CreateDebate


Debate Info

41
46
Good Bad
Debate Score:87
Arguments:45
Total Votes:115
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Good (21)
 
 Bad (24)

Debate Creator

brycer2012(1002) pic



President Obama suing the state of Arizona

What do you think about the federal government suing the state of Arizona over the new immigration laws.

Requires all immigrants to carry immigration papers.

Gives cops the right to ask people, only if stopped by a real reason, such as reckless driving, to show them their immigration papers if there is reason to beleive that the people are illegal, such as riding in an overcrowded car, hanging in illegal prone areas, or not speking clear English.

Good

Side Score: 41
VS.

Bad

Side Score: 46

State of Arizona has no jurisdictional authority in regulating immigration policy or law; that is exclusively reserved for the U.S. Government, therefore, I completely agree with President Obama trying to preserve the right of the legal citizens from abusive police and state authority and ultimately profiling and stereotyping.

Side: Good
Sulith(508) Disputed
3 points

Arizona did the right thing. The Fed's weren't doing their JOB.

Protect from foreign invasion I believe the Federal government is incharge of that and they are not doing anything about it.

Arizona basically sad fuck you to the fed and took over themselves.

Have you seen the crime rates drop since that law has passed?

Profilling and stereotyping? Who the hell do you think is jumping the boarder!? White people!? No! Those damn beaners are!

Its their own god damn fault and they go and break the rules and then bitch and complain about the consequence(s).

Side: Bad
1 point

Despite what Arizona said to the Federal Government and if apparently crime rates dropped, immigration policy is an interstate issue, which will go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Who the hell do you think is jumping the boarder!? White people!? No! Those damn beaners are!

That is obvious profiling and stereotyping because not all nonwhites are illegal aliens.

Side: Good
brycer2012(1002) Disputed
1 point

The law has not gone into effect yet, thus the crime rate decrease has not been effected by the new law.

Side: Bad
1 point

I guess he said it all. The policeman would otherwhise use this law as a form of abuse. So this is a good option from president Barack Obama.

Side: Good
1 point

I at first agreed with Arizona cracking down on illegals. The only problem was that this started effecting legal citizens in an unnecessary manner. it gave cops the power to arrest someone for not having papers. we're Americans, we don't need to carry around papers.

sure, if a guy speaks no English, that's reasonable suspicion, but all the other shit is bullshit.

Side: Good
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

Look i used to live in Chula Vista California it's really easy to spot most illegals for one they are mostly mexican and can't speak on word of English. Two when you see them standing on corners in US looking for work at $5 an hour and I have watched police drive right by them without even one notice to think that the law is racist or discriminates it doesn't it's very obvious when you live there who they are.

Side: Bad
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

Yes, because if there is one thing Police need to do it's to arrest people looking for work. We can't have that sort of thing going on.

Side: Good
1 point

Immigration issues and law can not and should not be decided by the individual states. The U.S. government needs to come up with a comprehensive immigration bill.

Side: Good
0 points

1. It's not Obama, it is the Attorney General... whose job it is to do this type of thing. Obama just said "okay" - as he should on the advice of the Attorney General.

2. See reply to MK. This law is retarded by every definition of the word.

3. Your characterization of this law in paragraph 3 is completely inaccurate. A cop has always been able to make up any reason to question anyone they like. And now they can question anyone they like and put them in jail.

Side: Good
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

you mean the attorney general Eric Holder who admitted that he had not even read it. Most people in America have no idea how bad it is until you go there. Just look at the numbers that are caught on a weekly basis and those are the ones we only know about. If all of the people who are for the Feds backing this then you should let all of the illegals come into your state.

Side: Bad
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
1 point

So Obama who is Holder's boss leave the decision to Holder???

What can this guy run????

Side: Bad

A cop has always been able to make up any reason to question anyone they like. And now they can question anyone they like and put them in jail.

True, that. This is called abusive use of authority.

Side: Good
4 points

By suing Arizona Obama is showing us (American citizens) that he cares more about Mexico than us.

Side: Bad
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

By suing Arizona Obama is showing us (American citizens) that he cares more about Mexico than us.

Don't make unnecessary assumptions.

