Arizona governor signs immigration bill - Page 14

**Jiro** · 04-26-2010, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

So, anyone who is in the country legally can obtain sufficient ID proof to show the police if they are stopped. I don't think it's too much trouble to show a drivers license or state ID card.

in this article - why is it that some Arizonians and college students have to carry 3 additional pieces of identification to prove their citizenship or immigration status?

Quote:

These days, Jessica Mejia doesn't leave the house without three pieces of identification to prove her citizenship.

Quote:

"Even if you're legal, you're in fear that maybe your driver's license isn't going to be enough or if you're walking down the street and the police stop you," said Mejia, 21. "It's a constant fear we're living in and even legal citizens are afraid to go out."

Quote:

The law also requires legal immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times. But U.S. citizens like Mejia, who identifies herself as Chicana, says she carries her driver's license, voter registration card and school fingerprint card at all times out of fear of being racially profiled.

Quote:

Arizona college student carries three pieces of ID to prove citizenship, fears being detained.

**Jiro** · 04-26-2010, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Huh? How would racial profiling prove whether nor not someone is legally in the country?

from OP -

Quote:

The bill allows police to question and arrest people without warrant if there is "reasonable suspicion" about their immigration status.

so if my driver license is not sufficient enough to prove my citizenship to cop with a thorn in his arse - he can arrest me and detain me since I do not have passport or other document with me.

Wondering which one is the officer more likely to ask/check for proof of immigration status - a Caucasian person or a minority person.

**Jiro** · 04-26-2010, 09:34 PM

We already have I.C.E. (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) - a federal agency created by Bush.

About U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Quote:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the largest investigative agency in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Formed in 2003 as part of the federal government's response to the 9/11 attacks, ICE's mission is to protect the security of the American people and homeland by vigilantly enforcing the nation's immigration and customs laws.

ICE combines innovative investigative techniques, new technological resources and a high level of professionalism to provide a wide range of resources to the public and to our federal, state and local law enforcement partners.

ICE is comprised of four operational divisions:

Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO)
Office of Investigations (OI)
Office of Intelligence (Intel)
Office of International Affairs (OIA)
With more than 19,000 employees in over 400 offices in the U.S. and around the world, ICE plays a vital role in the DHS layered defense approach to protecting the nation.

so why are the local cops doing the federal ICE agents' jobs that they are not trained for? Even Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon is disgusted with this ridiculous law which will take effect in a few months. Phoenix Mayor Gordon is going to file a lawsuit to block this law.

New immigration law won't hurt economy, Arizona governor says - CNN.com

Quote:

"People are going to be stopped just because of the color of [their] skin. And it ain't right," protester Jose Acosta told CNN on Sunday. "Are they going to be looking for Europeans as well, or is it just the brown people?"

**Reba** · 04-26-2010, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

so why do the Arizona driver (an immigrant) need to carry 3 more documents? I listed the article in my post above. Apparently - driver license isn't adequate enough

I'm sorry, there have been so many posts, I'm not sure which one you're referring to.

What are the three other documents in addition to the driver's license that legal immigrants need to carry in Arizona?

The only reason I can think of would be because Arizona doesn't require proof up front when they are issuing their drivers licenses.

souggy · 04-26-2010, 09:40 PM

I find Jiro's usage of Caucasian hilarious... because most Latinos are Caucasians.

**Reba** · 04-26-2010, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

did you even read the Arizona immigration bill? It's not about checking your passport before entering the country. It's about local police officers doing the job as Federal immigration officers (I.C.E.) on street.

I have a question.

Does anyone realistically expect the police to have enough manpower to make numerous stops and ID checks on a frequent basis, in addition to their regular duties?

**Jiro** · 04-26-2010, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

I'm sorry, there have been so many posts, I'm not sure which one you're referring to.

What are the three other documents in addition to the driver's license that legal immigrants need to carry in Arizona?

green card. passport. birth certificate. voter registration card. school fingerprint card. alien registration card. etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

The only reason I can think of would be because Arizona doesn't require proof up front when they are issuing their drivers licenses.

since this new law allows police to question and arrest people without warrant if there is "reasonable suspicion" about their immigration status..... looks like driver license is most likely not sufficient enough because we already know the illegals can obtain driver license through fraudulent means.

**Reba** · 04-26-2010, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

behavior profiling. racial profiling. gender profiling. religion profiling. all same thing to me. all matter of oxymoronic "Politically Correct" word game.

They are not the same.

Behavior profiling transcends all races, sexes, and religions. A person behaving suspiciously, regardless of race, sex or religion requires investigation.

**Foxrac** · 04-26-2010, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Huh? How would racial profiling prove whether nor not someone is legally in the country?

Latino aka brown skin will be greater target for police to make them as suspicion for illegal immigrants so they will stop them for check their documentation.

AZ immigrant bill FAIL, you know why? Many illegal immigrants will escape to other states like CA, NM, NV, TX, etc after they realize that immigrant bill is tight.

**Reba** · 04-26-2010, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Yep. There is no difference. Especially when you consider exactly how much behavior is culturally based. It is racial or ethnic profiling no matter how one tries to spin it.

Behavior profiling is not racial profiling.

Quote:

My experience at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv has led me to the conclusion that racial profiling is not effective. The major attacks at Ben Gurion Airport were carried out by Japanese terrorists in 1972 and Germans in the 1980s. [They] did not belong to any expected ethnic group. Richard Reid [known as the shoe bomber] did not fit a racial profile. Professionally as well as legally, I oppose the idea of racial profiling. So we are left with behavior, because behavior is probably the Achilles' heel of the terrorist.

In the Reid case, there were at least five crew members who later told me they had a suspicious feeling about Reid when he boarded the aircraft. The technology that was supposed to have dealt with the threat failed to do so. The clear conclusion from that is that when you [a terrorist] have to overcome a certain technological screening process, you can find a way to overcome it, but human behavior is where you will fail. Because a person carrying out a major terrorist attack that will probably end his life as well as the lives of many others cannot be in a sane state of mind. Even people who can control their behavior still fail to do so frequently.

Crew members thought Reid looked suspicious. How do you distinguish between suspicion based on observed behavior, and suspicion based on a feeling you have because you are, in fact, racially profiling them?

We give trainees a lot of examples where racial profiling would lead to disaster. We just tell officers don't do it, but there are instincts that go along with it. We have seen that officers can use excuses to cover up the fact that they are racially profiling. Behavior pattern recognition teaches that more objective criteria must be used that is focused on behavior. We provide the trainees with a great understanding of terrorist behavior. We look for irregular behavior, and that is why the program is tightly connected to the environment where it is being implemented, because [behavior] changes from one place to another.

In an airport you can expect people to be moving around with large bags, but if someone shows up like that at a sporting event, that should draw attention and trigger a response.

Behavior Pattern Recognition and Why Racial Profiling Doesn't Work - CSO Online - Security and Risk

Quote:

Racial profiling has a huge margin of error. Liberty instead advocates an intelligence-based policing approach, using behavior-based techniques, Corlew says.

Experts such as Rafi Ron, a consultant who led security teams in Israeli airports, and George Nacarra, security chief at Logan Airport in Boston, both cite the benefits of training frontline workers to recognize suspicious and dangerous behavior as a more effective means of screening would-be terrorists.

History shows that terrorists have defied racial classification, says Bruce Schneier, a security expert. Schneier cites a 1986 incident in which a pregnant Irish woman was caught carrying a bomb that was placed in her luggage without her knowledge by her Jordanian boyfriend, aboard an Israel-bound flight.

If screeners stop one ethnic group, terrorists could use someone who doesn't match the profile, he says. There is also concern that racial profiling alienates people who could be sources in investigations, Schneier says.

Racial Profiling and Terrorism - CSO Online - Security and Risk

kokonut · 04-26-2010, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

They are not the same.

Behavior profiling transcends all races, sexes, and religions. A person behaving suspiciously, regardless of race, sex or religion requires investigation.

Correct. The words "behavior profiling" as I now understand is an American invention. The correct discription is "Behavior Pattern Recognition" or BPR.

