Microchips at birth. :banana:

As many of you sit here trying to paint this as wholly supported by the citizens of Arizona, I found it interesting that The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposed this. They say they'll carry out their duties to the best of their abilities. But they weren't for this, and THEY'RE the ones who have to enforce it.

 

According to this interesting column by Pat Buchanan, around 70% of residents support it.

 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=146341

 

I can certainly see why the police wouldn't though. It sounds like a lot of trouble for them.

Please explain bio-metrics. Sounds very Revelations.

 

At our work it involves using fingerprint technology rather than a time clock for employees to punch in. They simply place their finger on the unit and it identifies them. As I understand it, biometrics involves identification through fingerprints, palmprints, eye scan, facial recognition, and dna identification. It's supposed to be much more reliable and fool proof for identification methods and much harder to falsify.

I’ll tell you what’s mind blowing and extremely hypocritical. Someone that lives many miles from Arizona and is presumptuous enough to “know” more about what needs to be done than 77% of voters and the Arizona legislature does…WOW! Hispanics are beaten, mistreated, harassed and un-telling what on a daily basis in this country and in their own, and you do or say nothing???????? Now you want to get on here and wail about this law (that simply states “reasonable suspicion” just like thousands of other laws do) while calling conservatives hypocrites? Give me a break man. You show absolutely NO respect for Arizona’s legislative system while showing no opposition to the way ObamaCare was crammed down our throats by our legislative system? Conservatives need to be called hypocrites by you? REALLY?

OR maybe you don't know all the facts either. Some of us on here may spend quite a bit of time in AZ and have for many years. Works both ways my friend. But to get back on topic, you totally missed the point, one which has nothing to do with where I live. :sssh:

 

I'm basing my argument on a groups normal philosophy and way of thinking. And for that it does seem extremely hypocritical that "conservatives" rail against government intrusion when it comes to their guns or other issues that attract their voting demographic. But they will turn around and roll over for the government when it wants to intrude in other aspects of our lives. This seems to be a case of 2+2=5...just doesn't add up right.

I understand the many downsides to this law. Still, it's been asked a few times, what is Arizonia to do? It appears around 8% of the population is illegal, with many of them not paying taxes while on the other hand consuming its limited resources. Do you allow your state to simply drown while you say "it's not fair to a certain segment"?

 

I have a feeling this is going to become more and more of an issue as it spreads to other states with large illegal populations.

Good point. State of KY wouldn't want Arizona telling us how to handle the horse racing industry.

I'd welcome AZ giving their input on the horse racing industry. There is no way they could do a more bang up job than that idiot David Williams.

When the debate was going on concerning Health Care did we look at whether it would effect the citizens of Luxomberg?

 

When the debate for financial reform is going on, do we consider the citizens of Thailand?

 

When the debate for the stimulus package was happening, did we consider the citizens of Brazil?

 

Then why in the discussion of our borders are we considering how it affects the citizens of I guess mostly Mexico?

 

We don't consider the citizens of other countries when we make legislative decisions, why should this be any different.

At our work it involves using fingerprint technology rather than a time clock for employees to punch in. They simply place their finger on the unit and it identifies them. As I understand it, biometrics involves identification through fingerprints, palmprints, eye scan, facial recognition, and dna identification. It's supposed to be much more reliable and fool proof for identification methods and much harder to falsify.

 

I installed a biometric finger & handprint security system in a lab facility I renovated a few years back and it works like a charm. It's a little slower in reaction time than a proximity card reader or a card-swipe reader - it takes about 10 seconds to run a scan and release a door this way versus an nearly instantaneous release via card-swipe - but it's EXTREMELY reliable. It'd sure be interesting to see if it could be applied to national security. You'd be talking about creating a database of 309 million sets of handprints and/or retinal scans. That's a pretty daunting task from a logistical point of view.

I installed a biometric finger & handprint security system in a lab facility I renovated a few years back and it works like a charm. It's a little slower in reaction time than a proximity card reader or a card-swipe reader - it takes about 10 seconds to run a scan and release a door this way versus an nearly instantaneous release via card-swipe - but it's EXTREMELY reliable. It'd sure be interesting to see if it could be applied to national security. You'd be talking about creating a database of 309 million sets of handprints and/or retinal scans. That's a pretty daunting task from a logistical point of view.

 

Can you imagine the conspiracy and ACLU nuts that would come out of the woodwork on the bolded?

