What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?
Now that ALL Mexicans in AZ MUST carry their papers proving citizenship, because the police can stop ANYONE they "reasonably" suspect might be here illegally. Who decides what "reasonable" is?
Martin Niemoller
Communists, Socialists & Jews
Martin Niemoller was a decorated u-boat captain in the First World War but subsequently became a minister of religion and a relatively high profile opponent of the Nazis as they increasingly gained firm hold of the reins to power in Germany.
Niemoeller was active as a leader in a so-called Pastors' Emergency League and in a Synod that denounced the abuses of the dictatorship in the famous "Six Articles of Barmen." Such activities finally led to his arrest on 1 July 1937. When the subsequent court appearance was followed by his release with only a modest 'slap on the wrist' Hitler personally ordered his incarceration with the result that Niemoeller remained in concentration camp, including long periods of solitary confinement, until the end of the war.
Niemoller occasionally traveled internationally after the war and delivered many speeches and sermons in which he confessed of his own blindness and inaction in earlier years when the Nazi regime rounded up the communists, socialists, trade unionists, and, finally, the Jews.
In this regard he framed a now famous quotation that is often presented in a corrupted form. Niemoller himself however lived through the events associated with the Nazi seizure of absolute power and knew which groups had been persecuted by the Nazis and also knew the order in which those groups had come particularly under persecution.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Since preparing the above quotation we have received an e-mail from one of our German visitors who took the trouble to visit the Martin Niemoeller Foundation web site (
www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de) to track down their version of the famous quotation. He has provided the following translation of the quotation available at the Martin Niemoeller Foundation web site:-
When the Nazis came for the communists, I said nothing; I was, of course, no communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; I was, of course, no Social Democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I said nothing; I was, of course, no trade unionist.
When they came for me, there was no one left who could protest.
Now that ALL Mexicans in AZ MUST carry their papers proving citizenship, because the police can stop ANYONE they "reasonably" suspect might be here illegally. Who decides what "reasonable" is?
That's what I've been asking, and haven't heard any thoughts on the subject. Too tricky to respond to: would have to put down "We's AMERICANS" placards to thoroughly comtemplate and discuss that slippery slope. Could we leave the language as open-ended as possible, to allow police officers to use their own personal discretion in such matters? Yeah, that won't be a problem. :eyebrow:
And, as I said initially, will we make them wear armbands?
This is something that Godwin's law (as popularly understood, not as originally phrased) does not apply to.
The governor said she had no idea what would constitute someone looking suspiciously illegal, but she wouldn't tolerate any profiling. And then signed it anyway.
So I guess she just needs to hire psychic cops!
So is being suspicious looking a primary offense? Does anyone know?
Thank you! Do you have a link to anything that explains it further? The news stories are all very vague...
Thank you! Do you have a link to anything that explains it further? The news stories are all very vague...
Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) -- Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill Friday that requires police in her state to determine whether a person is in the United States legally, which critics say will foster racial profiling but supporters say will crack down on illegal immigration.
The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.
The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination.
"This training will include what does and does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is not legally present in the United States," Brewer said after signing the bill.
"Racial profiling is illegal. It is illegal in America, and it's certainly illegal in Arizona," Brewer said.
The rules, to be established in by the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board, are due back to her in May. The law goes into effect 90 days after the close of the legislative session, which has not been determined.
What will Arizona's immigration law do?
Previously, officers could check someone's immigration status only if that person was suspected in another crime.
Brewer's executive order was in response to critics who argue that the new law will lead to racial profiling, saying that most police officers don't have enough training to look past race while investigating a person's legal status.
"As committed as I am to protecting our state from crime associated with illegal immigration, I am equally committed to holding law enforcement accountable should this stature ever be misused to violate an individual's rights," Brewer said.
She added that the law would probably be challenged in courts and that there are those outside Arizona who have an interest in seeing the state fail with the new measure.
"We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves."
The bill is considered to be among the toughest immigration measures in the nation. Supporters say the measure is needed to fill a void left by the federal government's failure to enforce its immigration laws.
Read the full text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (PDF)
Video: Immigration law lead to profiling?
Video: Reaction to Arizona's immigration law
Video: Arizona governor signs immigration bill
Video: Obama: immigration bill 'misguided'
RELATED TOPICS
Immigration
Arizona
Barack Obama
Its leading sponsor, state Sen. Russell Pearce, said this week, "Illegal is not a race; it's a crime."
"We're going to take the handcuffs off of law enforcement. We're going to put them on the bad guy," said Pearce, a Republican.
Fellow Republican state Sen. Frank Antenori said the biggest reason he supported the bill was because a rancher in one of the counties he represents was murdered by someone who crossed the U.S. border with Mexico illegally. He said the person of interest in the killing had crossed the border numerous times and cited other similar violent crimes.
"The citizens of this state are tired of the catch and release that is going on by the federal government where they grab people, they process them, and they take them back and drop them on the other side of the border," Antenori said. "They just come back, and we have no border security down here."
After the signing, the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, which had opposed the measure, issued a statement saying, "law enforcement professionals in the State of Arizona will enforce the provisions of the new law to the best of their abilities."
The state's largest police union, the Arizona Police Association, is in favor of the law.
In the hours leading up to the bill's signing, about 2,000 people rallied at the Arizona capital, and President Barack Obama, in the nation's capital, called the legislation "misguided" but said the federal government must act on the immigration issue.
Read excerpts from remarks Friday by Obama and Brewer
"Our failure to act responsible at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," the president said at a naturalization ceremony for 24 members of the military.
Brewer's counterpart in neighboring New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson, called the new law "a terrible piece of legislation."
"It's against the democratic ideals of this country," he told CNN's "Situation Room." "It's a step backwards. It's impractical."
He said the law would not combat the problem of illegal immigration or take the place of comprehensive reform.
iReport: Share your thoughts on immigration policy
Latino members of Congress also slammed the bill.
"When you institutionalize a law like this one, you are targeting and discriminating at a wholesale level against a group of people," Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, said Tuesday.
Grijalva closed his two district offices Friday when an unidentified caller threatened to blow up his Tucson office and kill his staff members. The caller also said he was going to be "exercising my civil liberties, and I'm shooting Mexicans at the border," according to Grijalva's district director, Ruben Reyes, who fielded one of the calls.
Grijalva and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Task Force on Immigration Reform, had called on Brewer to veto the measure.
Gutierrez is a leading supporter of a proposed overhaul of U.S. immigration laws and said the Arizona issue shows why an overhaul is necessary. He has urged Obama to "put his back into the push" and to let Arizona know that federal law trumps state legislation on immigration.
Challenges expected - Coverage from CNN affiliate KPHO
The Virginia-based Hispanic Leadership Fund also criticized the law, saying in a written statement, "Having to 'carry your papers' is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes -- not of the Constitutional Republic that our Founding Fathers wisely passed on to us. Arizonans and all Americans deserve an immigration system that works, not a draconian big government desecration of the Bill of Rights."
Brewer said that "decades of federal inaction and misguided policies" have created "a dangerous and unacceptable situation."
The governor said Arizona's law mirrors federal statutes on immigration enforcement, "despite the erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise."
Asked what criteria will be used to establish reasonable suspicion of someone's legal status, Brewer said, "I don't know. I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like."
However, she added, her executive order requires the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board to address the issue.
"I know that if AZPOST gets [itself] together, works on this law, puts down the description, that the law will be enforced civilly, fairly and without discriminatory points to it."
Thank you! Do you have a link to anything that explains it further? The news stories are all very vague...
"A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION."
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
.
No, my understanding is from the radio, unfortunately.
have no idea what your point is about this neemroller guy, but I suspect he'd think -- man, it's hot here!
The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.
Is this new? Why wouldn't they have to carry that with them all the time?
The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination.
"This training will include what does and does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is not legally present in the United States," Brewer said after signing the bill.
"Racial profiling is illegal. It is illegal in America, and it's certainly illegal in Arizona," Brewer said.
The rules, to be established in by the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board, are due back to her in May.
There is your answer.
"We're going to take the handcuffs off of law enforcement. We're going to put them on the bad guy," said Pearce, a Republican.
In the hours leading up to the bill's signing, about 2,000 people rallied at the Arizona capital.
Were they there legally or illegally.
Obama "Our failure to act responsible at the federal level..."
I agree with that - same as the last several administrations on this issue.
Brewer said that "decades of federal inaction and misguided policies" have created "a dangerous and unacceptable situation."
Yup
The governor said Arizona's law mirrors federal statutes on immigration enforcement, "despite the erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise."
Is that true? Anyone have a link to what they are? Are they just not being enforced or???
Is this new? Why wouldn't they have to carry that with them all the time?
I was a legal resident of the USA for 13 years before we became citizens. I did not have to 'carry papers'. In fact, I did not carry any form of identification.
I still go for walks around my neighborhood without identification. I have that right. However, in Arizona, I better not do that ever again.
This legislation makes me sick.
Belgium
Everyone above the age of 12 is issued an identity card and from the age of 15 carrying this card at all times is mandatory. For foreigners residing in Belgium similar cards are issued, although they may also carry a passport, a work permit or a (temporary) residence permit.
~~~
France
France has had a national ID card since 1940.
Today, the law mentions only that during a ID check performed by police one can prove his identity "by any means", the validity of which is left to the judgment of the law enforcement official. The decision to accept other documents, with or without the bearer's photograph, is left to the discretion of the law enforcement officer.
Random checks of passers-by ID by the French police are quite common
~~~
Germany
It is compulsory for all German citizens age 16 or older to possess either an identity card or a passport but not to carry one. While police officers and some other officials have a right to demand to see one of those documents, the law does not state that one is obliged to submit the document at that very moment. But as driver's licences are not legally accepted forms of identification in Germany, most persons actually carry their Personalausweis with them.
~~~
Greece
A compulsory, universal ID system based on personal ID cards has been in place in Greece since World War II.
Since 2005, the procedure to issue an ID card has been automated and now all citizens over 12 years of age must have an ID card, which is issued within one work day. Prior to that date, the age of compulsory issue was at 14 and the whole procedure could last several months.
~~~
Italy
Citizens are not required by law to carry the ID card with them at all times, but since it is instead mandatory for a citizen to have his ID card when outside his comune of residence and since a citizen is required to promptly show the ID card to the authorities upon request or face possible retention for identification, Italian citizens are de facto required to have the Identity Card or another ID with them at all times.
~~~
China
The People's Republic of China requires every citizen above the age of 16 to carry an identity card.
~~~
Costa Rica
Every Costa Rican citizen must carry an identity card after turning 18.
~~~
Chile
Every Costa Rican citizen must carry an identity card after turning 18.
and on and on...
Link Belgium
But they're
Belgians
~~~
France
France has had a national ID card since 1940.
Wasn't France occupied by the Nazis then?
~~~
Germany
Nazis, what do you expect?
~~~
Greece
Men are allowed to keep theirs in their boyfriends' rectums.
~~~
Italy
Because if they didn't have IDs, they'd forget their own names.
~~~
China
Come on. In China, it's so easy to get lost in the crowd that IDs don't matter. And everybody has the same description - eyes: brown, hair: brown
~~~
Costa Rica
Who cares?
~~~
Chile
No, kinda warm.
Do all those countries have national healthcare, too?
"A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW...
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
.
Ah, ok thanks, that link is really helpful.
The part you quoted starts here though (bold mine).
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO
24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY
27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE
29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
So I guess it depends on these 'rules' that they haven't made yet will be the determining factor. And either they will conform with the 4th amendment or they won't, and it will be struck down.
I totally agree with the rest of what I've quoted here but would rather see the law fail than be unconstitutional.
United States
All citizens are required to have a Social Security card from childhood, and at age 18 all males are required to register with the United States Selective Service.
but you don't have to carry your government docs with you at all times
have no idea what your point is about this neemroller guy, but I suspect he'd think -- man, it's hot here!
My point is if people other than those targeted by this law don't speak out against it, pretty soon, it won't be long before we get targeted by similar laws and there won't be anyone around to speak out for us.
But the spirit of this law is not to invade our privacy, or force us to 'carry papers'. It's to make it easier for Illegal Aliens to be caught. Because they are Illegal. They can't be 'persecuted' like the poem above's author.... they don't have any rights in this country if they are here illegally. Logically speaking, not practically of course.