Quote:

The behavior pattern recognition, or BPR, as it is termed, is a
security technique originated by Rafi Ron, who is the former security
director for Ben Gurion, an airport in Tel Aviv, whereby people
are trained to detect suspicious individuals based on behavior rather
than ethnic background.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-11...rg11043561.pdf

Pretty cut and dry that BPR is not racial profiling. People need to accept that and move on.

More on BPR here. A very good info site.
Nass - New Age Security Solutions - Behavior Pattern Recognition (BPR™)

kokonut · 04-26-2010, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin'robin

Here in Florida, when you go to renew ur driver's license, update ur address, or have a name change....they now require many, many forms of identity. Birth certificate, social security card, proof of address (2 or 3forms of proof), and ur marriage or divorse certificates.......It's the law in several states, just has not been enforced until this year (I believe)....It is said due to 9-1-1...and some people acquiring a drivers license, to find they were terrorists....(here in Florida)....Florida has "cracked down"! Big time!

That's good to hear. Finally.

**Reba** · 04-26-2010, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Latino aka brown skin will be greater target for police to make them as suspicion for illegal immigrants so they will stop them for check their documentation....

I asked, "How would racial profiling prove whether nor not someone is legally in the country?"

**Foxrac** · 04-26-2010, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

I asked, "How would racial profiling prove whether nor not someone is legally in the country?"

That's the point... That isn't proof...

It means anyone with brown skin could be suspected of being illegal in the country and that means that everyone would have to carry proper documentation with them at all times, even US citizens born in the US whoever is in Arizona.

For example, if you have brown skin, your last name is Gonzalez, and you don't have a documentation with you, that could get your arrested because they think you're not in the country legally.

I backed Jiro about driver license or state issued ID isn't enough.

**Jiro** · 04-26-2010, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

They are not the same.

Behavior profiling transcends all races, sexes, and religions. A person behaving suspiciously, regardless of race, sex or religion requires investigation.

Can you really count on most Arizona police officers to be able to do behavior profiling without racial profiling?

**Jiro** · 04-26-2010, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

I asked, "How would racial profiling prove whether nor not someone is legally in the country?"

better yet - what would prompt an officer to investigate further to check for one's immigration status?

**Jiro** · 04-26-2010, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Behavior profiling is not racial profiling.

Behavior Pattern Recognition and Why Racial Profiling Doesn't Work - CSO Online - Security and Risk

Racial Profiling and Terrorism - CSO Online - Security and Risk

behavior profiling is primarily for terrorists.... but illegal immigrants? the one who lives here for too long? The illegal immigrant who lives here for a long time knows how to talk and act like legal resident and there are million of them like that.

Don't you think we will see a rise in number of incidents of police officers asking legal resident or lawful immigrant for proof of immigration status? That would mean behavior profiling doesn't work.

yes I know Racial Profiling is technically not the same as Behavior Profiling because both profiling looks out for different primary variables but no matter what kind of profiling it is - any kind of profiling is always tightly interlaced together with racism on unconscious level. A person would have to have an advanced degree in behavior-related or intensive advanced training to make such distinction.

Mark my word - If most Arizona police officers are able to use behavior profiling so effectively that only few legal residents/immigrants were asked to provide proof of immigration.... WOW! then I would support other state and my state to adopt Arizona's immigration law! no question asked!

CJB · 04-26-2010, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Can you really count on most Arizona police officers to be able to do behavior profiling without racial profiling?

Exactly. Even if the bill outlines behavioral profiling, it's part of human nature to resort to more obvious features such as race, especially in the moment. The bill has set up an ideal situation for racial profiling to take place.

**Jiro** · 04-26-2010, 11:33 PM

Behavioral Profiling at Logan Airport Gone Amock

Quote:

BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts today filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a so-called "behavioral assessment" program adopted by the Massachusetts Port Authority and the Massachusetts state police to stop and detain people for questioning at Logan Airport.