When the debate was going on concerning Health Care did we look at whether it would effect the citizens of Luxomberg?

 

When the debate for financial reform is going on, do we consider the citizens of Thailand?

 

When the debate for the stimulus package was happening, did we consider the citizens of Brazil?

 

Then why in the discussion of our borders are we considering how it affects the citizens of I guess mostly Mexico?

 

We don't consider the citizens of other countries when we make legislative decisions, why should this be any different.

I'm not talking about how it would effect citizens of any other country but this one. I'm talking about the harrasment of citizens of this country because of a certain look.

When the debate was going on concerning Health Care did we look at whether it would effect the citizens of Luxomberg?

 

When the debate for financial reform is going on, do we consider the citizens of Thailand?

 

When the debate for the stimulus package was happening, did we consider the citizens of Brazil?

 

Then why in the discussion of our borders are we considering how it affects the citizens of I guess mostly Mexico?

 

We don't consider the citizens of other countries when we make legislative decisions, why should this be any different.

 

But you know that's really not the concern, right? It's that Hispanic people lawfully in this country (perhaps born here) are subject to being stopped and questioned just because they are Hispanic.

I understand the many downsides to this law. Still, it's been asked a few times, what is Arizonia to do? It appears around 8% of the population is illegal, with many of them not paying taxes while on the other hand consuming its limited resources. Do you allow your state to simply drown while you say "it's not fair to a certain segment"?

 

I have a feeling this is going to become more and more of an issue as it spreads to other states with large illegal populations.

 

Looks like they are pushing the Democratic-controlled Congress to tackle immigration right now.

Can you imagine the conspiracy and ACLU nuts that would come out of the woodwork on the bolded?

 

No kidding...it would be ridiculous.

Hold on to your hats folks! I’m a conservative that might just be having a change of heart. Don’t get excited, I’m not going to admit to being a hypocrite, nor am I going to say the law is a direct infringement on the civil rights of Hispanics.

 

After going back over the thread, I paid close attention to posts by Clyde, RTS, ladiesballcoach and formerkywrestler. I also revisited the wording of the law. I even talked to my Minister, (Baptist if anyone is curious) who is the most conservative person I know for help.

 

Even though the law states that [“ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED.”] And that [“A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.”] I can see where legal citizens arrested for a much lesser charge could possibly be wrongfully held for hours or days while their legal status is being verified because of the law.

 

The very nature of the situation in Arizona (no matter what kind of law they try to come up with) makes almost anything they do look discriminatory. Let’s face it, the problem is illegal immigrants and an overwhelming majority of them are Hispanic and Arizona needs to do something about it. How in the world can they solve the problem without targeting them?

 

Clyde just may be right…Why do they need another law? Why do they need another law that could IMO adversely affect legal citizens? I’m sure there are plenty of laws (state & federal) in place that would help the problem if enforced. After all, I am a conservative, and we conservatives do hate laws passed on a whim. I’m not 100% sure yet, but this just might be one of those “whim” laws. As far as this conservative sees it, I see it as TOUCHY at the very least.

Hold on to your hats folks! I’m a conservative that might just be having a change of heart. Don’t get excited, I’m not going to admit to being a hypocrite, nor am I going to say the law is a direct infringement on the civil rights of Hispanics.

 

After going back over the thread, I paid close attention to posts by Clyde, RTS, ladiesballcoach and formerkywrestler. I also revisited the wording of the law. I even talked to my Minister, (Baptist if anyone is curious) who is the most conservative person I know for help.

 

Even though the law states that [“ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED.”] And that [“A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.”] I can see where legal citizens arrested for a much lesser charge could possibly be wrongfully held for hours or days while their legal status is being verified because of the law.

 

The very nature of the situation in Arizona (no matter what kind of law they try to come up with) makes almost anything they do look discriminatory. Let’s face it, the problem is illegal immigrants and an overwhelming majority of them are Hispanic and Arizona needs to do something about it. How in the world can they solve the problem without targeting them?

 

Clyde just may be right…Why do they need another law? Why do they need another law that could IMO adversely affect legal citizens? I’m sure there are plenty of laws (state & federal) in place that would help the problem if enforced. After all, I am a conservative, and we conservatives do hate laws passed on a whim. I’m not 100% sure yet, but this just might be one of those “whim” laws. As far as this conservative sees it, I see it as TOUCHY at the very least.

 

 

Dang...no love for me in persuading you to change your mind? :lol: :cry: