What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Words of partisan bullshit.

I would suggest the "words of wisdom" video is political humor as opposed to the partisan bullshit of the AZ governor who has made unsubstantiated claims about the the so-called increase in violent crime that threatens the safety of AZ citizens (despite the fact that violent crime is down statewide and in border cities/counties)?

Or her false claim that that the federal government has done little or nothing to deport illegal immigrants (despite the fact that federal spending has increased substantially as have deportations and the flow of illegals coming into the country is at its lowest point in 10 years)?

IMO, the law may be good partisan politics for an unelected governor,who until she signed the law, had dismal poll ratings and jumped onto a hot button issue that the majority (ie White AZ) supports....but it is terrible public policy.

It is discriminatory....it will adversely impact community policy and the level of trust between police and the Hispanic community...and it will do absolutely nothing to secure the border.

It may get her elected to a full term...thats the bottom line.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

IMO, the law ... a hot button issue that the majority (ie White AZ) supports....but it is terrible public policy.

Cite please.

It is discriminatory....

Prove it.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Redux

that the majority (ie White AZ) supports....but it is terrible public policy.

You might be seeing a thinking of a different Arizona, perhaps? The one I live in hardly has a white majority.

Originally Posted by lookout123

You might be seeing a thinking of a different Arizona, perhaps? The one I live in hardly has a white majority.

According to census figures, AZ is majority white, non-Hispanic:

White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2008 58.4%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008 (b) 30.1%
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html

Or:
According to the 2005-2007 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, White Americans made up 76.4% of Arizona's population; of which 59.6% were non-Hispanic whites. Blacks or African Americans made up 3.4% of Arizona's population; of which 3.3% were non-Hispanic blacks. American Indians made up 4.5% of the state's population; of which 4.1% were non-Hispanic. Asian Americans made up 2.3% of the state's population. Pacific Islander Americans made up 0.1% of the state's population. Individuals from some other race made up 10.8% of the state's population; of which 0.2% were non-Hispanic. Individuals from two or more races made up 2.4% of the state's population; of which 1.4% were non-Hispanic. In addition, Hispanics and Latinos made up 29.0% of Arizona's population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Arizona

Even factoring in an estimated 1/2 million illegals....it wont change the fact that AZ is majority White, non-Hispanic.

And the polls on the AZ law are equally divided by race.

Originally Posted by classicman

Cite please.

Prove it.

You first

Prove that ALL those constitutional experts, local elected officials and law enforcement officials who oppose the law do so out of political or financial interests, as you stated....and not out of concern about discrimination or concern that the law will not only be ineffective, but counter-productive, creating a greater divide between law enforcement and the Hispanic community.

But as I posted earlier... IMO, any law that allows race to be a factor in determining "reasonable suspicion" is discriminatory...particularly when one race will obviously be targeted more than others....unless of course, you expect AZ cops to be looking for illegal Canadians or Haitians.

I also said, ultimately, the courts should make that legal determination.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

IMO, any law that allows race to be a factor in determining "reasonable suspicion" is discriminatory...

Cite please...

I also said, ultimately, the courts should make that legal determination.

And they will.

Originally Posted by classicman

Cite please...

Are you really that dense or just being an argumentative asshole.

I said In My Opinion.

So why cant you cite a source to support your statement that ALL those who oppose the law are motivated by political or financial interests.

Or why cant you answer the earlier question....what the fuck does supporting America have to do with supporting the AZ law?

Or support your statement with a cite that government data is biased or untrustworthy....of course, unless it supports your position.

added:
I accept that providing crime data on AZ border cities/counties is not enough for you and/or others...or the fact that federal expenditures on border security have increased significantly in recent years....as have deportations....or the fact that the number of illegals coming into the country have been on a decline in recent years.....making the governor's statements less that factual.....and, IMO, political posturing on her part to get herself re-elected.

[classicman]

I believe the law specifically prohibits race from being a factor.

Originally Posted by Redux

allows race to be a factor in determining "reasonable suspicion"

I never asked you to back up your opinion, just the part of the bill where it states that race can be used.

Originally Posted by classicman

I believe the law specifically prohibits race from being a factor.

I never asked you to back up your opinion, just the part of the bill where it states that race can be used.

I believe that law does not specifically and totally prohibit race from being a factor.

In fact, in the final version, after sending the bill to the governor, the state did remove the language that race cannot be the sole factor in determining reasonable suspicion in an attempt to affirm that there will not be racial profiling.....but what remains is the language "except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

Which still leave many unanswered questions (the Supreme has ruled in the past that profiling is legal under very limited circumstances, after which the Appeals Court for the district of AZ, in another ruling. said it is not legal)...as does the issue of what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

If not race, then what...the fact that a cop may hear someone speaking Spanish? or as one official suggested, by the clothes one wears?

I'm curious...what would you consider to be factors of reasonable suspicion? And what is to prevent the cops from using race...just the fact that the law says they cant?

Do you honestly believe that the cops will be asking Anglos to provide documentation of their citizenship at a level equal to Hispanics...when not being detained for questioning related to another crime?

I said repeated that it was my opinion that the law raises constitutional issues......and I stand by that.

Oh, and as to AZ being majority white....58-59% is a majority where I come from.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

allows race to be a factor in determining "reasonable suspicion" is discriminatory

So you admit that your post above claiming it was, is in fact, false and misleading.
Thank you.

Originally Posted by Redux

And what is to prevent the cops from using race...just the fact that the law says they cant?

Why are you so biased against the public servants who have sworn to uphold the laws of our country and protect its citizens?

Originally Posted by classicman

So you admit that your post above claiming it was, is in fact, false and misleading.
Thank you.

Fuck you. I didnt claim anything,....I said it was my opinion.

As others have noted here.....you are transparent in twisting what others post.

Why are you so biased against the public servants who have sworn to uphold the laws of our country and protect its citizens?

Why are you so biased against local elected officials and law enforcement officials who oppose the law or have concerns about its constitutionality to suggest that they are ALL politically or financially motivated?

Or on a broader level, why are you so biased against government data...to make your claim that government data is biased and untrustworthy....unless the data supports your opinion.

And I am still curious what supporting America has to do with supporting a state law.

[classicman]

Insult, deny and deflect... well done.

Originally Posted by classicman

Insult, deny and deflect... well done.

Fuck off....you cant handle the truth.

But you are great at accusing others of "insult, deny and deflect" while refusing to respond to similar questions posed to you regarding your posts.

Why do you keep deflecting this question: Why are you so biased against local elected officials and law enforcement officials who oppose the law or have concerns about its constitutionality to suggest that they are ALL politically or financially motivated?

Now go stand in the corner and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to demonstrate what a true American you are.

[classicman]

*Note* Nice edit AGAIN after the reply. I guess anyone responding to you will have to quote your original post in its entirety so that your changes after their reply will be, how did you put it... transparent. You do that quite often.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

As others have noted here.....you are transparent in twisting what others post.

Show us all the twist - Quote by quote...

ETA

Originally Posted by Redux

Fuck off....you cant handle the truth.

Then magically all this appears after being replied to...

Originally Posted by Redux

But you are great at accusing others of "insult, deny and deflect" while refusing to respond to similar questions posed to you regarding your posts.

Why do you keep deflecting this question: Why are you so biased against local elected officials and law enforcement officials who oppose the law or have concerns about its constitutionality to suggest that they are ALL politically or financially motivated?

Now go stand in the corner and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to demonstrate what a true American you are.

Perfect example