Logically speaking, not practically of course.
Therein lies the rub. At least they are doing something. That is more than the the past administrations have done. But again, until we control our own borders nothing will really change.
but you don't have to carry your government docs with you at all times
I do. But I do not really support the idea of everyone carrying national ID cards. But I do think all illegals should be registered or deported.
My point is if people other than those targeted by this law don't speak out against it, pretty soon, it won't be long before we get targeted by similar laws and there won't be anyone around to speak out for us.
Regardless what happens in this case, that scenario is in the future for everyone in this country. As the world population increases, and with it competition for resources, and the radical Islamic factions get more aggressive, it'll become a necessity.
...Because they are Illegal. They can't be 'persecuted' like the poem above's author.... they don't have any rights in this country if they are here illegally. Logically speaking, not practically of course.
As soon as they sneak on the American soil, the scumbags have all kinds of constitutional protections.
then again....if we adopted the practice of gruesomely amputating the left hand of any captured illegal alien, and sending them home to tell the tale......
A group of well placed munitions would fix the issue and funnel the immigrants.
But the spirit of this law is not to invade our privacy, or force us to 'carry papers'.
Not "us", just people worried a cop might think they seem illegal. If you look real legal, you don't need papers.
We're going to the Grand Canyon in August. Does this new law mean we need to travel with our passports to Arizona? I can't find anything anywhere that says what Arizona considers to be proof of citizenship. We're white and speak English well, but it will be summer time and we might all be a little tan by then.
Do we need our passports? If I don't have my passports, and a cop pulls me over for speeding or something, are they legally able to detain us all for a few days while we dig up proof that we are legal?
Driver's license should do it if you get pulled over for speeding glatt. And unless your kids start screaming about you not being their father/parents they shouldn't arouse suspicion...
right, so if you're white enough, and prosperous enough, you won't look suspicious.
some people think (not sure if I'm among them) that the "spirit" of the law is less to address immigration problems, than to address the upcoming election.
right, so if you're white enough, and prosperous enough, you won't look suspicious.
some people think (not sure if I'm among them) that the "spirit" of the law is less to address immigration problems, than to address the upcoming election.
I agree. But it could also be drastic measures, that probably will not hold up in court, to draw attention to the big elephant in the corner of the room, lack of a clear and enforcable immigration policy.
I think it's a tough and emotional problem, with implications not only for security, money, jobs, but also for families, and honestly, we've had bigger fish to fry for a while. Well, ready or not, the issue's on the table now.
I just have a hard to time blaming law enforcement for the immigration problem. You can assume they will abuse their position and use this law to harass people.... but why?
What about hispanic cops? Can we at least assume that they would administer the law correctly?
I don't know jinx, but people just don't trust cops, and illegal aliens certainly have good reason to fear the police. I think a lot of places have probably worked pretty hard to break into that fear to get them to report real crime against them. Now they have that wall back up again. I wonder how many will just not detain or arrest them as the law says they should.
You can assume they will abuse their position and use this law to harass people.... but why?
Will they be abusing their position if it's actually legal for them to do it?
Legal for them to harass people?
The way I read and understood the law, the will have the right to inquire about immigration status of someone they have legally detained for another reason. I guess you could call that harassment, but how else would they know if someone is illegal?
If you're opposed to enforcement of immigration laws to begin with you're not going to agree with any of this, I get that.
According to CNN:
The law, scheduled to go into effect 90 days after the close of the state's legislative session, would require immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times. Previously, officers could check someone's immigration status only if that person was suspected in another crime.
Legal for them to harass people?
The way I read and understood the law, the will have the right to inquire about immigration status of someone they have legally detained for another reason. I guess you could call that harassment, but how else would they know if someone is illegal?
I think the law says that they can pull you over for speeding and instead of giving you a ticket and letting you drive away, they can now give you the ticket and throw you in jail until you can prove you are a citizen. They now have that legal power. Whether they choose to do it to a particular person or not is entirely up to them. If you are a citizen, or a legal immigrant, and don't have papers on you, you will eventually get around to proving that fact and be released from jail, but you will probably consider it a hassle.
they can now give you the ticket and throw you in jail until you can prove you are a citizen. They now have that legal power.
A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
Throwing people in jail is not a reasonable attempt when practical by any stretch of the imagination.
But if you've actually been arrested for something, they will determine your immigration status before you are released. That what it says.
ANY
27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE
29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
30 1373(c).
If I ever get arrested, having to rattle off my soc. sec. number will be the least of my concerns.
if you're driving, you should have your driver's license with you.
can an illegal immigrant get a driver's license in Arizona?
If you're a legal immigrant on a VISA, wouldn't you keep it handy? or know the numbers by heart?
I don't know jinx, but people just don't trust cops, and illegal aliens certainly have good reason to fear the police.
Ya think? Maybe thats because they are criminals. Maybe thats a better term for them. Illegal criminals.
[COLOR="LemonChiffon"](ya I know its a double - that was intentional)[/COLOR]
I don't particularly like the laws vagueness nor do I like the idea of just granting them amnesty. That seems to be a very short-sighted, politically motivated answer.
We'll be in the same position in a few years or a decade again as they will continue to flood through.
Again and again, Until we secure the borders, nothing will change.
The danger with this sort of approach isn't so much the conscious abuse of it, but the way it can be informed by an individual's own prejudices and fears. And that isn't to say I think cops are racist...probably some are, likely many aren't: but we all have some prejudices. Even if we don't hold a particular set of views, our instinctive responses may not always make us proud of ourselves :P
I notice islamic dress in a way I never did before. It was always there; I just didn't really pay it any attention. Now, I notice a group of asian lads in islamic clothes and I feel a kind of tension. If a police officer on the beat notices more as well, and is particularly focused on the anti-extremism agenda, then the addition of arbitrary stop and search powers becomes a dangerous thing. Not because the police officer is necessarily racist, or even anti-Islam: just aware and with the power to stop anyone who looks 'suspicious'.
If the police in Arizona are particularly focusing on the immigration issue; how are they deciding who to stop?
How can you trust cops, but not trust the government. There are trustworthy and untrustworthy individuals in both fields.
can an illegal immigrant get a driver's license in Arizona?
I actually think so, but I'm not positive.
If you're a legal immigrant on a VISA, wouldn't you keep it handy? or know the numbers by heart?
Yes, I would. I always have some form of ID on me - just in case of an emergency.
some people think (not sure if I'm among them) that the "spirit" of the law is less to address immigration problems, than to address the upcoming election.
Well this is a very tenuous position to take politically. The R's sure aren't making any gains with the liberally inclined.
A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
Throwing people in jail is not a reasonable attempt when practical by any stretch of the imagination.
They are not going to let a "suspicious" person go while they make that reasonable attempt to determine their status. Whether you are in "jail," in "lock-up," chained to a desk in the station, or locked in a paddy wagon, it's really all the same. The cops now have the legal authority to prevent you from being free while they check on your status after pulling you over for speeding.
A regular driver's license is not proof of citizenship. You can't use it to cross the US border any more. It shouldn't be enough in Arizona, although I haven't seen a list anywhere of the documentation they accept. Maybe they will accept it.
I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know what these scumbag cops will do. :rolleyes:
The cops now have the legal authority to prevent you from being free while they check on your status after pulling you over for speeding.
They have the legal authority to prevent you from being free while they check your record for warrants and your vehicle reg to see if it's stolen too. What's the difference?
If they are just taking 5 minutes to check some database after pulling you over for speeding, I've got no problem with that. If you are sitting locked up for a day or so while they check it out, I've got a huge problem with that.
Well now, this is an ironic twist, after all of the US State Department's warnings to travelers to Mexico:
MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico's government is warning its citizens about travel to Arizona because of a tough new immigration law there.
The travel alert from the Foreign Relations Department urges Mexicans in Arizona to "act with prudence and respect the framework of local laws."
It says that the law's passage shows "an adverse political atmosphere for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors."
It says that once the law takes effect, foreigners can be detained if they fail to carry immigration documents. While enforcement details are not yet clear, the alert says "it should be assumed that any Mexican citizen could be bothered and questioned for no other reason at any moment."
I figured you all would be eating this shit up... and I was right.
The law as presented is nothing more than an enforcement law. It allows/requires the cops to enforce the standing federal immigration laws during the course of their normal activity. Some Az cities had previously stated they wouldn't permit their officers actively cooperate with ICE agents. This law now leaves allows each officer in AZ the ability to do so even if their mayor/police chief likes to pander to the illegals. (Thank you Phil Gordon)
There are no roadblocks between cities checking papers. No roving patrols grabbing brown people. No plot to turn AZ white. The Nazi analogy might have been off the mark. Just a little.
If a cop pulls over a speeding van and sees 17 people piled in (this happens pretty frequently here) he now is able to inquire as to citizenship or immigration status. Driver License or ANY OTHER FORM OF ID SUPPORTING LEGAL STATUS within the US? Accept your speeding ticket and go on your merry way. If not it is up to the officer's discretion to investigate further or let them continue on their way. Just like they can choose to issue a warning or a ticket. BTW, all non-citizen legal immigrants are required to carry their green card with them already.
This law isn't designed to get brown people, it is designed to allow enforcement of the current standing federal immigration law regardless of the politics of the local leadership.
Personally I think the law is next to useless just like any immigration policy that doesn't start with locking the damn border down tight, but the concept is some evil racist plan to make life uncomfortable for brown people is just stupid.
I figured you all would be eating this shit up... and I was right.
The law as presented is nothing more than an enforcement law. It allows/requires the cops to enforce the standing federal immigration laws during the course of their normal activity.
Not quite.
It goes beyond being an enforcement law and beyond the federal law.
Under the existing federal law, police can (and do) check for papers ONLY after stopping a person for another violation or alleged crime.
Under the new law, police can stop persons on the street and in cars SOLELY based on suspicion that the person may be in the country illegally. It is a new standard above and beyond the existing federal law.
If you dont see the difference, then feel free to call it pandering.
Added:
As an aside, and one of the concerns of the mayor of Phoenix, is the potential liability exposure to the city. If a cop stops and holds a person who may not be carrying papers and the person is a naturalized citizen...there are grounds for a civil lawsuit and substantial financial damages to the city.
Under the new law, police can stop persons on the street and in cars SOLELY based on suspicion that the person may be in the country illegally. It is a new standard above and beyond the existing federal law.
I must have missed that. where did it say that?
I thought it said during the course of LAWFUL CONTACT.
I must have missed that. where did it say that?
I thought it said during the course of LAWFUL CONTACT.
LAWFUL CONTACT now includes the new definition of trespassing.
If you are standing on ANY public or private property and the cops think you are suspicious, they can require you to produce proof of citizenship or legal residency.
I was speaking with an attorney for the organization that represents cities in AZ on another issue today and his greatest concern is the potential liability exposure and the real possibility that cities in AZ will not be able to get liability insurance to cover the far greatest risk of civil suits/awards.
That is one of the myths the opposition is promoting. The law has not been expanded to allow random sweeps. the new law only comes into effect in the course of investigating a crime or a lawful traffic stop.
That is one of the myths the opposition is promoting. The law has not been expanded to allow random sweeps. the new law only comes into effect in the course of investigating a crime or a lawful traffic stop.
Not according to the attorney for AZ cities.
And the text of the law which has a new definition of trespassing:
Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
39 adding section 13-1509, to read:
40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
This goes beyond investigating a crime or a lawful traffic stop (in which cops are already authorized to check for papers).
It is creating a new crime...."trespassing by illegal aliens". Cops could approach anyone on public or private property and hold them if they cannot prove citizenship or legal residency.
After lawful contact is made, a cop is suspicious that a person is illegal. Person says "no, I have papers, just not on me". Person is now considered trespassing and may be held until immigration status is confirmed.
Police can not stop person on the street based solely on immigration status suspicion.
After lawful contact is made, a cop is suspicious that a person is illegal. Person says "no, I have papers, just not on me". Person is now considered trespassing and may be held until immigration status is confirmed.
Police can not stop person on the street based solely on immigration status suspicion.
The interpretation I had from the city attorney was that cops can absolutely approach any person on the street under the "trespassing by illegal alien" provision of this law, assuming "reasonable cause" (undefined) and suspicion (undefined) and charge them with trespassing by an alien unless the person can show that he is a citizen or legal resident.
