The Church and Immigration Policy

[thesometimesaint]

WalkerW:

I and my darker friend are walking down the street in Sheriff Arpaio's district. Who do you think is going to be stopped and questioned?

[ttribe]

Do you mean to tell me you don't carry some form of Identification with you when you drive. My wallet is with me most of the time and especially when I am out and about looking giulty

As I previously stated, a drivers' license will not be considered sufficient identification for the purpose of the AZ law.

[ttribe]

WalkerW:

I and my darker friend are walking down the street in Sheriff Arpaio's district. Who do you think is going to be stopped and questioned?

I'm no fan of this law, as written, but your histrionics are over the top.

[gmormon]

As I previously stated, a drivers' license will not be considered sufficient identification for the purpose of the AZ law.

I haven't seen the law...but I find this hard to believe...so what forms of id will they accept?

[ttribe]

I haven't seen the law...but I find this hard to believe...so what forms of id will they accept?

Believe it. A drivers' license is not sufficient since you don't have to be a citizen to have one. Acceptable forms would include a "green card" (for legal resident aliens) or a passport (for citizens or visiting aliens).

Edited to add:

Here's the bill itself (already provided by USU78) - Link

Here's the AZ Senate Fact Sheet for the bill - Link

[gmormon]

Believe it. A drivers' license is not sufficient since you don't have to be a citizen to have one. Acceptable forms would include a "green card" (for legal resident aliens) or a passport (for citizens or visiting aliens).

I just did a quick review of SB1070 and I did not see anywhere in it that said a valid driver license would not suffice. CFR

edit; I just saw your post above. I am really not seeing in either link where it says a driver license will not suffice for id

[thesometimesaint]

ttribe:

I don't have a Green Card or a Passport. So should I have to get a Passport to visit Arizona? How is that any different than the former Soviet Union and their "Papers Please" laws.

[ttribe]

I just did a quick review of SB1070 and I did not see anywhere in it that said a valid driver license would not suffice. CFR

First, if you've followed this thread in it's entirety, you'd know one of my sources has been my discussions with individual members of law enforcement that I know here locally; I have no intention of giving you their names.

Second, from the second link I provided:

11. Specifies that, in addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is:

a) present on any public or private land in the state and

b) is not carrying his or her alien registration card or has willfully failed to register.

Care to show me the phrase "drivers' license" in there?

The fact is this - a drivers' license can be obtained without citizenship. Thus it is, by definition, insufficient. Law enforcement officers are receiving instruction in their departments which is consistent with this fact.

[USU78]

ttribe:

I don't have a Green Card or a Passport. So should I have to get a Passport to visit Arizona? How is that any different than the former Soviet Union and their "Papers Please" laws.

Thanks a lot, BTW, for getting this thread locked, which shall now surely happen because of your increasing hysteria.

Sheesh.

[ttribe]

ttribe:

I don't have a Green Card or a Passport. So should I have to get a Passport to visit Arizona? How is that any different than the former Soviet Union and their "Papers Please" laws.

I've already stated my problems with this law. I have no intention, however, of feeding your hyperventilations.

[Jeff K.]

WalkerW:

I and my darker friend are walking down the street in Sheriff Arpaio's district. Who do you think is going to be stopped and questioned?

Having been in Arpio's district, a good number of his deputies are Latino and church members. What should we accuse them of?

The worry I have is that we dehumanize those we disagree with to the point of only presuming the most nefarious reasons for their existence or actions.

[ttribe]

Thanks a lot, BTW, for getting this thread locked, which shall now surely happen because of your increasing hysteria.

Sheesh.

+1

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

I'm not hysterical or even putout. I simply disagree with your explanation of the intent, and motivations of this law. It is based on racism, and will be used to prevent otherwise qualified voters from exercising their franchise. As Secretary of State for Arizona Jan Brewer pulled a similar stunt.

http://www.gregpalast.com/behind-the-arizona-immigration-lawgop-game-to-swipe-the-november-election/

[ttribe]

USU78:

I'm not hysterical or even putout. I simply disagree with your explanation of the intent, and motivations of this law. It is based on racism,...

No, it isn't based in racism. It may be ill-conceived, but it isn't as you've described it either.

and will be used to prevent otherwise qualified voters from exercising their franchise.

Huh? How?

[USU78]

I'm not hysterical or even putout.

Were that actually true, then tss wouldn't feel the need to ( a ) play the Nazi card or ( b ) play the Sov card or ( c ) play the race card.

[Jeff K.]