Side: Good
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
0 points

It's not an "unnecessary assumption", it's the truth. As I said below to Bohemian, Arizona has a serious problem with illegals and they want to do something about it because the feds won't.

Side: Bad
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

What a childish argument. Removing an unjust law in no way infringes on our rights. Don't be so dramatic.

Side: Good
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
1 point

Exactly. It doesn't infringe on our rights because we are American citizens. The idea is to rat out the illegal aliens and get them out.

Side: Bad
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
0 points

It's not childish and the law is not unjust. Arizona has a serious problem with illegal aliens and they are trying to solve that problem because the feds won't do anything about it.

Side: Bad
3 points

The bill states that a police officer can only question someone IF they are breaking the law. Another thing is that it has yet to become a law, and therefore has not been tried, so we cannot know if it is bad or good yet.

Side: Bad
TheRavenKing(33) Disputed
1 point

"The bill states that a police officer can only question someone IF they are breaking the law" that sounds an awful like giving the police the authority to "opress a minority" if you will. What other people but Spanish Americans, Mexican Americans or South American immigrants to the United States. Do you think the Poice will be fair in their questioning to anyone they think fits the description? I'm sure the police will ask every white person, black person or asian person if they are an illegal immigrant too.

Side: Good
1 point

Why shouldn't people have documentation to show who they are? (ie driver's licenses) While traveling I had to have my passport, as well. The only people that would be against this law are people that don't have legal documents, right? My theorem: Those defending these people do not believe in following laws. Final note, who's fighting this law?

Side: Bad
4 points

Final note, who's fighting this law?

The U.S federal government

Side: Good
3 points

Final note, who's fighting this law?

The U.S federal government

Side: Bad
1 point

It's the democrats who want to get their illegal votes. For those of you out there I love Mexican people and I lived with an illegal family in California for almost 2 years and what they like most about being illegal is the lack of pressure for them to leave and if things get tough here for them, they know that there is no record of them and they can bail back at anytime and there is nothing we can do to track them. Whether it be something illegal they did or if they rack up financial debt they can't pay going back to Mexico is the like their emergency country. This i know for sure living in California I have at least 12 personal stories of illegals that I know where this was the case. Theses where the good ones that worked hard forget about the other type of illegal that have a different name.

Side: Good
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

>< So dumb.

A DL is not proof of citizenship. Anyone who pays the fee and passes the driving test can get one. This law is asking a group of people for more proof than another group of people. And if they do not carry it on them at all times they can be at any time thrown in jail for up to 48 hours whether they are a citizen or not.

It is obviously unconstitutional, and obviously based on racism.

Side: Good
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
1 point

The federal law requires it,our federal law requires it.Other countries require it and have much harsher punishment, is that discrimation against Americans?

Everybody's a victim

Side: Bad
1 point

Everybody carries identification on them anyway. I carry my license with me everywhere I go, so what's so bad about having to carry around your immigration papers?

I think Obama is suing Arizona because he's afraid they'll deport him for not having papers. ;)

Side: Bad
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

A driver's license and proof of insurance are not proof of citizenship. You need a license and a birth certificate or SS card. It has nothing to do with "immigration papers" at all. What if one looks Hispanic and was born here? What if they pull you over and all you have is your DL and the cop happens to not like your attitude? There is nothing stopping the officer from holding you for 48 hours on "suspicion".

This law is bogus for these reasons:

1. No one carries proof of citizenship on them, therefore it allows police to jail anyone for any reason for up to 48 hours on "suspicion".

- This is going to lead to thousands of lawsuits flooding an already overwhelmed justice system.

- This is also going to lead to thousands of innocent people in jail, further flooding an already overwhelmed justice system.

- It is going to discourage anyone of Hispanic descent from cooperating with police on crimes like murder, drugs, etc because they will be afraid of being jailed on "suspicion" which consequently is why most police in AZ are against this law.

2. Forging proof of citizenship is not harder than forging a driver's license. It will not actually discourage any illegals from coming here.

3. It is unconstitutional.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Asking a tan citizen for more proof of ID than they would ask from someone with lighter skin is very much against the spirit of Section 1 - unless you believe everyone with a tan is here illegally.

It is the governments job to ensure State's do not make unconstitutional laws no matter how popular in the area.