That is now the underlying crime and lawful contact (the cop is investigating possible "trespassing by illegal alien")...no need for a reliance on investigating a separate crime or traffic stop for a separate violation.
This goes beyond investigating a crime or a lawful traffic stop (in which cops are already authorized to check for papers).
They are? Then why aren't the CA cops allowed to check for legal residency, even when they make an arrest?
They are? Then why aren't the CA cops allowed to check for legal residency, even when they make an arrest?
The federal law allows it.
AZ currently does it. CA has chosen not to do so.....blame Arnold.
The interpretation I had from the city attorney was that cops can absolutely approach any person on the street under the "trespassing by illegal alien" provision of this law, assuming "reasonable cause" (undefined) and suspicion (undefined) and charge them with trespassing by an alien unless the person can show that he is a citizen or legal resident.
That is now the underlying crime and lawful contact (the cop is investigating possible "trespassing by illegal alien")...no need for a reliance on investigating a separate crime or traffic stop for a separate violation.
I'm sorry, I can't just take your word for it over what is actually written in the law.
If what you are saying were actually the case, it would be a clear 4th amendment violation and not worth the paper its written on.
I'm sorry, I can't just take your word for it over what is actually written in the law.
If what you are saying were actually the case, it would be a clear 4th amendment violation and not worth the paper its written on.
You shouildnt take my word or the city attorney's word....but it is the interpretation of many attorneys.
The DOJ is currently reviewing the law for just that reason.
It is not unheard of for states to pass laws that clearly violate the Constitution....one only needs to look at many recent state abortion laws that have been thrown out.
Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. Illegal search and seizure is.
Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. Illegal search and seizure is.
Agreed.
It is not a perfect analogy...but abortion is a protected Constitutional right (within limits).
States often enact laws that they hope are written in such a manner as to stand the test..but suspect might be unconstitutional (but popular), with the intent of getting a federal ruling on exactly how far a state law can go before crossing the legal line.
I'm not suggesting that is the case here, but it is not unheard of.
Again and again, Until we secure the borders, nothing will change.
And that's a fact.
LAWFUL CONTACT now includes the new definition of trespassing.
If you are standing on ANY public or private property and the cops think you are suspicious, they can require you to produce proof of citizenship or legal residency.
I was speaking with an attorney for the organization that represents cities in AZ on another issue today and his greatest concern is the potential liability exposure and the real possibility that cities in AZ will not be able to get liability insurance to cover the far greatest risk of civil suits/awards.
:lol: what bs....
The federal law allows it.
AZ currently does it. CA has chosen not to do so.....blame Arnold.
Blame the violent protests by the Hispanic support groups who oppose any kind of control.
Blame the violent protests by the Hispanic support groups who oppose any kind of control.
What violent protests in Cali?
Cite?
Seizing the Post Office, stealing the American flag, and running up the Mexican flag.
Seizing the Post Office, stealing the American flag, and running up the Mexican flag.
I dont recall that.
Was it one person? a group?
Cite?
I do recall the immigration rally in Los Angeles a few years ago...one of the largest ever....half a million people.....no violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_immigration_reform_protests
What is more violent....waving a Mexican flag or the backlash by the opposition of burning a Mexican flag in front of the Mexican embassy?
if you're driving, you should have your driver's license with you.
can an illegal immigrant get a driver's license in Arizona?
If you're a legal immigrant on a VISA, wouldn't you keep it handy? or know the numbers by heart?
You are supposed to, but the cost and hassle of replacing it if it gets lost/stolen by some illegals wanting papers to doctor means most legal immigrants lock them safely away. Fortunately for me, I'm white and I have a Michigan Driver's licence. Well I did until I got it stolen in Santa Fe. Then I was lucky that I had my passport/greencard with me when I was stopped by a cop. Maybe i was also lucky that my whiteness wasn't stolen :rolleyes:
Remember the number? no wai. Wouldn't help anyway.
(I don't even know my social security number.)
Seizing the Post Office, stealing the American flag, and running up the Mexican flag.
How many people were injured or killed?
Meanwhile, in 2010 .... an economic boycott of Arizona is cooking up. The first cancellation? The annual conference of the National Immigration Lawyers Association. Yah really. :lol:
How many people were injured or killed?
85% of them
85% of them
85% of all of them, or just upper management?
Meanwhile, in 2010 .... an economic boycott of Arizona is cooking up. The first cancellation? The annual conference of the National Immigration Lawyers Association. Yah really. :lol:
Mom's leaving the damn state, and taking her small business and not-inconsiderable retirement dollars with her. She's writing letters to that effect to all her duly elected representatives.
She got a postcard in her mailbox addressed to "resident" that said:
Arizona is for White Christians! GOD AND GUNS!
She can't wait to leave that backwards shithole.
Mom's leaving the damn state, and taking her small business and not-inconsiderable retirement dollars with her. She's writing letters to that effect to all her duly elected representatives.
She got a postcard in her mailbox addressed to "resident" that said:
Arizona is for White Christians! GOD AND GUNS!
She can't wait to leave that backwards shithole.
Her leaving is good. It makes room for all the bigots who will be rushing to AZ.
Of course you don't, it's not in your talking points.
Thanks for the link. Those who did that broke the law and should have been arrested.
But I dont see a pattern of violence or even any violence...quite the opposite in most demonstrations.
And your disparaging comment about talking points was very helpful as well.
So do you think that one event in Maywood is responsible for California not opting in to enforce the federal law?
Its a shame you dont hold your boy Merc to the same standards regarding talking points.
Once again, you demonstrated your double standards.
So, Fuck You...Mr. Fair and Balanced Moderator.
No, fuck you. Why can't you get it through your thick head being a moderator has nothing to do with what I post. I'm not fair and balanced, I'm opinionated, and they're my own like every other poster.
Don't try to lump me in with Merc and his wacko right wing nonsense, any more than you and your wacko left wing nonsense. You are both so fucking predictable I can skip pages of posts and pick right up where your pissing match left off.
Her leaving is good. It makes room for all the bigots who will be rushing to AZ.
As much as I like living in Scottsdale, AZ and working for MAW, this has gotten me to seriously think about leaving the state.
No, fuck you. Why can't you get it through your thick head being a moderator has nothing to do with what I post. I'm not fair and balanced, I'm opinionated, and they're my own like every other poster.
Don't try to lump me in with Merc and his wacko right wing nonsense, any more than you and your wacko left wing nonsense. You are both so fucking predictable I can skip pages of posts and pick right up where your pissing match left off.
Thanks for the feedback!
I guess you only use your Mod privileges to delete a post of your own that was offensive to some....beyond the period when others have the same privileges.
Right...You're not predictable at all.. Keep doing what you do and I will keep pointing out your double standards.
Oh OK, you do that Mr Professional (as in paid to endorse) left wing poster.
Arizona "Papers, Please" Law May Hit Tech Workers on Tuesday April 27, @11:56PM
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday April 27, @11:56PM
from the don't-know-jack-boots dept.
business
dcblogs writes "H-1B workers and foreign students may think twice about attending school or working in Arizona as a result of the state's new immigration law. If a police officer has a 'reasonable suspicion' about the immigration status of someone, the officer may ask to see proof of legal status. Federal immigration law requires that all non-US citizens, including H-1B workers, to carry documentation, but 'no state until Arizona has made it a crime to not have that paperwork on your person,' said immigration lawyer Sarah Hawk. It means that an H-1B holder risks detention every time they make a 7-11 run if they don't have their papers, or if their paperwork is out of date because US immigration authorities are behind in processing (which condition does not make them illegal). The potential tech backlash over the law may have begun yesterday with a call by San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera 'to adopt and implement a sweeping boycott of the State of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses.'"
Meanwhile, in 2010 .... an economic boycott of Arizona is cooking up. The first cancellation? The annual conference of the National Immigration Lawyers Association. Yah really. :lol:
AZ officials are probably more concerned about the real possibility of losing the 2011 All Star game...much like they lost the Super Bowl in the early 90s as a result of being the only state not to adopt the Martin Luther King Holiday.
That boycott cost the state $hundreds of millions in lost conventions, tourism, etc.
Something similar happened in the early 1990s, when the voters of Arizona failed to endorse a holiday for Martin Luther King. The estimated cost to Arizona businesses during 1991 and 1992 was $340 million. The National Football League pulled the 1993 Super Bowl out of Phoenix, moving it to Pasadena.
Up now? Major League Baseball. The 2011 All-Star game is slated to be held at the home of the Diamondbacks.
For a sport that relies heavily on Latinos for its players, the idea of holding the game in a state where they may be asked to show they're entitled to be in the country strikes the wrong chord. Over a quarter of Major League Baseball players (27 percent) are Latino, and some of its biggest stars have last names like Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Ramirez, or Hernandez.
http://www.open.salon.com/blog/tony_wang/2010/04/27/the_potential_cost_of_arizonas_immigration_law
And for the record, I am not paid to endorse any position and never have been since my short stint in the US Senate staff in the early 80s.
Damn those Latino sluggers, taking jobs from good, white AMERICAN boys!!
Damn those Latino sluggers, taking jobs from good, white AMERICAN boys!!
Thanks for the link. Those who did that broke the law and should have been arrested.
So do you think that one event ...
It wasn't just one event. There have been others.
Again and again, until we secure our borders and do this properly then nothing is going to change. This just adds fire to the extremists on both sides.
City workers banned from official travel to Arizona
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona after the state enacted a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.
The ban on city employee travel to Arizona takes effect immediately, although there are some exceptions, including for law enforcement officials investigating a crime, officials said.
Link
Good - stay in CA and fix your own problems.
"secure the borders." what an absolutely nonsensical phrase.
"secure the borders." what an absolutely nonsensical phrase.
Do you say this because you think it would be too hard, or because you disagree with the concept?
A sovereign nation would not remain as such for very long without defined and defended borders, don't you think?
Wiki
The current notion of state sovereignty was laid down in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which, in relation to states, codified the basic principles of territorial integrity, border inviolability, and supremacy of the state (rather than the Church). A sovereign is a supreme lawmaking authority.
I'll readily admit I don't know how to get it done, but I don't understand why wanting secure borders is nonsensical.
Mom's leaving the damn state, and taking her small business and not-inconsiderable retirement dollars with her. She's writing letters to that effect to all her duly elected representatives.
She got a postcard in her mailbox addressed to "resident" that said:
Arizona is for White Christians! GOD AND GUNS!
She can't wait to leave that backwards shithole.
Good for her, Pie.
It's amazing to me that your posts here about your mother's experiences have gone virtually ignored. I guess real life instances, events happening to someone (the mother of someone) we know are not admissible as evidence of how fucked up the whole thing is.
Maybe you're just racist in your unsettled and disgusted feeling that all of this is the wrong way to go. Maybe you're being reactionary, without knowing the facts? Facts, as we must define them here, do not include actual events. Or something.
People want their land back.:3_eyes:...2 hundred 50 some odd years later. It is a grand excuse to live off the benefits of the American government without even attempting,I'm assuming, to become a citizen FIRST.
Lame lame lame..... "Hey I'm illegal but hey umm this country was ours first...so .......we are going to stand up for principles" [is truly weird logic]
People want their land back.:3_eyes:...2 hundred 50 some odd years later. It is a grand excuse to live off the benefits of the American government without even attempting,I'm assuming, to become a citizen FIRST.
Lame lame lame..... "Hey I'm illegal but hey umm this country was ours first...so .......we are going to stand up for principles" [is truly weird logic]
Do you think signs like this are representative of the immigration reform protest movement as a whole..rather than representing a minority of the fringe protesters?
It seems to me to be tarring the larger movement based on the actions of a few....much like the criticism of tarring the Tea Party based on the few extremists signs at their rallies.
Remember, guys, I live on the border, so my viewpoint may be different than yours.
First, it's nonsensical because the border between Mexico and the US has been "secured" in the ordinary understanding of the term. Fences, a river, ports of entry, checkpoints, guards on both sides--the whole nine yards. BUT -- there's really no way to physically cut off the entire border. It's just not practical--The Fence notwithstanding. There's too much of it, it's too isolated, fences can be dug under, guards avoided. It's nonsensical to imagine that we can totally "secure" it.