I'm not hysterical or even putout. I simply disagree with your explanation of the intent, and motivations of this law. It is based on racism......

The face of racism?

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's latest stab at reality TV is set to premier on February 25, says the show's network, TLC.

Police Women of Maricopa County is the followup to TLC's first chick-cop reality show, Police Women of Broward County.

Phoenix New Times

Ill conceived perhaps. Federal issues, perhaps. Not racist, not for the members, not for the deputies, not for the sheriff's department. I like to think that when we look upon an issue we disagree with, that we do so with the eye or lens of a consideration that "if members of the church were the ones we were judging, would be equally as harsh or more properly look for less nefarious reasons for the disagreement". I tend to view members as being sincere on these issues, if only misquided.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Having been in Arpio's district, a good number of his deputies are Latino and church members. What should we accuse them of?

The worry I have is that we dehumanize those we disagree with to the point of only presuming the most nefarious reasons for their existence or actions.

It is tought to play the classic card of racisim when those enfourcing the law are latinos. Are they racist again other latinos? The racist card is way way over played. It wont work this time around. People are waking up. If that is the best you (TSS) got then we (those infavor of this reform) have won.

[hagoth7]

A core concern with this whole issue is the rancor surrounding it.

What's happening in Arizona's epicenter is very reminiscent of what happened in Europe several generations back - where lawmakers decided to legally marginalize a minority linguistic group.

The result was escalating rancor between two parties (who had been peaceful, cordial neighbors for generations.)

That rancor quickly devolved into war.

It would be nice to learn a thing or two from the past...rather than increase the risk of repeating it.

[ERayR]

USU78:

I'm not hysterical or even putout. I simply disagree with your explanation of the intent, and motivations of this law. It is based on racism, and will be used to prevent otherwise qualified voters from exercising their franchise. As Secretary of State for Arizona Jan Brewer pulled a similar stunt.

http://www.gregpalast.com/behind-the-arizona-immigration-lawgop-game-to-swipe-the-november-election/

Take off your liberal blinders. Not every thing that happens is racist. You are at the very best disingenuous in using the term as a club to beat those who disagree with you with.

[ERayR]

A core concern with this whole issue is the rancor surrounding it.

What's happening in Arizona's epicenter is very reminiscent of what happened in Europe several generations back - where lawmakers decided to legally marginalize a minority linguistic group.

The result was escalating rancor between two parties (who had been peaceful, cordial neighbors for generations.)

That rancor quickly devolved into war.

It would be nice to learn a thing or two from the past...rather than increase the risk of repeating it.

Have you read the law? Please quote the part that marginalizes anyone. It is not an attempt to marginalize anyone.

[Jeff K.]

A core concern with this whole issue is the rancor surrounding it.

What's happening in Arizona's epicenter is very reminiscent of what happened in Europe several generations back - where lawmakers decided to legally marginalize a minority linguistic group.

The result was escalating rancor between two parties (who had been peaceful, cordial neighbors for generations.)

That rancor quickly devolved into war.

It would be nice to learn a thing or two from the past...rather than increase the risk of repeating it.

Unfortunately your facts are incorrect. No ethnic minority is being marginalized. Indeed Latinos who are legally in the US have all the rights and privledges that come with citizenship. Those illegally in the country, just as in any other country would do, are being prosecuted for what was done illegally. To presume otherwise and to conflate legal and illegal immigration is, on the face of it, a dishonest tactic.

[hagoth7]

Unfortunately your facts are incorrect. No ethnic minority is being marginalized....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html

...is, on the face of it, a dishonest tactic.

?

Precisely what I have said that is dishonest?

[hagoth7]

Have you read the law?

My comment wasn't specific to that law.

It was in reference to broader issues unfolding in the wake of the nationwide discussion that has escalated ever since the last presidential debates. Issues are building that have potential for sparking conflict.

And there's a certain callousness about it. A surprising number of people engaged in the discussion (here and elsewhere) seem more interested in labeling one another with liberal or racist titles than in recognizing/addressing/mitigating the potential byproduct of such discussions.

Does that help illustrate my meaning?

If not, see the article I've linked to above...and extrapolate what the long-term result of an accumulation of such actions can mean down the road.

[frankenstein]

from the fact sheet linked by ttribe

12. Requires, in the enforcement of this statute, the final determination of an alien

[rodheadlee]

It is tought to play the classic card of racisim when those enfourcing the law are latinos. Are they racist again other latinos?

I my experience, most definitely yes.