Few of us take the time to read the particulars of SB1070, and often, much is to be interpreted. Consider what the various sections mean. Is the bill constitutional? Does it merely allow for authorities to deal with illegal immigrations or does it provide law enforcement too much leeway? Interpreting what was written, the words used within the context of their time, and what the intent of the writers as well as their audiences, is what is known as doing history. And keep in mind that quite often there are multiple opinions and disagreements. A question. How many of you carry identification identifying you as a citizen?
-My response is as follows: Here <-- is the fact sheet from Az. that gives out the intent of SB1070. Disregarding that the language implied is Non Biased, the wording of the Bill is of course written by those in favor of the law. This means that the emotion and breathe of the document will give an inherent Pro view. My understanding of the Bill also correspond with the fact sheet. I suggest everyone use there own best logic based judgment when reading this document. (Or anything for that matter.)
SB1070 (from my understanding) was that during hard economic times the emotional intent or outcome in history has been to pick on immigrants. I am reminded of the Carter administration and the early Reagan years as my only reference, but I can agree with with his assessment. Reading the Bill and referencing the Fact sheet for clarification (Understanding that it is written by proponents) does not seem to directly single out any individuals based on their nationality or or biased view towards immigrants. How many of us carry Identification? For those that do not know the 4th Amendment; "it provides against unreasonable search and seizures." The question is then raised with the Az. Bill, if it interferes with the 4th Amendments. This is an on going ponder for me and hopefully I will be able to resolve it soon.
Terry vs. Ohio is the case that gave precedent to Stop and Frisk and defined the limited ability of officials to search a person without a warrant if given a certain level of probable cause. After reading the Bill I would suggest everyone read this case in detail. Here <-- is a link to Cornell University's .edu web page on Terry vs. Ohio. (Since this is an online forum I encourage everyone to find their own resources to verify authenticity.)
A problematic issue for me is when we make laws, it restricts us, and takes away our rights in some way. The Bill of Rights was not written to give us permission in what we can do but was written to inform what Congress could NOT do to us, the citizens. It was a clarification by Madison to address some conflicts between the founding fathers that the new Constitution because there wasn't a total agreement to provide adequate protection for individual human liberty.
We have now made another law and it does bind us that much more. By now, I am sure most of you can tell that this is not a cut and dry issue for me. I have to believe and have faith that the intent is for the greater good.
There is also the ability of misuse of the law. Governments and it's representatives have been disregarding and finding loopholes to circumvent the law probably ever since the first law was made. I would assume NonGovernment Officials (NGO = Us) have been doing it just as long.
There is a T-shirt that says "Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups." This is a short and sweet version of the Sociological observation that implies that the individual can be logical whereas when a group of people congregate, the individual logic can loose the ability of control. The larger the group, the more emotionally controlled it can become. Position a single antagonist in the group and you have the makings of mob rule mentality. The case we have here with the Anti SB1070's is that the emotion says it MUST be racist because it can involve a race.
Finally, I think that the law is a response to overwhelming problems and lack of federal intervention because of politics. The only thing that matters is getting the vote in the next election. Whenever an official takes a stand on any subject it subjugates a group of people who don't agree. I do not believe the media governmental rhetoric that suggests this is an Anti-anyone bill. Although the knee jerk reaction for humanity is to believe there is a big bad trying to do evil against the little guys. The Government is full of propaganda no matter what side your political values are on but if you're diligent, if you educate yourself hopefully you can gain a small part the truth for yourself and be able to decide where you stand one issue at a time.
Do you know where you stand?
This question is marked "community wiki".
IANAL but eyeballing it I'd say there are equal protection, due process and self incrimination issues.
speaking as somebody who is a naturalized US citizen but who still has a non-us accent I think it's a really bad law. I have no legal requirement to carry papers, I'm a citizen, so I tell officer flatfoot to take a hike, end up being handed to the feds who run my prints and find I'm a citizen. Then I sue the city state and officer for a civil rights violation - how exactly does that help?
This answer is marked "community wiki".
answered May 31 '10 at 01:27
Anyone else? I am very curious about what people think on this topic and my reply?
This answer is marked "community wiki".
answered Jun 05 '10 at 16:08