"This program is another unfortunate example of the extent to which we are being asked to surrender basic freedoms in the name of security," said John Reinstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "This allows the police to stop anyone, any time, for any reason."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of King Downing, the National Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial Profiling, who was approached by law enforcement officials after arriving at Logan Airport on October 16, 2003 to attend a meeting on racial profiling in Boston. Upon arriving at the airport, Downing, an African-American who wears a short beard, left the gate area and was making a phone call in the public terminal when he was stopped by a state police trooper who demanded that he produce some identification. When Downing declined to do so without knowing the basis for the request, he was first told that he would have to leave the airport. However, when he attempted to leave the terminal building, Downing was stopped again, surrounded by four troopers and told that he was being placed under arrest for failing to produce identification. When Downing finally agreed to produce his driver's license, the troopers then demanded to see his airline ticket. Downing was told by the police that he could be barred from the airport if he did not cooperate. After the police inspected Downing's identification and travel documents, he was allowed to leave. No charges were ever filed against him.

"This is a dangerous extension of police power," said Downing. "I was stopped and held for no legal reason by armed State Police troopers. I was told I could not leave unless I proved who I was and why I was at the airport, and that if I did not cooperate, I would be arrested or banned from the airport. This is racial profiling, and not the action of a government that stands for freedom and the rights of all its people."

Behavioral profiling has been used as the basis for stopping passengers since 2002 when Massport announced that State Police troopers at Logan Airport were being trained by an outside security consultant. The procedures were subsequently incorporated into the state police "Behavior Assessment Screening System" used at Logan and other locations. It was recently reported that B.A.S.S. is being used as a model by the Transportation Security Administration, which will soon launch a similar program nationwide, entitled SPOT ("Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques").

Current law permits the police to stop and question someone when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime. In contrast, the "behavioral profiling" program instructs officers to detain anyone who they believe is exhibiting "unusual" or "anxious" behavior. What constitutes "unusual" or "anxious" behavior presumably is left to individual officer discretion.

"This case illustrates the danger of giving law enforcement officers unfettered discretion to detain people," said ACLU Cooperating Attorney Peter Krupp. "It is a clear case of unconstitutional racial profiling. Mr. Downing did nothing suspicious - unless you consider having dark skin and a beard evidence of suspicious behavior."

The case was filed in Suffolk Superior Court.

kokonut · 04-26-2010, 11:35 PM

CJB, I think this has to do more with unfounded prejudices against police officers rather than to admit to that deficiency in thinking. As for the bill, the governor signed an Executive order for police officers to take training so that racial profiling won't take place because doing so is illegal in the first place.

CJB · 04-26-2010, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

CJB, I think this has to do more with unfounded prejudices against police officers rather than to admit to that deficiency in thinking. As for the bill, the governor signed an Executive order for police officers to take training so that racial profiling won't take place because doing so is illegal in the first place.

It's not just cops. It's human nature to make judgments by the most obvious factors in a person, which for most people, is whatever is most visually salient. I've been saying "police officers" throughout this thread because they are the ones that have been given the duty of suspecting illegal immigrants, but racism is by no means restricted to police officers. Anyone can go through training and sign whatever but that doesn't guarantee a thing.

**Jiro** · 04-26-2010, 11:44 PM

Bruce Schneier on Security - Behavioral Profiling Nabs Warren Jeffs

Quote:

Polygamist's body language tipped off trooper

Quote:

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (CNN) -- A paper license tag, a salad and stories that didn't make sense pricked the suspicions of a state trooper who stopped the car of a wanted fugitive polygamist in Las Vegas.

But it was the pumping carotid artery in the neck of Warren Steed Jeffs that convinced Nevada Highway Patrolman Eddie Dutchover that he had cornered someone big.

"I knew some type of criminal activity was possibly afoot," Dutchover said after he stopped Jeffs with a brother and one of his wives in a new luxury SUV that had only a paper tag instead of a license plate. (Watch state trooper reveal what gave Jeffs away -- 2:46)

Inside the car on Monday night, Jeffs seemed evasive and started to eat a salad.

"I noticed Warren was extremely nervous. He was sitting in that right side back seat and wouldn't make eye contact with me," Dutchover said.

"But his carotid artery was pumping."

Dutchover separated the brothers and questioned them. Isaac Jeffs said they were heading to Utah, but Warren Jeffs said their destination was Denver, Colorado, Dutchover reported.

