Dear President Obama: No One in Arizona is Laughing.

[sgreger1]

(Continued)

And sgreger1, I like you buddy, but I'm going to have to disagree with you that waging war on Mexico would bring anything close to justice to dead soldiers. Abandoning two half baked wars in order to start a third before having satisfactorily concluded the first two amounts to pissing on their graves as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe we should have started them to begin with, but we'd be foolish not to finish them. If the US withdraws before Iraq and Afghanistan are stabilised and those countries revert to theocracies, you've just handed Osama bin Laden the single best bit of propaganda he could have dreamt up. "The infidels thought that they had defeated us, but by Allah's strength we managed to reclaim these nations and form pious Islamic governments." That's basically what you're giving him. You paint everyone in Mexico with a pretty wide brush too, saying the people of Mexico have done us more damage than bin Laden ever did. A specific set of people in Mexico have harmed the US, but the entire country isn't rabidly crying for American blood. The narcos best friend is the DEA and the war on drugs. Without those two things, the narcos would not have a job. You reap what you sow, and the US planted all these things a long time ago. I'm not saying they're justified in killing civilians, but it really shouldn't have surprised anyone that it came to this.

Your absolutely right. I didn't mean to say we should necessarily start a new war, but that in theory our time and money would be better spent fighting the border war with the cartels than fighting the wars in Iraq. As I stated above, we cannot stay untill it's stable, because that will never happen. The muslims will use it against us no matter what path we choose. When we kill 50 of theirs but they kill 1 of ours, it's hailed as a victory for them. If we leave it's a victory, if we stay than they can keep saying the militants are "fighting the good fight". There is no easy way out of this, and it's all about who will be a man and make that tough decision. So far Obama is following Bush's timeline for withdraw in Iraq, so as long as he continues with that we should at least be able to wrap that up in the near future.

The drug war will never stop because americans wants drugs. It either has to be legal and regulated, or it has to be all out war with the cartels. Neither one of these are great choices, and both will lead to illegal drugs still being around. But I think at least decriminalizing pot will allow us methods to gauge how effective decriminalization will be in the US.

[Judge Faust]

I think, under Plyler v Doe this is subject to intermediate scrutiny and not as clear cut as you make it (or me for that matter). The remaining question would be whether or not AZ has a "substantial state interest ".

In Plyler v. Doe, the Court held that ILLEGAL immigrants are not a suspect class. This made sense in the context of the challenged law, since it targeted illegal immigrants only.

Arizona's law, which targets all Hispanic-looking individuals, would be analyzed under the cases I cited rather than under Plyler.

Also, note that even illegal immigrant are a quasi-suspect classification. The Court ended up striking down the rather well-targeted Plyrer law on the basis of discriminatory/disparate impact. So on the extremely unlikely off-chance that Arizona were able to argue its way into Plyrer territory, it would likely still lose.

[lxskllr]

Using insults to "trump" my statement is rather amusing and very telling of your own intellect. LOL

I was gonna reply to the post above, but this guy is very obviously a waste of my fu*king time.

Lets keep the conversation civil guys. Think before you type, and it'll go smoother for all of us.

[timholian]

Wow, how was I not civil? I responded to what he willingly posted.

If I am in anyway in violation of the TOS I will gladly reply differently.

[sgreger1]

In Plyler v. Doe, the Court held that ILLEGAL immigrants are not a suspect class. This made sense in the context of the challenged law, since it targeted illegal immigrants only.

Arizona's law, which targets all Hispanic-looking individuals, would be analyzed under the cases I cited rather than under Plyler.

Also, note that even illegal immigrant are a quasi-suspect classification. The Court ended up striking down the rather well-targeted Plyrer law on the basis of discriminatory/disparate impact. So on the extremely unlikely off-chance that Arizona were able to argue its way into Plyrer territory, it would likely still lose.

I trust that your legal knowledge is superior to mine so I won't try and even act like I know what i'm talking about here, but I must ask one thing:

You say: "Arizona's law, which targets all Hispanic-looking individuals, would be analyzed under the cases I cited rather than under Plyler. "

The law does not target hispanics. No such verbiage exists. It actually strictly prohibits using race as a determining factor, I.E. the cops cannot legally stop you just because you look brown. Like I said in another post, it's hard to not profile when 99% of the people committing the crime you wish to enforce are of a certain ethnic heritage (south american), and I am sure this will lead to some profiling, but I still think it's a good law imo. We are one of the few countries left on the planet (I would say probably the last) that thinks "profiling" is a dirty word. It's used everywhere. However, this law does not allow for profiling and strictly forbids against it. Like I said, I am talking about the actual verbiage of the law, not what will "actually" happen when implemented.