Second, the glib phrase "secure the border" is pissing me off, because it demonstrates absolutely no understanding of the reality here, or compassion for the people involved. The border is a fictional construct that neither reflects the past or the present. Just because Texas fought with Mexico and established a line in the sand, does not mean that the people who live here, and have always lived here, should have no rights. The region is a geographical and cultural whole. The reality is the people in question, the Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and Americans of Mexican, Spanish, and Native American descent, were here first. They live a bi-national life, and have done so for centuries. Families and jobs are bi-national here. They are hurting, big time, because of the violence which we have, in part contributed to, and they need help, not a door slammed in their faces.
So, to me, that phrase is just a sound bite for the white people to rally about. To me, it's rude, naive, and self-righteous, not to mention impractical and lacking in compassion.
Having said all that, I agree that immigration reform is needed. I am not trying to make excuses for illegals or support them. I agree that people here illegally should not be using our services, or taking advantage of the rights of citizens. I agree that drug fueled violence is partly our problem (but not all). I agree that better border security is needed. But believing that "securing" the borders is an answer to all the current problems is, well . . . nonsensical. It's just a pat phrase that lends nothing to any solution.
... It is a grand excuse to live off the benefits of the American government without even attempting,I'm assuming, to become a citizen FIRST...
Assume away. Most anecdotal evidence is that illegals are the people in the service sector working for less than minimum wage, with no employer-provided benefits or employer-withheld taxes. They're the people who work long hours, since it's at low wages, mowing your lawn, washing dishes at your restaurant, emptying your septic tank, cleaning your hotel room, etc.
I have said "secure the border" repeatedly, so I'll respond in kind.
I do not know how to do it - no idea. well maybe one - There is this great wall I've heard about in China. Only problem is it would take a lot of people and resources and with the economy doing so well and unemployment so low - oh wait, never mind.
To this little tidbit
rude, naive, and self-righteous, not to mention impractical and lacking in compassion.
rude - Why/how?
self-righteous - You are smarter than that.
impractical - see below.
lacking in compassion - for whom? The criminals who have been coming here illegally? Perhaps. For Americans - not in the least.
Now regarding your - Reality rant. That was settled a long time ago.
Perhaps its the phraseology you don't like. Instead of secure - I'll try it this way; "Control our Borders" and by that I mean to control the influx of illegal immigrants, which are by definition criminals, from coming here. I know you see it differently, but coming here illegally makes one a criminal - period. That part of this
IS that simple.
Has the problem gotten completely out of hand due to the lack of inaction over the last half dozen administration - YES.
But doing nothing now doesn't change that trend. We simply CAN NOT afford the status quo.
I wholeheartedly welcome and respect all those who chose to uproot their families and their lives to come here LEGALLY. Please do not mistake the two - at least from me.
Cloud, that was a damn fine post.
Most anecdotal evidence is that illegals are the people in the service sector working for less than minimum wage,
You mean the legally mandated wage?
Do you think signs like this are representative of the immigration reform protest movement as a whole..rather than representing a minority of the fringe protesters?
It seems to me to be tarring the larger movement based on the actions of a few....much like the criticism of tarring the Tea Party based on the few extremists signs at their rallies.
I gotta bookmark this post.
Do you think signs like this are representative of the immigration reform protest movement as a whole..rather than representing a minority of the fringe protesters?
Obviously not. Why would anyone see THAT as the whole of the problem? I don't know anyone that dumb. Now if the people protesting had put the wording of spexxies quote ( shown below )on that poster board maybe it would have seemed less than a fringe protest. It might get a little more empathy.
by spex modified.Bold mine. We're the people in the service sector working for less than minimum wage, with no employer-provided benefits or employer-withheld taxes. We're the people who work long hours, since it's at low wages, mowing your lawn, washing dishes at your restaurant, emptying your septic tank, cleaning your hotel room, etc.
I changed the wording from 'they're to we're'. A great post for ? what? Empathy? What are comments like that suppose to do for the issue?
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=652299&postcount=97...I do not know how to do it - no idea. well maybe one - There is this great wall I've heard about in China.
Don't forget the ones that fly in. :p:
...Only problem is it would take a lot of people and resources and with the economy doing so well and unemployment so low - oh wait, never mind.
....
[conspiracy]Those unemployed folks might like to make some cash building a wall between Mexico and the US of A. And I'll bet they'll do it for cheap! Wasn't that the plan when they wire terminated from their employment?[/theory]
You mean the legally mandated wage?
Interesting... Who is breaking the law - the employer who pays less than minimum wage or the employee who accepts minimum wage? I say the employer is breaking the law (surprise).
Don't forget the ones that fly in.
I'm glad you find it humorous - Whats the percentage that fly in versus every other means?
Interesting... Who is breaking the law - the employer who pays less than minimum wage or the employee who accepts minimum wage? I say the employer is breaking the law (surprise).
I'm all for prosecuting and penalizing both parties.
Cloud, that was a damn fine post.
Agreed
There are no roadblocks between cities checking papers. No roving patrols grabbing brown people. No plot to turn AZ white. The Nazi analogy might have been off the mark. Just a little.
I agree with this. I might be completely wrong in this situation, but from my personal experience, any time the police seem to get new powers that could hypothetically be abused, it rarely happens because it is not worth the police officer's time. There will be a few cases of abuse by a racist cop or two but I am guessing this law will not have a much impact in stopping illegal immigration or lead to increase of police abuse from racial profiling.
Laws like this tend to have other, more logical reasons, behind it. But, from an opposition standpoint, a good argument I've heard is that with the lack of funding to Arizona's police officers, this will probably not do much because of a lack of training and other things.
BTW, there are roadblocks between cities checking papers. There are Border Patrol check stations; there's one between here and Albuquerque, for instance. Everyone must stop and be inspected. They check for drugs, for terrorist activities, and for human trafficking (I assume--don't know exactly what their mandate is).
No, they never check my papers, because I'm a middle aged white woman.
furthermore, there are "roving patrols grabbing brown people." What do you think the Border Patrol does?
caveat: I live in Texas, not Arizona.
... Whats the percentage that fly in versus every other means?
...
Why do percentages matter? Gotta get them all.
Cloud, that was a damn fine post.
Thirded.
Thirded.
I was pretty impressed by it as well.
Why do percentages matter? Gotta get them all.
Really? If we solved, hypothetically 90% of this problem you'd still be dissatisfied? :eyebrow:
"Controlling" the borders is fine, and worthwhile. Compassion showed, yes, even to illegals, who are almost always between a rock and a hard place, and their families, who are often legal, is essential.
This is more than an abstract political question to me. It directly affects 100% of the people around me. My life has been intimately entwined with Mexico, with Mexicans, with Mexican Americans forever. I'm a Western girl, brought up in the areas of the US that used to belong to Spain. I've visited Mexico since I was very small, I speak Spanish. My parents sponsored entire families to get their green cards and subsequent citizenship. My parents retired in Mexico, I went to college there, I fell in love with a Mexican and had a child with him who had dual citizenship until she was 21. I'm about as Mexican as I can get without actually being one. So, yeah--I'm empathetic to the problem.
Presently, I am seeing families torn apart, and people fleeing from violence. I am seeing the complex, and completely intertwined relationships--business, economic, social, and familial that form across the border. I don't particularly want illegal aliens here, but I decry the simplistic approach of just "securing the borders" or "sending them all back to where they came from."
Am I for "control" of the border? Am I for a better immigration scheme? Sure! But I urge everyone to consider that no single phrase or simple approach is sensible to apply to this very difficult and heartrending problem.
I was pretty impressed by it as well.
Add me to this growing list!
...
But I urge everyone to consider that no single phrase or simple approach is sensible to apply to this very difficult and heartrending problem.
Good Gawd--we need to assign a special task force to this problem ASAP: we need a better catchphrase!!!1
"Controlling" the borders is fine, and worthwhile.
We agree.
This is more than an abstract political question to me. It directly affects 100% of the people around me. ~snip~ So, yeah--I'm empathetic to the problem.
That was obvious from your first post. You have a perspective that is very different than mine. Thats one of the things I love about interacting here. The diversity.
I am seeing the complex, and completely intertwined relationships--business, economic, social, and familial that form across the border. I don't particularly want illegal aliens here, but I decry the simplistic approach of just "securing the borders" or "sending them all back to where they came from."
BUT - and yes thats a big butt. Something has to be done. We cannot just grant them all immunity. Nor can we just send them all back.
We have to get a handle on the vast numbers of them coming here illegally. Until that takes place, there are no real solutions.
One of the positives I see out of this law is that it has brought this back to the forefront and may force the current administration to address the problem. Unfortunately, I think it will be more of a politically motivated policy.
Am I for "control" of the border? Am I for a better immigration scheme? Sure! But I urge everyone to consider that no single phrase or simple approach
AGREED!
Don't forget it's not just Mexicans. Mexico is the highway into the US for people from all over Central and South America.
Don't forget it's not just Mexicans. Mexico is the highway into the US for people from all over Central and South America.
You're right, it would be more racially sensitive and politically correct to use the inclusive term "brown people" in this case.
I can get pretty brown in the summer. I object!
Presently, I am seeing families torn apart, and people fleeing from violence. I am seeing the complex, and completely intertwined relationships--business, economic, social, and familial that form across the border. I don't particularly want illegal aliens here, but I decry the simplistic approach of just "securing the borders" or "sending them all back to where they came from."
The level of violence is almost unreal... must be terrifying.
Help me understand what is tearing families apart. Is there anything stopping people from crossing the border as frequently as they want? I understand it's gotta be inconvenient*, but it's not like it's new or anything.... that border has been there longer than most of the people crossing it have been alive.
I don't particularly want illegal aliens here either... it's not so much the 'undocumented workers' I have a problem with, it's the violent gang-bangers from mexico and central america that have no intention of being anything but a danger to the rest of us that really bug me... But at the same time, I think that if the border was actually secure I would have no problem offering amnesty to every illegal alien in the country that goes and gets signed up with Social Security immediately. But we can't have what's going on now, with the uncontrolled border and welfare state together. The math just doesn't work - see not enough $$ to train AZ cops properly etc.
*I just watched a show about a Canadian border town, border right down the middle of town, residents having to cross several times a day. Prior to 911 they just waved to Bob at the gate, now it's a whole thing with security everywhere. Pain in the ass but they seem to have a sense of humor about it, on both sides.
BTW, there are roadblocks between cities checking papers.
Yeah, I remember a roadblock checking for illegals when we left San Diego years ago, heading north. Had to be almost 20 years ago now...
it is certainly much harder now, and more harrowing to travel--in Juarez, not here. There's a lot of movement around, as people are moving their families here, or moving some of them around from outlying areas, like Fort Hancock. Certainly the violence has puts a toll on families and caused untold suffering and separations, but I'm thinking more in terms of families where the parents are here and are the breadwinners, but illegal, but their children were born here. The kids are citizens--what should they do when the parents are arrested and deported? I'm sure there are other scenarios, and I suppose some of you will simply say, well, they weren't supposed to be here at all, send them and their kids back. But back into a war zone?
I don't know what the answer is, but I don't agree that these people don't have rights, or that we should just dismiss them without considering the human viewpoint.
You're right, it would be more racially sensitive and politically correct to use the inclusive term "brown people" in this case.
No.
"The fact of the matter is, undocumented folks are literally from the four corners of the planet," says Arturo Venegas, a former Sacramento, Calif., police chief and the project director of the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, which opposes the Arizona measure. Illegal aliens can be blond Brits or black Jamaicans or olive-skinned Mexicans. And while this last description may apply to most of the undocumented in Arizona, it's not very helpful either.
link
I don't particularly want illegal aliens here either... it's not so much the 'undocumented workers' I have a problem with, it's the violent gang-bangers from mexico and central america that have no intention of being anything but a danger to the rest of us that really bug me... But at the same time, I think that if the border was actually secure I would have no problem offering amnesty to every illegal alien in the country that goes and gets signed up with Social Security immediately.
The bottom line is that until we find a sensible alternative to the drug war we won't have a reasonable chance of resolving the illegal immigration issue.
The bottom line is that until we find a sensible alternative to the drug war we won't have a reasonable chance of resolving the illegal immigration issue.
Quoted for truth.
The bottom line is that until we find a sensible alternative to the drug war we won't have a reasonable chance of resolving the illegal immigration issue.
I'd love to hear one.