"Their stories didn't make any sense to me," Dutchover said.

He called in back-up and later the FBI when he and his fellow trooper realized they had captured one of the FBI's 10 Most Wanted Fugitives with a $100,000 bounty on his head. (See what FBI agents say they found inside Jeffs' car)

Quote:

This is behavioral profiling done right, and it reminds me of the Diana Dean story. (Here's another example of behavioral profiling done right, and here is an article by Malcolm Gladwell on profiling and generalizations.)

Behavioral profiling is tough to do well. It requires intelligent and well-trained officers. Done badly, it quickly defaults to racial profiling. But done well, it'll do far more to keep us safe than object profiling (e.g., banning liquids on aircraft).

even without training in behavioral profiling or racial profiling... with common sense - it is pretty obvious to detect suspicious behavior - shaky voice. sweaty palm/face. rapid breathing. eyes darting everywhere. stories not matching up together. Heck - we can tell if our kids are lying to us or up to something no good.

What's my point? I think it's pretty obvious for officers to see if the driver is smuggler or not but for millions of immigrants? With millions of people of all races living in Arizona... it's not going to be simple for police officer to make such distinction. That's where behavior profiling becomes a convenient legal cop-out - a cloak for racial profiling - for police to investigate further.

**Jiro** · 04-27-2010, 12:45 AM

The Truth about Behavioral Profiling - I see that KoKoNut keeps bragging about the success that Israelis is having at Ben Gurion International Airport. Let's find out how they do it, shall we yes?

59 pages paper written by 2 legal scholars for George Mason Law Review. Before I begin - I want to give you a little background on "Behavior Profiling". Because of 9/11 - Department of Homeland Security created Screening
Passengers by Observation Technique aka SPOT - a behavioral profiling program that trains "federal agents closely observe travelers’ faces for hints that they may be security risks. It is in operation in airports across the United States, and is used in other settings, such as urban mass transit." Israelis provided American an invaluable technical knowledge in this issue.

So as you see - Behavior Profiling looks for abnormal behavior.... not skin color or stereotypical image. Now I will show you how it works at Israel - Ben Gurion International Airport.

PROFILES IN TERROR: A LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE BEHAVIORAL PROFILING PARADIGM

Quote:

While Screening Passengers by Observation Technique's (SPOT) scientific basis lies in FACS, its more immediate precursor lies overseas in Israel. Israel conducts mandatory full searches and interviews of every passenger, with an average time spent of fifty-seven minutes per person. These interviews focus not just on the passenger’s verbal answers, but on their behavior and expressions. Behavioral profiling for airport security emerged in Israel and made its way to the United States via a program run by Massachusetts state officials at Boston’s Logan International Airport in 2002. In England, the British Aircrafts Authority (“BAA”) has also implemented behavioral profiling at the Heathrow Express rail service. The trials were so successful that “the BAA was considering training all frontline staff at its seven airports, including 6,000 at security checkpoints.”

There are, however, significant differences between behavioral profiling in U.S. airports, which (at least initially) relies on observation, and the use of behavioral profiling in Israeli aviation security, in which observation is carefully combined with in depth questioning of all passengers. Moreover, the difference in air passenger volume between Israel and the United States is substantial. In 2007, just over ten million international passengers passed through Ben Gurion International Airport and just four hundred thousand domestic travelers. The number of scheduled domestic and international passengers on U.S. airlines during the first eleven months of 2007 was 706.6 million. To implement an aviation security program in the United States that paralleled the Israeli model would present massive logistical difficulties and significant financial costs. And spending an hour interviewing and scrutinizing each passenger, as the Israelis do, would make airport travel even more cumbersome and slow.