This law does not target hispanic-looking individuals, so I don't think this law would fall into the category you are assuming it would. You seem to have your shit together as a lawyer, but I expected you would have read the bill more thoroughly before assuming it targets only hispanics, as it does not.

[Judge Faust]

2nd, for years and years and years we have been required to show our identification to a police officer if arrested, detained, or stopped for a traffic violation. Why all of a sudden do people have a problem with it now? Immigrants have been required under federal law to carry their papers with them on their person since the 1940's. Again, nothing has really changed. This law is really just passing the authority to enforce these laws down to the state, but even then the police officers have to verify your identification pursuant to section 8 of the federal code. So really, not much changed. I am just curious why everyone is so upset about this when it's been the law for 70 years.

I also find it interesting that you have taken it upon yourself to pick and choose what parts of the constitution are valid at any given moment, depending on how expedient it is for you. Like you will cite how important it is to uphold the 14th amendment, yet take a giant steaming shit on anyone who references their 2nd amendment rights? It just seems that both sides are not being consistent here, imo.

No one is questioning the right of police officers to ask drivers for their driver's licenses. As long as all are asked, there is no equal protection violation. What Arizona does is add another layer on top of that and allows its cops to demand proof of legal immigration status from anyone of Hispanic appearance. This is where the violation comes in, and it's no minor one, at that.

As for the Constitution, you are probably well aware that I am not its greatest fan; I would like us to get rid of that archaic nonsense and start over. Many right-wingers (here and elsewhere), pretend to give great credence to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, but seem to assume that the latter consists entirely of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The same diehard supporters of free speech and gun ownership espouse criminal and immigration policies that clearly violate the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. Myself, I do not support the entire text - I simply think that some parts are worth keeping. Consequently, I do not claim to be a supporter of or believer in the US Constitution, and so have no qualms about rejecting much of its language. Do you see the distinction?

[sgreger1]

Wow, how was I not civil? I responded to what he willingly posted.

If I am in anyway in violation of the TOS I will gladly reply differently.

The "using insults speaks volume about you intellect" thing is getting into that grey area. I don't think you are wrong in what your saying but Owens is correct in saying that no one is calling for a Berlin Wall type scenario here (as far as I have read anyways)

[sgreger1]

No one is questioning the right of police officers to ask drivers for their driver's licenses. As long as all are asked, there is no equal protection violation. What Arizona does is add another layer on top of that and allows its cops to demand proof of legal immigration status from anyone of Hispanic appearance. This is where the violation comes in, and it's no minor one, at that.

Judge, I would not ever support a law that says they may only question someone based on them looking hispanic. This law does NOT say that, and I have read it in it's entirety. Judge, please cite what part of the law allows "cops to demand proof of legal immigration status from anyone of Hispanic appearance".

The law I read specifically states that you MAY NOT use their nationality or race as part of reasonable suspicion. The law i'm reading says you can't use race as a factor, and the law you are reading says they can only check immigration status on hispanics.

I can provide citations for my side, I am very curious what part of the law you could cite that says this will only target hispanics. If you can show me something in the law that says it requires cops to demand proof of legal immigration from anyone of hispanic appearance, I will concede and feverishly oppose this law from this point forward. But it's just not what I read while checking out the bill.

[lxskllr]

Wow, how was I not civil? I responded to what he willingly posted.

If I am in anyway in violation of the TOS I will gladly reply differently.

C'mon dude, do I really have to put this under the microscope? You challenged his intelligence "...very telling of your own intellect. LOL", and he replied a little more aggressively. Political topics can get heated, and flames can be expected in these types of discussions. We don't have much in the way of a TOS, but I try to treat internet conversations the same way I treat real life ones. If something you say might get you punched in real life, a rephrase may be in order. That applies to you, me, and everyone else. I personally don't care if things get hot, but I'd like it to stay somewhere short of a complete meltdown. Sometimes it's better to just abandon a thread, because nobody's gonna change their mind over anything said in a snus forum. If you want to argue to stay in practice, well that's cool too.

[Judge Faust]

The law does not target hispanics. No such verbiage exists. It actually strictly prohibits using race as a determining factor, I.E. the cops cannot legally stop you just because you look brown. Like I said in another post, it's hard to not profile when 99% of the people committing the crime you wish to enforce are of a certain ethnic heritage (south american), and I am sure this will lead to some profiling, but I still think it's a good law imo. We are one of the few countries left on the planet (I would say probably the last) that thinks "profiling" is a dirty word. It's used everywhere. However, this law does not allow for profiling and strictly forbids against it. Like I said, I am talking about the actual verbiage of the law, not what will "actually" happen when implemented.

Keep in mind that the constitutionality of a law is determined not just by what it says, but also by what "will actually happen," as you put it. So yes, if cops go out and commit constitutional violations based on this law, that alone is enough to render it unconstitutional.