Personally, I'd like to see home-grown drugs (specifically pot, no one should be dying or going to jail over pot) controls relaxed, freeing up money to spend on stopping the imported poison. Asking nicely won't work unfortunately.
The various wars in central america have sent us millions of people, many trained guerilla fighters with no other skills. What are we supposed to do about this?
...The various wars in central america have sent us millions of people, many trained guerilla fighters with no other skills. What are we supposed to do about this?
Well since they are already trained, let's give them teaching credentials and set them up in our inner city schools.
It might improve test scores.
no one likes to think their friends and cow orkers are insensitive bigots.
I'm disappointed.
who's an insensitive bigot now?
Yeah, I hate others. jerks.
Assume away. Most anecdotal evidence is that illegals are the people in the service sector working for less than minimum wage, with no employer-provided benefits or employer-withheld taxes. They're the people who work long hours, since it's at low wages, mowing your lawn, washing dishes at your restaurant, emptying your septic tank, cleaning your hotel room, etc.
Cite.
Don't forget the ones that fly in. :p:
[conspiracy]Those unemployed folks might like to make some cash building a wall between Mexico and the US of A. And I'll bet they'll do it for cheap! Wasn't that the plan when they wire terminated from their employment?[/theory]
Cite.
Interesting... Who is breaking the law - the employer who pays less than minimum wage or the employee who accepts minimum wage? I say the employer is breaking the law (surprise).
Those Damm employees. Fire those workers now and end this disparity!
Sue Schwartz says she's been called a racist so many times she doesn't mind the label anymore. If wanting immigrants to enter the country legally, like her great-grandparents from Mexico, and obey the laws of the land makes her racist, then so be it, she says firmly.
"I'm getting to the point I wear it with pride," says Schwartz, a lifelong Arizonan who has warily watched the growth of the illegal immigrant population in the state over the course of her life.
Of equal concern to her friend, Martha Payan, is how she says illegal immigrants "fleece" government coffers by collecting welfare on multiple children, or vanish without a trace after an arrest or a hospital visit.
Anna Gaines, a Mexican-born U.S. citizen, says she took up the fight against illegal immigration after becoming disillusioned by the attitudes of immigrant families that she witnessed as a teacher in the Paradise Valley School District in Paradise, Arizona.
"Many of these families were having one child after another just to earn a paycheck from the U.S. government and they didn't care about their children's education," says Gaines, the controversial founder of American Citizens United, a grass-roots organization known for its extreme views on immigration enforcement. "They didn't want to contribute, just take."
LinkThe plural of anecdote is not statistics.
Statistics lie.
To roughly quote Mark Twain:
"There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies and statistics."
By the way,
they rewrote the law, for Jinx.;)
Yeah, hopefully its clear enough that even CNN and redux's lawyer can understand it now.
Yeah, hopefully its clear enough that even CNN and redux's lawyer can understand it now.
I dont know that it clarifies much.
The underlying crime is now a new state crime of being in the country w/o documentation.
The Constitutional questions remain.
Can a state enact a law that makes being in the country illegally a state crime OR is that solely a federal government responsibility and thus, can only be a federal crime.
As Merc pointed out, the Constitutional specifically identifies "standard rules of naturalization" as a power of Congress. It is not one of those powers that is ceded to the states.
And then you have the 4th amendment search and seizure issue and the 14th amendment due process and equal protection issues....all of which depends on the interpretation of "reasonable cause" or "suspicion" which is still undefined.
I dont know the answers, but I think it needs to be answered by the federal courts.
Yeah, ok, whatever. I don't think it's that complicated.
Yeah, ok, whatever. I don't think it's that complicated.
When it is that controversial in terms of its legal merits, why not let the federal courts decide?
What is so controversial about the legal merits?
Illegal aliens can be legally approached "contacted" by law enforcement for the all same reasons as everyone else. If they want special treatment in that regard they can go fuck themselves repeatedly.
There's nothing controversial on it's face, the controversy comes in because some people disagree with immigration law period.
So take your fight there. You want open borders? Tell us why.
I never said I want open borders. I want laws that meet Constitutional standards and are legally enforceable.
The most interesting legal issue is if the state can make illegal immigration a state crime, which is what the law does. Or is the crime of illegal immigration solely a federal prerogative as identified in the Constitution as a power of Congress.
And whether it is controversial to you or not, and whether you or I disagree on the legal merits, it is controversial to many attorneys, law enforcement officials, local government officials and others.
That is why we have a federal judiciary. If the courts determine it is legal, I might not like it, but I will accept it.
it is controversial to many attorneys, law enforcement officials, local government officials and others.
All of whom have a great deal at stake and not just financially.
All of whom have a great deal at stake and not just financially.
All of them?
Many legal experts who have expressed concern about the law have only the Constitution in mind. Many local elected officials and police chiefs in AZ are concerned about liability exposure since there is no clear standard of what constitutes "reasonable cause" or "suspicious behavior."
You can ignore the legal issues and attempt to make it all about politics and money. As convenient as it might be to deflect the argument away from the legal questions, that in itself is acting politically.
I honestly dont understand what is so wrong with having the federal judiciary determine the constitutionality of the AZ law (or any law where there are controversial legal questions). Perhaps you can explain why that would be so bad.
As an aside:
While not pointing any fingers here, its funny how many conservatives are all gung ho about questioning the constitutionality of a federal law they dont like (health reform) but for some reason, have a problem with others questioning the constitutionality of a state law that those conservatives like.
You answered that yourself, federal and state.
You answered that yourself, federal and state.
How so?
The core issue, putting aside the 4th and 14th amendment issues, is whether a state can make a law that the Constitution says is solely the prerogative of Congress....and there is something called the Supremacy Clause as well which often comes into play when determining the constitutionality of state laws.
If illegal immigration can only be a federal crime, then it raises question about a state law that makes illegal immigration a state crime.
I am not suggestion that it applies in this case. I dont know, but some constitutional experts believe it does apply and I think it is a legitimate question. The federal judiciary should make that determination.
You asked what is bothering conservatives. I told you. I'm not defending their position.
You asked what is bothering conservatives. I told you. I'm not defending their position.
Ah...I get it now.
They are big on states rights....until a state legislates in a manner they dont like. Then they wave the Constitution.
By the way, they rewrote the law, for Jinx.;)
That's bullshit political correctness. Just because the law says you can't racially profile doesn't mean it won't happen any more than laws against unethical behavior by our legislators work. You'd think people could understand that.
Ah...I get it now.
They are big on states rights....until a state legislates in a manner they dont like. Then they wave the Constitution.
Conservatives believe that the person closest to the decision should have the job of making the decision. Unless that person is deciding what gender to marry or whether to have an abortion. Then it's the conservatives' job to make the decision.
Just because the law says you can't racially profile doesn't mean it won't happen any more than laws against unethical behavior by our legislators work.
You know why the American government didn't put German immigrants into
internment camps like they did for the Japanese immigrants during WWII? Because there were just too dang many of them. If you had walked down an urban street in the southwest recently, you would realize that if the police were using nothing but skin color to determine suspicion, they'd never finish the job.
If this law had been enacted in Ohio, then I'd say yes, there would absolutely be racial profiling going on. Down here, Hispanics are like 30% of the population. Too many to profile on any meaningful generalized level.
I'm wondering why some of you seem to WANT to be upset by this. And why it is the 'Liberals' that seem to have the biggest objections.
How is this a Liberal vs Conservative issue at all? is it just habit?
All of them?
Many legal experts who have expressed concern about the law have only the Constitution in mind.
sure they do. :rolleyes:
You can ignore the legal issues and attempt to make it all about politics and money. As convenient as it might be to deflect the argument away from the legal questions, that in itself is acting politically.
First off, I am not ignoring the legal issues. Secondly, everything about this is political. If you don't think it is, you are sadly mistaken or ...
Something needs to be done. Arizona has asked the current and past administrations for help. They ignored them. Now they are doing something to solve the problem. That's a good thing. Is it constitutional - dunno, thats for the lawyers to decide. Either way, it certainly has brought the illegal immigration to the forefront.
I honestly dont understand what is so wrong with having the federal judiciary determine the constitutionality of the AZ law . Perhaps you can explain why that would be so bad.
Where did I say it would? You're very good at wording
your comments, much like a politician, where claims are put onto another person/poster when they weren't made by that person/poster.
As an aside:
While not pointing any fingers here, [/QUOTE]
Pulease
Conservatives believe that the person closest to the decision should have the job of making the decision. Unless that person is deciding what gender to marry or whether to have an abortion. Then it's the conservatives' job to make the decision.
To quote you - That's bullshit.:eyebrow:
And why it is the 'Liberals' that seem to have the biggest objections.
How is this a Liberal vs Conservative issue at all?
VOTES which equals power and control.
I'm wondering why some of you seem to WANT to be upset by this. And why it is the 'Liberals' that seem to have the biggest objections.
How is this a Liberal vs Conservative issue at all? is it just habit?
Liberals fear the police state as conservatives fear the regulatory state, that is the habit part. Politically, this is just Republicans pandering to their base, once again tying to make the liberals look anti-American while at the same time getting the jump on the Democrat's up-coming Federal immigration legislation. The racist part is mostly to get liberals upset enough to vote, but there is a core group of racists in the Republican party who will be soothed by a States Rights push that will only impact brown people, if you ignore the budget blowing incarceration aspect of the thing.
How much more dangerous does this make the policeman's job? Traffic stops become high stakes situations.
sure they do. :rolleyes:
First off, I am not ignoring the legal issues. Secondly, everything about this is political. If you don't think it is, you are sadly mistaken or ...
Something needs to be done. Arizona has asked the current and past administrations for help. They ignored them. Now they are doing something to solve the problem. That's a good thing. Is it constitutional - dunno, thats for the lawyers to decide. Either way, it certainly has brought the illegal immigration to the forefront.
Where did I say it would? You're very good at wording your comments, much like a politician, where claims are put onto another person/poster when they weren't made by that person/poster.
As an aside:
While not pointing any fingers here,
Pulease
Do you ever give politicians credit for acting altruistically? Or in this case, legal experts with nothing to gain.
I certainly have never seen it.
I'd love to hear one.
Personally, I'd like to see home-grown drugs (specifically pot, no one should be dying or going to jail over pot) controls relaxed, freeing up money to spend on stopping the imported poison. Asking nicely won't work unfortunately.
This is a good place to start. Stiff pot taxes could pay for a lot of anti-chemical programming.
... Arizona has asked the current and past administrations for help. They ignored them....
See? It's all Bush's fault! :lol2:
To quote you - That's bullshit.:eyebrow:
You really don't think that's true? Think about it....
You really don't think that's true? Think about it....
I would also suggest to Classic that he rethink his assertion that ALL of those legal experts, local officials, police chiefs, etc. who have expressed concern about the law have done so for political or financial reasons.
The racist part is mostly to get liberals upset enough to vote, but there is a core group of racists in the Republican party who will be soothed by a States Rights push that will only impact brown people, if you ignore the budget blowing incarceration aspect of the thing.
Is it possibly, in your mind, for someone to want immigration law enforced and not be a racist?
Is is possible to believe that illegal immigration is a problem, moreso for some areas than others, and that legislating law enforcement tools to deal with it is an attempt at reducing the problem, and not simple pandering?
How much more dangerous does this make the policeman's job? Traffic stops become high stakes situations.
They already are, and not just in AZ.
Yes like over population. This video about the immigration problem, as far as over population goes, and sustainability was made in 1996. It is sure to piss some people off.
Watched it yesterday after following someones link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQIs it possibly, in your mind, for someone to want immigration law enforced and not be a racist?
Yes.
Is is possible to believe that illegal immigration is a problem, moreso for some areas than others, and that legislating law enforcement tools to deal with it is an attempt at reducing the problem, and not simple pandering?
Yes, it is a regional problem, but this legislation looks to be mostly pandering. It is like the banking thing, the Democrats are not addressing the core problem by breaking up the too big to fail banks, but they are attempting to solve some of the problems.
They already are, and not just in AZ.
...which brings us back to the drug war and the Mexican economy, the real problems.