The training of security personnel differs significantly between the U.S. and Israel. As outlined above, BDOs are typically culled from the ranks of routine security screeners at TSA and need only a high school degree or GED equivalent. The Israelis select officers––the vast majority of whom have military backgrounds—and subject them to tests in order to select those with above-average intelligence and particularly strong personality types. The Israeli recruits then benefit from nine weeks of training in behavior recognition where they practice identifying terrorists who may have been trained to evade behavioral pattern recognition. These highly trained Israeli aviation security agents develop advanced skills in order to recognize the precise behaviors exemplified by potential hijackers or terrorists. By contrast, BDOs receive just four days of classroom instruction and analysis––which relies in part on watching videotapes with known visual cues of deception––and twenty-four hours of on-the-job training in an airport security checkpoint environment.

background on those 2 legal scholars who wrote this incredibly detailed and well-researched report

Quote:

Justin Florence is an Associate in the Washington, D.C., office of O’Melveny & Myers LLP and a Non-Resident Fellow of the Georgetown Center on National Security and the Law. J.D., Yale Law School; M.A., Harvard University; B.A., Yale College.

Robert Friedman is an Associate in the Washington, D.C., office of Venable LLP, a Non-Resident Fellow of the Georgetown Center on National Security and the Law, and a Principal in the Truman National Security Project. J.D., Georgetown University Law Center; M.A., Johns Hopkins University; B.A., Emory University.

so.... Arizona police officers. Let's see what is the requirement needed to become Arizona police officer.

Phoenix Police Department - * Applicant Requirements (I'm listing only most important criteria)

Quote:

-Be at least 20 years of age at the time of application, 21 years of age prior to completion of the Academy.
-Be a United States Citizen.
-Be in sound physical and mental health.
-Must have a high school diploma or GED equivalency.

so can we count on most Arizona police officers to use behavioral profiling without racial profiling effectively with just 4 days of training when Israel hand-picked seasoned Israelis security guards with military backgrounds & 9 weeks of training in behavioral profiling to guard its airport?

kokonut · 04-27-2010, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJB

It's not just cops. It's human nature to make judgments by the most obvious factors in a person, which for most people, is whatever is most visually salient. I've been saying "police officers" throughout this thread because they are the ones that have been given the duty of suspecting illegal immigrants, but racism is by no means restricted to police officers. Anyone can go through training and sign whatever but that doesn't guarantee a thing.

I've been hearing that this BPR won't work in Arizona even though it has worked extremely well at the Ben Gurion Airport? BPR is being implemented at the Miami International Airport, by the Massachusetts State Police, at Logan International Airport, the NYPD – Counter Terrorism Bureau, at the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport , the Park Police – Statue of Liberty, the University of Maryland Police Department, and at San Francisco International.

And yet no benefit of the doubt will be granted in this case when it was made clear that racial profiling is illegal. I supposed it's better to let the crime continue than do nothing at all?

**Jiro** · 04-27-2010, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

I've been hearing that this BPR won't work in Arizona even though it has worked extremely well at the Ben Gurion Airport? BPR is being implemented at the Miami International Airport, by the Massachusetts State Police, at Logan International Airport, the NYPD – Counter Terrorism Bureau, at the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport , the Park Police – Statue of Liberty, the University of Maryland Police Department, and at San Francisco International.

And yet no benefit of the doubt will be granted in this case when it was made clear that racial profiling is illegal. I supposed it's better to let the crime continue than do nothing at all?

see above but I'm probably on your ignore list

Steinhauer · 04-27-2010, 01:11 AM

When we go to the bank and withdraw money form our account we are customers. When a bank robber takes money from the bank, he/she is not a customer, they are not making a withdrawal and they cant claim any kind of rights or protection or customer service like a customer can.

Same thing applies to immigration. Immigration is legal. The folks coming here illegally are breaking the law. No reform is needed. They are not immigrants.

We do not need immigration reform; what we need is enforcement of the current immigration laws.

So, when Arizona decided to enforce existing laws, why are you getting your panties in a bunch over it?

**Jiro** · 04-27-2010, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

When we go to the bank and withdraw money form our account we are customers. When a bank robber takes money from the bank, he/she is not a customer, they are not making a withdrawal and they cant claim any kind of rights or protection or customer service like a customer can.

Same thing applies to immigration. Immigration is legal. The folks coming here illegally are breaking the law. No reform is needed. They are not immigrants.

