoenix is ground zero in the battle over illegal immigration, and to Blanco and Sanchez the stop represents a potential opportunity to catch a member of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in the act of racial profiling.

CNN accompanied the pair as they cruised around Phoenix looking for traffic stops to document on the Thursday after Gov. Jan Brewer signed what's being called the nation's toughest anti-immigration enforcement law, SB 1070.

Although critics nationwide say Arizona's law allows police in the state to detain people based on race, grass-roots activists like Sanchez and other self-styled "cop-watchers" say racial profiling is nothing new here. They say SB 1070 stands to make matters worse.

"The Maricopa Sheriff's Office has been doing it for years, but this new law gives them the legal authority to stop people with even less reason for doing so," Sanchez told CNN.

The law, which takes effect in August, requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and allows police to question people if there is reason to suspect they are in the United States illegally. The new law also makes it a state crime to live in or travel through Arizona illegally, targeting those who hire undocumented day laborers or knowingly transport them.

In response to concerns that the law encourages police to racially profile, Brewer and the legislature amended it to specify that police can stop suspected illegal immigrants only while enforcing another law or ordinance.

Sanchez, an American-born community activist from the Arizona town of Guadalupe, began engaging in reverse police surveillance a year ago.

"Most of the time, we expect law enforcement to do their jobs properly," he said. "But we want to be there to monitor and observe in case they stop someone based on the color of their skin, because who else is going to do it?"

The traffic stops are among the most public aspects of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's hard line approach to what he calls "crime suppression and illegal immigration enforcement."

Since 2008, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has staged 15 street patrol operations targeting areas suspected to have high concentrations of crime related to illegal immigration. Arpaio himself announces each operation with a press release and news conference a few hours before deputies and so-called "posse volunteers" take to the streets.

Arpaio's approach has drawn both criticism and praise, with supporters crediting the department with enforcing immigration laws already on the books. The passage of SB 1070 has thrust the media-friendly "Sheriff Joe" back into the spotlight as an ardent defender of the legislation, and he vows to uphold it.

The traffic stop CNN witnessed with Sanchez was part of an operation focusing on the west Phoenix community of Maryvale. Arpaio describes the area as a hub for drop houses used by human traffickers that's also a crossroads of transportation routes to move illegal immigrants throughout Arizona and beyond its borders.

"MOUNTING PRESSURE WILL NOT DIMINISH ARPAIO'S RESOLVE TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS," a news release from Arpaio's office on the operation stated in bold, underlined, red letters.

Anticipating criticism that the sweeps were being launched to promote the new legislation, the release noted that they had been planned before the law was passed.

"I've discussed this operation long before the bill's passage with several media people always saying it would occur at the end of April," Arpaio said in the release. "We will not be deterred, and we will be extra vigilant with an eye toward officer safety. Lots of people are angry right now which translates to more danger posed for cops."

A follow-up news release said 93 arrests were made that Thursday, and that 63 of those arrested were suspected of being illegal aliens.

"The illegal alien arrests were the result of six separate vehicles stopped for traffic violations and were found to be smuggling illegal aliens out of the valley to other locations of the country," the release said.

Sanchez, who has himself been arrested in what he says was a case of racial profiling, has garnered his fair share of publicity in Arizona as a community activist and cop-watcher. His family's claim that the sheriff's department has retaliated against them for their activism was the subject of a 2009 cover story in the alternative newspaper Phoenix New Times.

Sanchez carries a binder containing copies of arrest reports, affidavits, lawsuits and tickets documenting his family's history of legal travails, some of which are ongoing. His experiences, along with stories he has heard from members of the community, encouraged him to take his community activism a step further by participating in cop watches.

As soon as an operation is announced, the cop-watchers head somewhere with a Wifi connection -- a home or Starbucks -- to monitor police scanners. They send text messages of the locations of stops to others who, like Sanchez, cruise the area. They usually travel in pairs and try to reach the stop while it is in progress so they can record it and document it.

On the night CNN accompanied them, Sanchez and his partner pulled into the Circle K just as the deputy, sporting a crew cut and bulletproof vest, took the man's license to his partner inside the vehicle and conferred with him. A few moments later, he brought the license back to the driver, returned to his patrol SUV and drove away.

As the driver pulled the pickup to a gas pump, Sanchez and Blanco walked over and peppered him with questions: Why did they stop you? What did they say? Did they give you a ticket?

The driver said the officer initially spoke to him in Spanish, telling him he was pulled over because the temporary tag affixed to the truck's cab window was not properly illuminated.

As the man rattled off details, Sanchez nodded, interpreting the incident as an example of racial profiling.

"Just the fact that he started speaking to him in Spanish shows that he approached him with a certain idea in mind of who he was," he said. "Also, there are hundreds of people driving around with temporary license plates. If this guy were in another part of town, he wouldn't be pulled over."

But the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office sees it another way. The temporary tag was not visible in the back of the cab, so the deputy felt obligated to pull the driver over to verify it, a sheriff's spokesman said.