As far as Arizona and Texas along with other boarder states it is a regional problem because of the drug wars. In my state the Hispanic population is 10%. When I was young these were mainly migrant farm workers but now there is established neighborhoods. People are hardworking and this area is pretty liberal but the lenient welcoming attitude would change if the drug cartels keep pushing their way in further into the country.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Why should we be different than any other country when protecting itself? Why does this have to be a race issue? Where are the rights of the people to live without fear?
immigration is not a problem because of the drug wars. Immigration has always been a problem; even legal immigration has been a contentious issue in our history. Problems with illegal aliens have existed since the borders were established. The current crisis is exacerbated by the drug wars, but the problem has existed and will exist, "drug wars" or not.
My problem with it is that no matter what is done at the border, human intelligence will circumvent those "secure the border" measures if there is a strong economic or social incentive. As long as we foster a black market, we will have people isolated from the wider society who will clan up and remain outside the law. Does the law in Arizona make us more or less free? Does it make us more or less safe? I think it makes us less free and less safe to abandon an open culture.
...which brings us back to the drug war and the Mexican economy, the real problems.
I was actually thinking of all the other reasons that make traffic stops a scary situation...
But if the real problem is the mexican economy, what legislation do the republicans need to pass to solve or at least address it? Instead of pandering I mean.
My problem with it is that no matter what is done at the border, human intelligence will circumvent those "secure the border" measures if there is a strong economic or social incentive.
Especially if there is no way to detect illegals and no consequences for being one.
I think it makes us less free and less safe to abandon an open culture.
What? How?
I think it makes us less free and less safe to abandon an open culture.
I respect your point but I see it as a philosophical one; one that we as a country already adhere to. Immigration reform with the express purpose of tamping down criminal activity does not, in my opinion, take precedence over our basic principles as a country.
@ cloud. I agree with you.
I think it makes us less free and less safe to abandon an open culture.
What? How?
We have a flexible dynamic economy, which takes advantage of a free flow of ideas and people. If we shut down immigration we stifle that dynamism. We know we have a screwed up education system in this country, which often trains kids for jobs that don't exist. If Mexico, India, or Canada is accidentally educating people who fill positions our kids don't, we need to take advantage of that to remain a flexible economy. I see immigration controls as largely fear drive. That fear is reasonable when related to the violent drug culture, but not reasonable if it thinks we can't absorb productive immigrants.
As far as what Republicans (but lets say everyone) need to do,.. On our side of the fence we shrink the market for illegal drugs. On the other side of the fence we use our considerable economic/political influence to support rule of law and market reforms in Mexico.
If we shut down immigration we stifle that dynamism.
Who said anything about shutting down immigration? Securing our borders doesn't mean closing them.
Securing our borders is a kind of magical empty phrase, so I assign it this meaning: militarizing the border, bureaucratizing travel in and out of the country, reducing flexibility, and creating barriers of intimidation, fear, and frustration. Productive immigrants often seek to escape that which we propose to inflict upon ourselves.
We have a flexible dynamic economy, which takes advantage of a free flow of ideas and people. If we shut down immigration we stifle that dynamism.
The AZ law doesn't even try to shut down immigration. It just makes what's already illegal under federal law illegal under state law.
We know we have a screwed up education system in this country, which often trains kids for jobs that don't exist. If Mexico, India, or Canada is accidentally educating people who fill positions our kids don't, we need to take advantage of that to remain a flexible economy.
I agree on principal, that's why we DO allow immigration. But first and foremost, these jobs need to be filled by legal residents.
I see immigration controls as largely fear drive. That fear is reasonable when related to the violent drug culture, but not reasonable if it thinks we can't absorb productive immigrants.
Agreed. Productive legal immigrants that pay income tax anyway... Btw, how's the economy over there in CA these days?
As far as what Republicans (but lets say everyone) need to do,.. On our side of the fence we shrink the market for illegal drugs.
Pfizer is trying...
Securing our borders is a kind of magical empty phrase, so I assign it this meaning: militarizing the border, bureaucratizing travel in and out of the country, reducing flexibility, and creating barriers of intimidation, fear, and frustration. Productive immigrants often seek to escape that which we propose to inflict upon ourselves.
But your assigned meaning is so extreme, I doubt if you could find more than a handful of people to endorse implementing it.
...which brings us back to the drug war and the Mexican economy, the real problems.
I agree with Griff here. We don't actually have an
immigration problem. Rejiggering our immigration rules and their enforcement will not answer to the trouble we're having.
The problem is in Mexico and I think it can only be solved there: Mexico does not have a middle class visible to the naked eye. To achieve a bootstrapping up from dismal poverty to the lower middle class, the Méxicanos have to travel
al Norte. Some carry this all the way to Canada's cities and towns.
Which is likely to improve the quality of Mexican restaurants throughout the continent.
The historical source of Mexico's lack of a middle class and its opportunities is easy enough to see: unlike the US and Canada, Mexican Spanish immigration -- and it was at first exclusively so -- was not a flood of smallholders, each with his stake in the enterprise. It was a sparse settlement of primarily the aristocratic landowning class and their retainers, recreating the only economy they knew: the latifundian economy of Spanish landowners and Spanish peasants. Thus they created it and thus it remained. All over the place and for centuries.
So, the 1960s joke had it that Latin America resembles an LP record -- 33 1/3 revolutions per minute. The twentieth century was when it all came to a head, building on some brawling begun in the nineteenth. Every bit of it over resources, at bottom.
So, short of revolution and raping real estate away from people who used to have it, and rationing it out to people who used not to have it, what? Well, an organic, viral answer was to export labor. Population too. Guess who's importing.
Agreed. Productive legal immigrants that pay income tax anyway... Btw, how's the economy over there in CA these days?
Eleven percent unemployment statewide.
Yeah, we've been Mexico's safety valve, giving the peasants one more option before boiling over and actually fixing their country.
Do you ever give politicians credit for acting altruistically? Or in this case, legal experts with nothing to gain.
I certainly have never seen it.
So your point is moot.
Yeah, we've been Mexico's safety valve, giving the peasants one more option before boiling over and actually fixing their country.
:notworthy
So your point is moot.
If you say so... ALL of those legal experts, local officials, police chiefs, etc are opposed for political or financial reasons. :eek:
Just like all govt data is biased.
But you're not biased. ;)
The Senate Democrats released a
proposal for comprehensive immigration reform a few days ago.
It includes increase ICE funding for border patrol and drug interdiction, a controversial national biometric ID card for all workers and a tough pathway to citizenship.
Full proposal
The Republicans have called it DOA and have made it clear they wont support a proposal that includes providing a process for citizenship to current illegal immigrants in the country and dismissed it as amnesty.
They also dont like the national ID card (neither does the ACLU ) but have no problem requiring Hispanices in AZ to carry their immigration papers.
The last attempt at comprehensive immigration reform, the 2007 Kennedy-McCain
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act was a pretty good bill. Unfortunately, once McCain got the Republican nomination, he had to demonstrate his conservative credentials and backed away from his own bill and would not endorse it because of strong conservative opposition to the citizenship component of the bill.
I agree with Griff here. We don't actually have an immigration problem. Rejiggering our immigration rules and their enforcement will not answer to the trouble we're having.
...
Which is likely to improve the quality of Mexican restaurants throughout the continent.
Holy crap! We agree on two things in one post! ;) We have three really good Mex places in our area now.
Eleven percent unemployment statewide.
That is pretty rough. Is that as high as it has been or did it crest higher?
Yeah, we've been Mexico's safety valve, giving the peasants one more option before boiling over and actually fixing their country.
A revolution on our Southern border may not be the ideal resolution to the immigration problem... It has been a long time coming though.
I like a lot of what I see in that REPAIR Proposal. The reality of it ever happening, not so much.
Cafferty Slams Obama and Dems For Their Response To Arizona Immigration Law
[YOUTUBE]HZgveS92Akw[/YOUTUBE]
For redux who loves polls
Public Opinion Polls on Immigration
I have said polls can be a valuable tool to assess public opinion.
As you recently commented to me...."dont put words in my mouth"
But public policy should be based on enforceable laws that can stand a constitutional test, not public opinion polls.
Cafferty Slams Obama and Dems For Their Response To Arizona Immigration Law
Two of the most conservative governors, while avoiding the question of the constitutionality of the AZ law, have said it is bad public policy.
Bob McDonell, gov. of Virginia - "I’m concerned about the whole idea of carrying papers and always have to be able to prove your citizenship. That brings up shades of some other regimes that were not particularly helpful to democracy and civil rights."
Rick Perry, gov. of Texas - ""I fully recognize and support a state’s right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas,"
That is pretty rough. Is that as high as it has been or did it crest higher?
Link
and
here for the state of your choosing
But public policy should be based on enforceable laws that can stand a constitutional test, not public opinion polls.
Not caring what the voters want seems to have been Washington's policy for some time now.
Not caring what the voters want seems to have been Washington's policy for some time now.
That may be the case, although I dont agree completely.
But that doesnt change the fact that polls should not be the basis for sound public policy.
Link
and here for the state of your choosing
Those numbers are staggering! ( no pun intended )
On average, 10 people out of 100 are unemployed.
In March, the number of unemployed persons was little changed at 15.0 million,
:thepain:
The illegal immigration from Mexico will not stop, and cannot be stopped, until Mexicans feel that there is more benefit to staying in Mexico than there is in illegally entering the US.
That may be the case, although I dont agree completely.
But that doesnt change the fact that polls should not be the basis for sound public policy.
You have said that twice now. Who said that polls should be a basis for ANYTHING?
Please cite, thanks.
That may be the case, although I dont agree completely.
But that doesnt change the fact that polls should not be the basis for sound public policy.
So true!
The illegal immigration from Mexico will not stop, and cannot be stopped, until Mexicans feel that there is more benefit to staying in Mexico than there is in illegally entering the US.
I think there will always be a benefit to entering the US for people from any country in a similar situation to Mexico or just any that is more impoverished than the US. But as this video (posted a long time ago by xob i think) shows the US cannot handle the influx of even the legal immigrants let alone those coming here illegally.
Oh and this was from 2006
[YOUTUBE]n7WJeqxuOfQ[/YOUTUBE]
Two of the most conservative governors, while avoiding the question of the constitutionality of the AZ law, have said it is bad public policy.
Bob McDonell, gov. of Virginia - "I’m concerned about the whole idea of carrying papers and always have to be able to prove your citizenship. That brings up shades of some other regimes that were not particularly helpful to democracy and civil rights."
Rick Perry, gov. of Texas - ""I fully recognize and support a state’s right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas."
Good cites, Redux.
I have less respect for politicians opinions, than that of the man on the street. At least the man on the street doesn't have to consider whether it's the politically correct answer.
I think there will always be a benefit to entering the US for people from any country in a similar situation to Mexico or just any that is more impoverished than the US.
So the answer is to make the US more impoverished than those countries.
Ahhhh.... now I understand The Bush Doctrine! :p:
I have less respect for politicians opinions, than that of the man on the street. At least the man on the street doesn't have to consider whether it's the politically correct answer.
Are you saying that the country should set policy according to polls, then?
I have less respect for politicians opinions, than that of the man on the street. At least the man on the street doesn't have to consider whether it's the politically correct answer.
Given that many men (and women) on the street cant even name their own Congressperson and Senators and many get their "news" from info-tainment sources, just how informed is the average man on the street?
I wonder how many could pass the citizenship test required of immigrants?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/Seriously! Most just barf back what they heard Joe at the office say.
(I missed the original states) :blush:
So the answer is to make the US more impoverished than those countries.
Ahhhh.... now I understand The Bush Doctrine! :p:
Uh. no.
So the answer is to make the US more impoverished than those countries.
Uh. no.
Well, it CAN'T be to un-impoverish (or would that be "to poverish"?)other countries, can it?
No, 'cause then they'll get all high and mighty and think they're just as good as us.
Then, also, they'll become a rich country and build a bunch of nuclear weapons, then they'll blast down those cheap-ass fences we built, and take over the world!
We can't have that!
;)
Well, it CAN'T be to un-impoverish (or would that be "to poverish"?)other countries, can it?
Are you really that ignorant? Really?
Are you really that ignorant? Really?
The old Classhole rears its ugly head.
- As Bruce said, you can't keep them out.
- You rejected the idea of impoverishing the US.
- You reject the idea of helping other countries.
What's the answer?
As Bruce said, you can't keep them out.
Agreed to a degree.
You rejected the idea of impoverishing the US.