4. Democrats put forth a perfectly workable plan that included a combination of ID cards for everyone and holding companies accountable for hiring illegals, it was constitutional, fair, and would have actually worked.

However, Republicans rejected it because that is what they do right now. This law is nothing more than a dog an pony show aimed to satisfy idiots' desire to blame anyone who doesn't look like them for whatever, without actually putting corporation's cheap labor in any real danger.

This law does nothing to punish Corporate overlords for exploiting illegal immigrants, only puts them in a further state of servitude because now they can be threatened with exportation anytime and for any reason without companies having to worry about that pesky Constitution thing.

And again, it won't even work. You won't see the number of illegals decline by even 1.

Side: Good
MegaDittos(571) Disputed
3 points

" No one carries proof of citizenship on them"

Go to Mexico without yours Jack

"This is going to lead to thousands of lawsuits flooding an already overwhelmed justice system."

Well then, let's just allow illegal behavior because we have too many cases.

"This is also going to lead to thousands of innocent people in jail"

If they are here ILLEGALLY, how are they innocent?

"It is going to discourage anyone of Hispanic descent from cooperating with police on crimes "

Most criminals already do this,you don't see many turning themselves in do you???

" Forging proof of citizenship is not harder than forging a driver's license. It will not actually discourage any illegals from coming here"

Then why bitch about it????

"It is unconstitutional. "

This one I love the most.A liberal quotes the constitution when he thinks a state violates the Constitution against the federal goverment, well how about quoting the Constitution when the Federal Goverment steps outside of the constitution's strict guidelines of what the Federal Goverment was created to do and all other rights were given to the states.

You can't have it both ways.

Side: Bad
trumpeter93(999) Disputed
0 points

We've deported them before. Coolidge, FDR and Ike all issued executive orders ordering the immediate deportation of all illegals. The combined total of illegals deported was close to 30 million and it created that many jobs for vets returning from WW1, WW2 and the Korean War.

Side: Bad
1 point

Considering that Obama nor Eric Holder have even read the bill if they did they would see that all it does is copy the federal law. Arizona bill is only 19 pages I guess it was too much for them to read. This administration is joke. The Obama regime will lose big on this one. Anybody ever gone to the border if you lived there you would see hundreds of Illegals crossing everyday and wonder why nothing has been done. We would go on vacation to Mexico and when we would drive back at night we would have to slow down as we entered the US because there where so many that would cross the freeway I would hate to have one of them splat on my windshield and I would be horrified if that ever happened but they are coming in droves they come here Illegally. Look at the Mexican law if what would happen to an American if we did the same there laws are brutal. All we are asking is to secure the border against people coming here illegally why is it so hard to figure that one out?

Side: Bad
1 point

Personally, I think this is a bad idea. The law may seem unfair in some ways, but it is pointing towards the greater good. Everybody knows that illegal immigrants in this country is a terrible thing. Besides, what illegal immigrant would just be driving around in plain sight? The only reason I could think of is because they don't think they are going to get caught, because we've been to soft on this issue.

We wouldn't need this law if the government would actually help stop the issue by building a fence along the border.

Support for the bill
Side: Bad
Conro(767) Disputed
1 point

"The law may seem unfair in some ways, but it is pointing towards the greater good"

Hmm, sounds like fascism to me. (Liberals can call things Nazi too!)

"Everybody knows that illegal immigrants in this country is a terrible thing."

First things first, grammar please. Second, you used a sweeping generalization, i.e. a logical fallacy. Third, who is "everybody"?

"We wouldn't need this law if the government would actually help stop the issue by building a fence along the border."

Because all immigration is bad. We wouldn't have the problem if legal immigration was easier. Additionally, specify why we "need" this law (and you imply no other law could do an equal if not more efficient job of regulating immigration). The greatest flaw in your argument has been and will be taking for granted that (il)legal immigrants are a bad thing.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-bookworm/2010/07/do_immigrants_help_the_economy.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_n5_v18/ai_18225773/

Side: Good
1 point

All Arizona was doing was trying to establish and follow the law in the books as it is. Arizona is in direct danger from the porous border and they will win this case on 10th amendment grounds easily. If they made up a law or did something different than the law states I see Maobama's point, but alas, he has no point.

Side: Bad