"He didn't see the license clearly displayed or illuminated," said the sheriff's office spokesman, Lt. Brian Lee. "There might have been some graphics in the window, like a sticker that impeded his view, and it was dark and he had a hard time seeing it."

The deputy did not even notice what the driver looked like until he pulled him over, Lee said, noting that the officer had a hard time remembering the incident from the many other car stops he made that night.

The deputy did recall, however, that the driver had an outstanding felony warrant from another state, Lee said. The details of the warrant were not available to the deputy because it was not an extraditable offense, and so the officer decided to let the man go.

"The guy seemed a little bit nervous and he thought it was because he had a felony warrant but it was not an extraditable offense," Lee said. "Obviously if the deputy gets information that a guy has a warrant then his level of awareness goes up a bit."

Lee said the department takes complaints of racial profiling very seriously, noting that the driver never called in to report the stop. He also defended the department's proactive stance on enforcing immigration laws.

"We don't back off because we don't feel we're doing anything wrong. We act professionally, we follow the law," he said. "It would be silly for us to engage in this type activity especially when we've invited the media and let the public know what we're doing."

Cop-watchers look for racial profiling on the streets of Phoenix - CNN.com
 
Why should taxpayers have to pay twice?

If I'm already paying for police protection, why should I also have to pay for private security?

Because you want services over and above those provided by the public entity. Its a choice you make. Want more than is provided? Fine. Pay for it.
 
Because you want services over and above those provided by the public entity. Its a choice you make. Want more than is provided? Fine. Pay for it.
Expecting the police to enforce the law is above those services provided?

:hmm: Possibly that's why people do feel the need to provide their own protection by packing heat and keeping weapons at home.
 
Expecting the police to enforce the law is above those services provided?

:hmm: Possibly that's why people do feel the need to provide their own protection by packing heat and keeping weapons at home.

You asked why you should have to pay for private security when there was already a police force to provide such. I gave you a reason. It is all about choice. You can choose to be satisfied with the services provided or you can choose to pay for additional services.
 
People who hire private security have stuff worth stealing. That's why there are private enclaves of homes, complete with a guard station at the entrance.
 
People who hire private security have stuff worth stealing. That's why there are private enclaves of homes, complete with a guard station at the entrance.
Sadly, it's the people living in poor neighborhoods who are more likely to be victims of crime. Opportunistic criminals don't care if the wealthy homes have better stuff; they want stuff that's easy to grab, and easy to unload for quick cash. They're lazy, and they'll steal from their own neighbors.
 
Are you saying that the taxpayers of those cities should not only be stuck with the bill for police services but they should also have to pay for private security on top of that?

Do you also realize that private security is not the same service as what police can provide for public safety? Private security, regardless of price, does not have the same authority as public police agencies have. So really, there is no equivalent service that people can hire.

What are you saying? We should also hire mercenaries for our armed forces if the army we get with our taxes isn't adequate?

what I'm saying is - nothing is ever adequate for anybody. No matter what - there's always something to complain. It's never good enough. It's very simple - you not satisfied? simple - then pay for your own private service to be satisfied.

Unhappy about chain-stores like Target, Wal-Mart, etc. having only 2 available check-out lanes when there are dozens of empty lanes? then pay a person to shop and wait in the line for you.

Unhappy about the public service provided for you? then pay for private service yourself.
 
Expecting the police to enforce the law is above those services provided?

:hmm: Possibly that's why people do feel the need to provide their own protection by packing heat and keeping weapons at home.

there you go - not satisfied enough with security provided by police? then pay for your own gun for extra security.
 
We've had home invasions in all types of neighborhoods where I live. Not good!
 
there you go - not satisfied enough with security provided by police? then pay for your own gun for extra security.
Not everyone can do that, even if they have the money.
 
Not everyone can do that, even if they have the money.

many available options -

1. move to a gated community
2. move closer to police station
3. move to somewhere else
4. home security system
5. guard dog
6. private security guard
7. form a Neighborhood Watch group
8. etc.

if none above works for them - well I'm sorry.
 
many available options -

1. move to a gated community
2. move closer to police station
3. move to somewhere else
4. home security system
5. guard dog
6. private security guard
7. form a Neighborhood Watch group
8. etc.

if none above works for them - well I'm sorry.

Put bars on windows. :rofl:
 
I guess you guys have never lived in poor neighborhoods?
 
I guess you guys have never lived in poor neighborhoods?

Why are you talk about poor neighborhood? You live in nice house in beautiful middle class neighborhood so you shouldn't worry about it.

I won't want live in poor neighborhood without gun owner, however seems pointless for me due profoundly deaf and unable to hear the break in house. I would like someone to invent anti-burglary alarm with very strong vibration for deaf neighbors so be gun owner will be helpful.

Also, Jiro said that I will be disqualify for gun owner due mental illness, of course, OCD is one of them so it means I need find cities that have low crime. :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top