Example: Yick Wo v. Hopkins. A San Francisco law gave board of supervisors authority to issue licenses to would-be laundromat operators. Nothing more, nothing less. So far, so good. What happened in reality was that the board gave licenses to whites but not to Chinese applicants. Nothing in the law justified this - but it was enough to have the law thrown out on equal protection grounds.

[danielan]

So on the extremely unlikely off-chance that Arizona were able to argue its way into Plyrer territory, it would likely still lose.

IMO, if Plyler had been about anything but innocent kids being deprived of an education through the actions of their parents - it would have easily gone the other way.

I'm sure we'll see soon enough though.

I did learn about a couple things during this, so, thanks for that.

I am going to drop out of this thread though. I'm sure I'll catch up with you on the next one on this topic. ;-)

[sgreger1]

Keep in mind that the constitutionality of a law is determined not just by what it says, but also by what "will actually happen," as you put it. So yes, if cops go out and commit constitutional violations based on this law, that alone is enough to render it unconstitutional.

Example: Yick Wo v. Hopkins. A San Francisco law gave board of supervisors authority to issue licenses to would-be laundromat operators. Nothing more, nothing less. So far, so good. What happened in reality was that the board gave licenses to whites but not to Chinese applicants. Nothing in the law justified this - but it was enough to have the law thrown out on equal protection grounds.

I concede, while the law strictly prohibits using race as a deciding factor, it may end up being ruled "unconstitutional as applied" since only hispanics will actually get caught (since they are really the main ones breaking the law). But how could it not? If the people breaking a certain law are 99% hispanic for example, how could you even pass any law enforcing this claw? It would be racist and unconstitutional as applied by default.

As a lawyer, how would one get around that? Like if there was a law against jump-roping, but only black people jump-roped, so only black people got tickets. It would get struct down and called racist, but how does a state legally outlaw jump-roping then? Or any crime that is committed by mainly one race? This is a problem we need to tackle in this country.

[Owens187]

/Off Topic

C'mon dude, do I really have to put this under the microscope? You challenged his intelligence "...very telling of your own intellect. LOL", and he replied a little more aggressively. Political topics can get heated, and flames can be expected in these types of discussions. We don't have much in the way of a TOS, but I try to treat internet conversations the same way I treat real life ones. If something you say might get you punched in real life, a rephrase may be in order. That applies to you, me, and everyone else. I personally don't care if things get hot, but I'd like it to stay somewhere short of a complete meltdown. Sometimes it's better to just abandon a thread, because nobody's gonna change their mind over anything said in a snus forum. If you want to argue to stay in practice, well that's cool too.

Which is exactly why I chose to not get any further into it than I was already suckered into. My post in no way was meant as an insult, yet this forum newcomer decides to flat out attack my intelligence.

As a proven intelligent person, and a medical proffessional, I already know my intelligence is more than likely superior, so why bother getting into some lame ass, juvinile, internet pissing contest?

Was I pissed? Yes.

Was it worth a juvinile flame war like he was trying to provoke? No.

. . . I try to treat internet conversations the same way I treat real life ones. If something you say might get you punched in real life, a rephrase may be in order . . .

I expressed how I felt about the subject and was attacked for it. Although, if this person knew me personally, he would know that NOBODY speaks to me that way without reprocussions, my mother doesn't even speak to me that way.
Speak to me like that to my face and experience what a well placed Crescent Kick feels like. And after 20 years of training, I'm pretty damn good at them.



/On Topic

[timholian]

How exactly did I attack you for you opinion, was it by pointing out the obvious?
If you guys don't want new comers, thats cool, but let me know ahead of time not to challenge someones opinion.

[timholian]

/Off Topic




Which is exactly why I chose to not get any further into it than I was already suckered into. My post in no way was meant as an insult, yet this forum newcomer decides to flat out attack my intelligence.

As a proven intelligent person, and a medical proffessional, I already know my intelligence is more than likely superior, so why bother getting into some lame ass, juvinile, internet pissing contest?

Was I pissed? Yes.

Was it worth a juvinile flame war like he was trying to provoke? No.




I expressed how I felt about the subject and was attacked for it. Although, if this person knew me personally, he would know that NOBODY speaks to me that way without reprocussions, my mother doesn't even speak to me that way.
Speak to me like that to my face and experience what a well placed Crescent Kick feels like. And after 20 years of training, I'm pretty damn good at them.



/On Topic

Are you shitting me? I don't need to point out your lack of intelligence you do great all by yourself. I am very glad you can go around getting violent with anyone who you think has disrespected you but this is clearly not reality. Get a grip on yourself, take a breath and chill out, because I can give as good as I get... I guarantee you.