Is that your plan? :eyebrow:
You reject the idea of helping other countries.
When?
What's your answer?
It's like the Vinnie Barbarino approach to debating. :lol:
Agreed to a degree.
To what degree.
Is that your plan? :eyebrow:
No.
When?
Well, it CAN'T be to un-impoverish (or would that be "to poverish"?)other countries, can it?
Are you really that ignorant? Really?
Sounds like rejection to me.
What's your answer?
Annex Mexico.
No, we cannot have absolute zero illegal immigration. Thats too obvious for you to really be asking seriously, but what the hell I'll play along with your game.
To what degree. (?)
We must be able to control, AS BEST WE CAN, who enters our country. Building adequate systems to prevent illegal crossing of our borders, enforcing existing laws, including prosecuting companies who hire illegal immigrants and abuse them for their own financial gain, and lastly getting more than lip service from those whose responsibility it is to do so.
Did you watch the video posted? Have you read any statistics?
Annex Mexico
Care to elaborate on that?
Oh and a guesstimate on total aid given to Mexico is probably somewhere around $60 million a year.
and lastly getting more than lip service from those whose responsibility it is to do so. ..
But I
like lip service.:(
Care to elaborate on that?
No. It speaks for itself.
Oh and a guesstimate on total aid given to Mexico is probably somewhere around $60 million a year.
Which could be reduced if we annexed them. We wouldn't have to do things like...
... Building adequate systems to prevent illegal crossing of our borders, enforcing existing laws, including prosecuting companies who hire illegal immigrants and abuse them for their own financial gain,
I know, I know, there would be additional costs associated with Mexico's annexation. There would also be some financial benefit, and a much greater amount of control, especially over any federal aid they would get.
ok - send in the troops.
You don't think it can be done peacefully?
Nope
How is that solution rectifying any of the other illegal immigrants?
You seem to be only addressing those from Mexico.
How is that solution rectifying any of the other illegal immigrants?
You seem to be only addressing those from Mexico.
You're funny. Do you forget this exchange from earlier in the thread?
I have said "secure the border" repeatedly, so I'll respond in kind.
I do not know how to do it - no idea. well maybe one - There is this great wall I've heard about in China. ....
Don't forget the ones that fly in. :p:
....
I'm glad you find it humorous - Whats the percentage that fly in versus every other means?
...
Are you saying that the country should set policy according to polls, then?
I said
I have less respect for politicians opinions, than that of the man on the street. At least the man on the street doesn't have to consider whether it's the politically correct answer.
and that's exactly what I meant.
The politicians should be finding out where John Q Public stands, instead of Big F Corp, before they decide to do something... or do nothing.
The illegal immigration from Mexico will not stop, and cannot be stopped, until Mexicans feel that there is more benefit to staying in Mexico than there is in illegally entering the US.
Which was my point; I just went on longer about why. Meanwhile it should be noted that opportunity in the United States is such that people are
breaking in here to partake of it. Until fairly recently there were Chinese shipping themselves in using cargo boxes to partake of it.
I diffidently suggest "Expoverish." How to make sure that doesn't mean not only empty pockets but pockets turned inside out, I dunno. "Repoverish," um... "Counterpoverish," er, no. This is getting to be like rustproofing your 15th-century helmet with Sallet Dressing.
Holy crap! We agree on two things in one post! ;) We have three really good Mex places in our area now.
While we're celebrating our confluence here -- I can recall finding one bad (quite boring) Mexican restaurant in Ventura a couple years-plus ago. Promoted itself as a Baja style place, parked a VW dunebuggy with a couple shortboard surfboards on top as advertisement in the parking lot.
Used a microwave oven and ho-hum recipes that tasted like lunchroom food, lasted maybe eight months.
It's been replaced by a family-owned operation named El Burrito Alegre, which is very much better and has hung in there. They weren't able to move their chili-spiked chocolate brownies, which is a pity, because I liked the things. Thought they'd go well with some Starbucks from across the way.
Bad Mex doesn't dare crop up among the eateries here.
You mean the legally mandated wage?
Whats the percentage that fly in versus every other means?
I'm all for prosecuting and penalizing both parties.
Why do percentages matter? Gotta get them all.
Really? If we solved, hypothetically 90% of this problem you'd still be dissatisfied? :eyebrow:
You chose to make jokes or ignore the questions. Thats your choice. Have at it.
You chose to make jokes or ignore the questions. Thats your choice. Have at it.
I accept your apology.
Why do you liberals support Human Trafficing?
Support broadens among Americans for Arizona's tough illegal-immigrant law, while opposition sags
President Obama is opposed to the strict new illegal-immigrant law in Arizona. But a new poll now finds that he is in a shrinking minority of Americans and Democrats who do.
A new Pew Research Center Poll finds fully 73% of the country thinks police requesting immigration status documents is fine, while 67% think detaining someone for a status check is OK.
The poll reports that, overall, 59% approve of the law's broad provisions, while less than a third (32%) now oppose them. That is up significantly from a similar poll earlier this month.
Democrats, a large majority of whom originally opposed the law, are now....
... evenly split 45-46% approve-disapprove. The number of Democrats supporting the measure has been growing as more information spreads about its legal provisions and safeguards.
Republicans overwhelmingly approve the law (85%) signed by Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in frustration over federal inaction on securing the state's borders with Mexico. A solid majority of independents (64%) also support the controversial measure. (See several related items below, including the law's full text.)
Even among young people, where support for the law is weakest, a majority support requiring people to produce immigration documents upon request by police.
Obama has called Arizona's state action "misguided," while agreeing that broad immigration reforms are needed. However, he's added that he does not see the "appetite" for addressing the problems after his rancorous intra-party healthcare debate. Nor has he taken additional steps to secure the borders.
The issue, involving fears of rising crime, assaults and illegal drug trading, has the potential to become an emotional one in this year's evolving midterm election campaigns and not to the advantage of congressional incumbents, most of whom are Democrats.
Fifty-four percent of Americans in the new Pew Poll disapprove of Obama's job performance on immigration while those who approve have waned from 31% last November to 29% last month to 25% today.
Again, Obama's Democratic party is now split (38% disapprove, 37% approve). Predictably, 75% of Republicans disapprove of his job in that area. But of potential future concern for the White House is that, among independents, a crucial leg of his national support in 2008, more than twice as many disapprove of his immigration handling (57%) as approve (25%).
Link
Thats an interesting development. I expected this to go the other way.
But what does the absence of papers prove? A drivers license is not proof of citizenship. So how would someone prove that they are a citizen?
This reminds me of the movie Born in East L.A. where Cheech gets deported.
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
An Arizona utility commissioner said he's willing to pull the plug on Los Angeles if the city goes through with a boycott of his state.
In a letter to the city of LA, a member of Arizona's power commission said he would ask Arizona utility companies to cut off the power supply to Los Angeles. LA gets about 25 percent of its power from Arizona.
"That is one commissioner who has that idea -- whether he can do that or not is another idea," said LA Councilman Dennis Zine. "They are the ones who have to make the move, not us."
The commissioner's power grid play is in response to the city's approval of a resolution directing city staff to consider which contracts with Arizona can be terminated.
Whether he can do it or not I dunno, but I like his style. The man has balls for even bringing it up.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.
I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
LinkWhether he can do it or not I dunno, but I like his style. The man has balls for even bringing it up.
Link
I would imagine there is a binding intergovernmental agreement between AZ and CA.
So why do you think this guys has more balls than those who want to boycott AZ?
I'd say cutting off someone's power takes more balls than simply refusing to do business with them. Which place would you rather live: the one that just lost some labor/trade contracts and is gonna have to eat ramen for awhile, or the one in pitch blackness, with no A/C in 100+ degree summer heat?
I'd say cutting off someone's power takes more balls than simply refusing to do business with them. Which place would you rather live: the one that just lost some labor/trade contracts and is gonna have to eat ramen for awhile, or the one in pitch blackness, with no A/C in 100+ degree summer heat?
Or it is just political grandstanding.
I dont know the details of the AZ-CA interstate agreement, but most such agreements, particularly for defined services, are in the form of binding contracts.
Or it is just political posturing.
Just like the original boycott threat. I thought it was a well-played response.
Just like the original boycott threat. I thought it was a well-played response.
I agree boycotts are political as well.
The difference, IMO, is the boycott has the force of action behind it and voiding a valid intergovernmental contract (if that is the case) does not which would make it an empty threat.
add:
It is even less than an empty threat....just some dude in AZ (running for reelection to the AZ Commission) blowing hot air.
Given that Southern California Edison, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and other California utilities have an ownership stake in major power plants in Arizona.
I think it was symbolic and a great response to one state trying to exert its influence over another. What will happen if the AZ bill goes thru and illegals then try to cross somewhere else. I wonder where that would would be? Ohhh thats right CA.
Oh. My. Gawd.
[YOUTUBE]O6qEQ-KnitQ&feature[/YOUTUBE]
Sounds like the healthcare reform debate
not really - this was 10 pages not a couple thousand.
I see. Not reading a bill is entirely different than not reading a bill. Gotcha.:rolleyes:
You're right - all the D's who voted for a bill they hadn't read and all the R's voting against and criticizing it. I see what you're saying.
Oh. My. Gawd.
[YOUTUBE]O6qEQ-KnitQ&feature[/YOUTUBE]
It is funny, in a diversionary sorta way.
But it wont deflect the valid criticisms and concerns expressed by many constitutional experts, many local elected officials and many law enforcement officials... as well as civil rights and other grass roots organizations.
Its also funny in a pathetic that they're criticizing something they haven't even read. They've had weeks and its only ten pages.
Its also funny in a pathetic that they're criticizing something they haven't even read. They've had weeks and its only ten pages.
It is a fallacy to believe that every state legislator or member of Congress or state/federal executive branch officials read every piece of legislation.
That is why they have staff...that is why there are committee structures and recognized experts in both parties who lead the initiatives and brief fellow party members on the details of legislation.
For any piece of legislation, state or federal, there are probably only handful of people who have actually read the bill...and that would most likely be the staff who wrote it.
I would bet very few of the AZ legislators in either party read the legislation. It is simply not how governing bodies work. In fact, it is not how most organizations work.
And it doesnt apply just to legislation. Do you think a president should read every intel report cover-to-cover before making a decision....or rely on detailed briefings/recommendations from staff (the director of national intelligence)?
In the private sector, do you think a CEO reads every report/recommendation directed to his/her attention? Delegation and division of labor recognizing particular expertise within the structure is the manner in which good organizations work most effectively.
added:
And in the legislative process, most bill amend existing laws and cant simply be read free-standing.
The AZ bill may only be ten pages, but this is is at the heart of it.
[INDENT]AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8;
AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 15, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 13-1509;
AMENDING SECTION 13-2319, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES;
AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 13-2928 AND 13-2929;
AMENDING SECTIONS 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 AND 28-3511, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES;
AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-1724; RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS.[/INDENT]
Reading a bill is not like reading a book or a magazine article.
To fully understand it, one would have to read it in the context of all these existing statutes or sections of the state code that the bill amends at the same time as one reads the legislation.
I can guarantee that very few legislators read it in such a manner.
You may think it is pathetic. I think it is representative of good organizational management.
Then they shouldn't comment on what it says if they do not understand it.
AND THEY ADMIT that all they knew was what they heard/saw from the press.
That is NOT representative of good organizational management.
Then they shouldn't comment on what it says if they do not understand it.
AND THEY ADMIT that all they knew was what they heard/saw from the press.
It
is possible that they
do understand it, without having read it.
That is NOT representative of good organizational management.
Yes, it is. Delegation is key to good management. Nobody can do everything themselves. Having aides read the bill and give a synopsis to the legislator is a valid management tool.
How could they possibly understand the specifics without reading it - GTFO
One of them admitted all he new was what he saw, read on tv - I think it was Holder. Sorry - thats not where I want my representatives forming their opinions. If they don't know, just admit it and say "I don't know." or "I haven't read it yet"
How could they possibly understand the specifics without reading it - GTFO
Intelligent, trusted aides read it and 'splained it to them.
One of them admitted all he new was what he saw, read on tv
Do you keep missing that or are you just choosing not to read it because he is one of the guys on "your team"
I have not had a chance to, I've glanced at it. I have not read it.
... I have not really, I have not been briefed yet.