Let me help you improve your bank robbery scenario. With this new law - the bank security guard will ask the bank customers to show additional documents for verification purpose because ID and ATM card are insufficient. Probable cause? Behavioral Profiling with 4-days training - bank customer was being fidgety, edgy, hurried, irritated. Pretty much handful of bank customers are like that.

and as for bank robbers - they certainly do not have "customer rights" but they have human rights. Somehow - the robbers fumbled and the security guards pointed guns at them. The robbers surrendered and laid down on the floor with hands on their heads. Bank security guards abusively and aggressively handled them and broke his arm - unnecessary excessive use of force. The robber is entitled to his legal rights to sue bank for injury. In your case - robber is not entitled to ANYTHING.

I believe you should give up. my posts #409, #412, and #413 pretty much slam-dunked everything. It's an open-shut case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

We do not need immigration reform; what we need is enforcement of the current immigration laws.

So, when Arizona decided to enforce existing laws, why are you getting your panties in a bunch over it?

Correction - Arizona decided to enforce the existing laws by using illegal method under cloak and dagger.

Steinhauer · 04-27-2010, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Let me help you improve your bank robbery scenario. With this new law - the bank security guard will ask the bank customers to show additional documents for verification purpose because ID and ATM card are insufficient. Probable cause? Behavioral Profiling with 4-days training - bank customer was being fidgety, edgy, hurried, irritated. Pretty much handful of bank customers are like that.

and as for bank robbers - they certainly do not have "customer rights" but they have human rights. Somehow - the robbers fumbled and the security guards pointed guns at them. The robbers surrendered and laid down on the floor with hands on their heads. Bank security guards abusively and aggressively handled them and broke his arm - unnecessary excessive use of force. The robber is entitled to his legal rights to sue bank for injury. In your case - robber is not entitled to ANYTHING.

I believe you should give up. my posts #409, #412, and #413 pretty much slam-dunked everything. It's an open-shut case.

Only in your world

Correction - Arizona decided to enforce the existing laws by using illegal method under cloak and dagger.

So, if a "customer" enters a bank with a ski mask on, it would be "racial profiling" for any security officer to ask to see his customer card?

Steinhauer · 04-27-2010, 01:41 AM

To take your argument even further, when you enter a dorm on a college campus, the requirement to "prove" you are a resident of the college by procuring your college ID is yet another example of a draconian, racist and hate filled policy?

**Jiro** · 04-27-2010, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

To take your argument even further, when you enter a dorm on a college campus, the requirement to "prove" you are a resident of the college by procuring your college ID is yet another example of a draconian, racist and hate filled policy?

how is it draconian, racist, hate-filled policy to show a simple ID? please explain that to me. for love of god - please do that for me.

How about this for you - if showing an ID is not enough for security guard and you're required to show additional documents because you're being singled out by whatever the "profiling" they have... what do you think of that policy?

04-26-2010, 09:40 PM	#395 (permalink)
souggy Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 9,541	I find Jiro's usage of Caucasian hilarious... because most Latinos are Caucasians. __________________ "It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it." - Richard Freynman

04-26-2010, 11:35 PM	#410 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	CJB, I think this has to do more with unfounded prejudices against police officers rather than to admit to that deficiency in thinking. As for the bill, the governor signed an Executive order for police officers to take training so that racial profiling won't take place because doing so is illegal in the first place. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

04-27-2010, 01:11 AM	#416 (permalink)
Steinhauer Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	When we go to the bank and withdraw money form our account we are customers. When a bank robber takes money from the bank, he/she is not a customer, they are not making a withdrawal and they cant claim any kind of rights or protection or customer service like a customer can. Same thing applies to immigration. Immigration is legal. The folks coming here illegally are breaking the law. No reform is needed. They are not immigrants. We do not need immigration reform; what we need is enforcement of the current immigration laws. So, when Arizona decided to enforce existing laws, why are you getting your panties in a bunch over it?

04-27-2010, 01:41 AM	#419 (permalink)
Steinhauer Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	To take your argument even further, when you enter a dorm on a college campus, the requirement to "prove" you are a resident of the college by procuring your college ID is yet another example of a draconian, racist and hate filled policy?