Maricopa High School Students Stage Protest

[mallardisme]

I meant "reasonable suspicion".. sorry.. and you can't enter other variables.. all others are equal (i.e. they both speak English) unless otherwise stated....



.. Mallard.. you cannot associate drug smuggling with illegal immigration.. coyote's maybe.. but drug smugglers don't come here to "work" or milk the system.. they are here to sell drugs.. in other words, not all illegal immigrants are AK-47, drug smuggling, officer shooting people..

I don't. However, The kids here are not fighting for the rights of US citizens. They were protesting for the rights of people that are here illegally. (This was stated on the video by one of the protestors).

The shooters were acting as invaders who came here with the purpose of smuggling drugs. They are illegals, and this type of activity is more towards what the new bill is about. It is an effort to stop illegal activity by people that have no right to be here.

Again, I don't fully agree with the new bill, but I do agree with its intent.

[AzSandSlinger]

That said, what do YOU think is the right answer to stopping illegal immigration and then removing the people who have already come here? Or do you just say "f" it and just let anyone and everyone come and go?

As far as the drug trade is concerned, what do you think the answer is to THAT problem if you think that we've screwed ourselves by upping security at the border?

Sanction Employers that hire illegal immigrants.. enforce the (ethical) laws we currently have (because it is illegal to hire them).. Enforce the laws that prevent illegals from getting state funding... Those are the only lawful and ethical answer we have.. Most anything else (I have seen) is racist and unethical..

Why? how do you know someone is illegal by looking at them?  Are they possibly illegal because they happen to be Hispanic?  If so, should we investigate every Hispanic on site? That is racial profiling no matter how you slice it..

Let me give some other examples.. Is a black male in LA sporting red/blue possibly a drug dealer? If so, should we investigate all black males sporting red/blue?  Again, racial profiling.. Is a long-haired white male riding a Harley sporting colors possibly a drug dealer?  Well, you get the point..

There's a point that we cannot cross.. that point is based on ethically keeping our Civil Liberties intact.. I have accepted the fact that we will never fully get rid illegal immigration.. There's only so much you can do when identity theft is so rampant..  But as long as we are doing everything ethically and legally within our means.. I am comfortable with that.. Why? because the Government hasn't trampled on the rights of US Citizens in the name of Illegal Immigration..

Now, if you concentrate on the reason most Illegals come here (jobs, schools, etc..), you have a much better chance of slowing the flow.. When that happens, Border Patrol can be better manned to stop drug smugglers..

-Shane

[<3 Amber <3]

I think you make good points and that those methods would help in deterring more people over here. If they have no reason to come here, they won't.

Why? how do you know someone is illegal by looking at them?  Are they possibly illegal because they happen to be Hispanic?  If so, should we investigate every Hispanic on site? That is racial profiling no matter how you slice it..

Let me give some other examples.. Is a black male in LA sporting red/blue possibly a drug dealer? If so, should we investigate all black males sporting red/blue?  Again, racial profiling.. Is a long-haired white male riding a Harley sporting colors possibly a drug dealer?  Well, you get the point..
-Shane

No one knows if someone is illegal by looking at them. And from what I gather, this new law is NOT giving officers permission or the power to JUST LOOK at someone and make the decision of legal or not legal..correct me if I'm wrong.

It IS however, giving them permission and power to ask someone to provide proof they're here legally AFTER the officer has already encountered them because of some OTHER illegal act the person has allegedly committed and officer finds probable cause that said person is not legal.

So officers WILL NOT have the power to just drive down the street and confront someone they think LOOKS illegal.

If someone is walking down the street totally hammered and causing disruption of some sort, and officer encounters this person and officer has probably cause to believe said person is illegal THEN he can ask for documentation...correct?

I agree that we cannot lump all blacks or all bikers or all hispanics, or whoever into one group. But if a cop does a traffic stop on a black male  and the guy's car smells like weed (which to your dismay is still illegal...lol), then he has "probable cause" to search the vehicle for other illegal substances, weapons, etc. If officer pulls over white dude with mullet wearing camo, with missing teeth and car smells like meth lab, officer has "probable cause" to further search the vehicle. If officer pulls over biker...well you get the point

[AzSandSlinger]

No one knows if someone is illegal by looking at them. And from what I gather, this new law is NOT giving officers permission or the power to JUST LOOK at someone and make the decision of legal or not legal..correct me if I'm wrong.

It IS however, giving them permission and power to ask someone to provide proof they're here legally AFTER the officer has already encountered them because of some OTHER illegal act the person has allegedly committed and officer finds probable cause that said person is not legal.

So officers WILL NOT have the power to just drive down the street and confront someone they think LOOKS illegal.

If someone is walking down the street totally hammered and causing disruption of some sort, and officer encounters this person and officer has probably cause to believe said person is illegal THEN he can ask for documentation...correct?

I agree that we cannot lump all blacks or all bikers or all hispanics, or whoever into one group. But if a cop does a traffic stop on a black male  and the guy's car smells like weed (which to your dismay is still illegal...lol), then he has "probable cause" to search the vehicle for other illegal substances, weapons, etc. If officer pulls over white dude with mullet wearing camo, with missing teeth and car smells like meth lab, officer has "probable cause" to further search the vehicle. If officer pulls over biker...well you get the point

You are wrong.. this law provides that "A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ".. this "contact" is NOT from any illegal action.. per the law, it is written that LEO's can do this "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT"...

"Any Lawful Contact" can be asking you why you are standing outside Circle K.. what your doing camping out somewhere... just look at the officer who filed a lawsuit saying he'd have to ask every child he helped out at school because that is "lawful contact."  Don't confuse "lawful contact" with "legal stop.".. they are not one and the same..

and your "But if a cop does a traffic stop on a black male  and the guy's car smells like weed (which to your dismay is still illegal...lol), then he has "probable cause" to search the vehicle for other illegal substances, weapons, etc." example is apples to oranges.. Please do not add variables.. it only further negates your example and point..

A more correct comparison would be "If an officer pulls over a black male who is ONLY sporting red/blue (again, adding variables negates any counter argument) does he have "reasonable suspicion" to further investigate for drugs or weapons?" Believe it or not their are black people that wear Hip-Hop wear that include red.. and are not affiliated with gangs or drugs.. Shaq comes to mind..

.. and again.. this is not about "probable cause".. it is "reasonable suspicion".. two very different concepts..

All this is moot.. the law was revised because the dumb asses in office realized they were wrong to pass an asinine law.. I'll have to read the revised verbiage to see if I approve..

-Shane

[KendoPt4]

I don't. However, The kids here are not fighting for the rights of US citizens. They were protesting for the rights of people that are here illegally. (This was stated on the video by one of the protestors).

Shove a mic in a kid's face, get a soundbyte.  That's a wrap.
The kid's statement may or may not reflect what the overall intention of the march was about.

[mallardisme]

I don't. However, The kids here are not fighting for the rights of US citizens. They were protesting for the rights of people that are here illegally. (This was stated on the video by one of the protestors).

Shove a mic in a kid's face, get a soundbyte.  That's a wrap.
The kid's statement may or may not reflect what the overall intention of the march was about.

And that is my point. There was no organization and it really sounded like nobody knew what they were fighting for.

Sounded like a ditch day. That was the take that my neighbor had as well. He goes to MHS. He stayed in class.