... I've only made, made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, looking at television, talking to people who are on the review panel, on the review team that are looking at the law.
One of them admitted all he new was what he saw, read on tv
Do you keep missing that or are you just choosing not to read it because he is one of the guys on "your team"
Calm down. I'm ignoring it because I don't dispute this particular point in your argument. K?
The whole thing will be more effective if we can get NM and Texas to adopt the same bills in their states. That would be most awesome.
I disagree completely.
The Fed should uphold its responsibilities and not put a state into this situation in the first place.
Considering that they have failed in that department for so many years now, I think it would be a good idea for the states to take action as they independently are allowed to do. I think it would be a great idea, the sooner the better.
Obama to Send 1,200 Guard Troops to Mexico Border
President Obama will send up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the Southwest border and increase spending on law enforcement, yielding to demands from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers there that border security be tightened, administration officials said.
Mr. Obama is expected to make the announcement Tuesday, the officials said, after a meeting with lawmakers.
Homeland Security officials said that the troops would provide support to law enforcement officers already working along the border by helping observe and monitor traffic between official crossing points, and would help analyze trafficking patterns in hopes of intercepting illegal drug shipments. They performed similar tasks in an earlier deployment along the border from 2006 to 2008, when they also assisted with road and fence construction. The troops have not been involved directly in intercepting border crossers.
Calls to send troops to the border mounted after the shooting death of a rancher in southern Arizona on March 27; the police suspect the rancher was killed by someone involved in smuggling. Advocates of a new state law in Arizona that gives the police a greater role in immigration enforcement also emphasized what they considered a failure to secure the border as a reason to pass the law.
Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat from southern Arizona, praised the decision. Ms. Giffords is expecting a strong challenge for reelection, and was an early proponent of sending troops to the border.
“The White House is doing the right thing,” she said in a statement announcing the move. “Arizonans know that more boots on the ground means a safer and more secure border. Washington heard our message.”
Link
Yes it did - It was the message known as Arizona Senate Bill 1070.
Wait...who was Marvin Steamroller again???
Despite all the rhetoric from the right, Obama has increased funding for border enforcement significantly in his first two budget requests...and the Democratic Congress has increased funding every year since they took control.
And despite all the rhetoric, enforcement efforts and deportations have also increased.
But neither of the above facts have prevented misrepresentations by the AZ law supporters.
And, in the opinion of many, it still doesnt make the AZ law good public policy...as well as the unsettled question of the constitutionality of the law.
We already had that argument - just look back a few pages if you aren't too lazy.
Reality is that the administration is now taking action and thats a good thing. Their lawyers have probably already figured out its constitutionally sound, whether you like it or not. They've had plenty of time to figure it out.
When left with no choice, they are finally doing what they should have done all along. Bravo Arizona!
We already had that argument - just look back a few pages if you aren't too lazy.
Reality is that the administration is now taking action and thats a good thing. Their lawyers have probably already figured out its constitutionally sound, whether you like it or not. They've had plenty of time to figure it out.
When left with no choice, they are finally doing what they should have done all along. Bravo Arizona!
As I pointed out, the reality is that the administration started taking action 18 months ago, having done more than the previous administration, in terms of both annual spending on border enforcement and numbers of deportations.
And despite the fear rhetoric, there has been no increase in border-related crime in recent years.
As to the constitutionality of the law, I'm curious for the basis of your suggestion that
"their lawyers have probably already figured out its constitutionally sound..."
Particularly given that the DoJ team of constitutional attorneys reviewing the law have reportedly prepared a report for Holder recommending that the govt. challenge the law in federal court. At the same time, DoJ's Civil Rights Division reportedly has drafted a "civil complaint" that would be filed in federal court.
The DoJ is doing what it should do...taking the time to review the law at various internal levels before they proceed or make a final determination.
But in any case, it is the federal judiciary, not the executive branch, will make that determination (civics 101, dude)... with two or three cases already filed....whether any of us like or not.
And despite the fear rhetoric, there has been no increase in border-related crime in recent years.
What information do you have to support this premise?
As to the constitutionality of the law, I'm curious for the basis of your suggestion that "their lawyers have probably already figured out its constitutionally sound..."
Just my opinion.
The DoJ is doing what it should do...taking the time to review the law at various internal levels before they proceed or make a final determination.
Too bad Holder and the others couldn't take your advice and say they didn't know or would rather wait until they reviewed it before making accusations and comments based upon the media. They are the ones who made determinations without having read the bill or knowing all the facts.
But in any case, it is the federal judiciary, not the executive branch, will make that determination (civics 101, dude)... with two or three cases already filed....whether any of us like or not.
Getting all snarky again - lol. This is a perfect example of why nothing gets accomplished quickly or economically in your business. All the endless circular arguments, deflections and distractions.
Lets review. The feds didn't uphold their responsibilities in AZ and elsewhere. AZ asked them repeatedly to do so. AZ was ignored repeatedly. After months. perhaps years, of no reply. AZ says fine we'll do it ourselves. AZ models a law to match that of the Fed statutes that the Feds aren't enforcing. Fed has egg on face and is embarrassed. Feds take action based upon what AZ was asking for initially.
What information do you have to support this premise?
FBI Uniform Crime Reports
Here is just one comparison for AZ:
2006: 30,916 violent crimes - rate of 501 per 100,000 residents
2007: 30,600 violent crimes - rate of 482 per 100,000 residents
2008: 29,050 violent crimes - rate of 447 per 100,000 residents.
Go back additional years for further comparisons....The full 2009 data is not out.
Yet we hear from many proponents of the law (including the governor of AZ, Sen McCain, etc) about a dangerous upswing in violent crime due to illegal immigrants and Mexican druggies.
From
preliminary 2009 data by region.....violent crime down in every category in the West (and every region)
So where is this dangerous upswing in violent crime?
And to Classic.... you can ignore the budget data, the deportation data and the crime data...and you can distort what Holder and Napaltano said.
And you can make assumptions and suggestions that ALL of the constitutional experts, local elected officials and law enforcement officials who have expressed concern about the constitutionality and/or enforceability of the law are acting out of political or financial interests...it doesnt make it true.
As to the constitutionality, the courts will decide....and that is fine with me.
I haven't gone through that line by line but that looks like it is looking at the state as a whole rather than border counties/cities versus those further from the border. Maybe your data still supports what you are saying, but I don't know that it necessarily does.
One of the things that has been talked about quite a bit down here is that the crime rate in the metro areas has gone down significantly at the same time as more and more of my fellow arizonans are becoming fulltime firearm carriers. The debate has been whether that is cause/effect or just coincidental. At the same time we've heard from the sherriffs in border counties that they are significantly more active now.
I don't have any hard data for that, I was just curious if you did since you seemed so sure in your premise.
There is hard data on a county-basis in
Crime in Arizona reports.
I didnt compare all border counties, but violent crime was down in 2008 (from 2007) in Cochise, Pima and Yuma Counties.
On a more anecdotal level, I have seen numerous articles on border crime...with the law enforcement officials consistently saying violent crime is down or at worst, flat.
One example:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html
I have not seen any hard data anywhere that crime is up in border cities or across the state.
IMO, the so-called rise in illegal immigrant crime factor has been overstated and overplayed for political gain.
Obama to Send 1,200 Guard Troops to Mexico Border
...
Uh-oh. That's gonna incur some costs. Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Is your head about to explode?
Uh-oh. That's gonna incur some costs. Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Is your head about to explode?
Maybe they can watch the border 2 days per week and for the other three during the week, they can head on over to the gulf and do some oil clean-up.
If they really wanted to multi-task and save money, they could do both. Do you have ANY idea how many ferners are sneaking over here disguised as oil spills?
Uh-oh. That's gonna incur some costs. Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Is your head about to explode?
Not at all - WTF are you talking about?
Does it just come naturally or do you have to try?
I think the issue is more than just crime statistics. The costs in other areas is also choking the system. Prisons, healthcare, education...
[YOUTUBE]KjPBtfpn8wI[/YOUTUBE]
There is also a piece on it here from
CBS NewsI didnt expect you to acknowledge that many of the proponents of the AZ law, including the governor, have grossly misrepresented the crime factor (unless you dont accept FBI and AZ stats because it is govt data).
Lets review. The feds didn't uphold their responsibilities in AZ and elsewhere. AZ asked them repeatedly to do so. AZ was ignored repeatedly....the Fed statutes that the Feds aren't enforcing. Fed has egg on face and is embarrassed. Feds take action based upon what AZ was asking for initially.
Sure...lets review.
You refuse to accept or acknowledge that funding for border security this year is significantly higher than the last Bush/Republican Congress appropriations and not something that Obama did in reaction to the AZ law:
In 2007, discretionary spending on border security was $6.3 billion. As Pence noted, that was the last year of full Republican control. After that, while George W. Bush remained in the presidency, Congress was controlled by Democrats. But discretionary spending on border security continued to rise year after year. It went to $7.9 billion in 2008; to $9.8 billion in 2009; and to $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2010. President Barack Obama's proposed 2011 budget calls for a slight decrease in discretionary spending on border security, but even at the proposed level of $9.8 billion, that's a 55 percent increase between 2007 and 2011.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/05/mike-pence/republican-says-obama-cut-budget-illegal-immigrati/
But they havent responded to AZ's concerns?
Or that the number of deportations was higher last year than any previous year:
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Is this not a demonstration of a response to AZ's concerns?
So, now its the cost issue...which by most independent studies is grossly overstated.
Particularly when you factor in the taxes paid by illegal immigrants -- according to the Social Security Administration, illegal immigrants pay $billions in FICA taxes and will never collect -- and many pay income taxes (in order to have a paper trail to get home loans) and all of them pay state/local sales taxes.
Illegal immigrants are paying taxes to Uncle Sam, experts agree. Just how much they pay is hard to determine because the federal government doesn't fully tally it. But the latest figures available indicate it will amount to billions of dollars in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes this year. One rough estimate puts the amount of Social Security taxes alone at around $9 billion per year.
The Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm
And then there is the $billions in additional revenue that would be generated by providing a path to citizenship....not amnesty, as it is falsely characterized, but a process, including paying fines and taxes, waiting periods, etc.
Quit muddying the waters with facts, will you? Hmmmph.
:bolt:
Quit muddying the waters with facts, will you? Hmmmph.
:bolt:
Like the muddy Rio Grande River? ;)
I haven't gone through that line by line but that looks like it is looking at the state as a whole rather than border counties/cities versus those further from the border. Maybe your data still supports what you are saying, but I don't know that it necessarily does.
One of the things that has been talked about quite a bit down here is that the crime rate in the metro areas has gone down significantly at the same time as more and more of my fellow arizonans are becoming fulltime firearm carriers. The debate has been whether that is cause/effect or just coincidental. At the same time we've heard from the sherriffs in border counties that they are significantly more active now.
I don't have any hard data for that, I was just curious if you did since you seemed so sure in your premise.
Shouldn't they enforce existing laws before they enact new regulation?
Not at all - WTF are you talking about?
You espouse spending additional money to stop illegal immigration, yet you condemn spending money. You can't have it both ways. Shel and Shaw understood...
Does it just come naturally or do you have to try?
Many things come naturally for me, like understanding and complex reasoning. Other things I try to do, like getting you to understand elementary concepts. Are we done being snide? :p:
Quit muddying the waters with facts, will you? Hmmmph.
:bolt:
Like the muddy Rio Grande River? ;)
They're not wet backs, they're mud backs! :eek::D
Uh-oh. That's gonna incur some costs. Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Better border security or more spending/debt/taxes? Is your head about to explode?
Mushy brains are a Mexican delicacy.
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
As you can probably imagine, brains tend to have a texture that likens to mush, but they really don’t taste bad at all. They’re actually almost flavorless, so most of the taste comes from the sauce in which the brains are prepared.
http://blog.ratestogo.com/disgusting-delicacies-of-mexico/
But "real" Americans prefer rocky mountain oysters. :eek:
Sure...lets review.
You refuse to accept or acknowledge that funding for border enforcement this year is significantly higher than the last Bush/Republican Congress appropriations and not something that Obama did in reaction to the AZ law:
How much of that help went to AZ? Your statistics are for the entire US not AZ specifically.
So, now its the cost issue...which by most independent studies is grossly overstated.
It isn't nor has it ever been any ONE issue.
factor in the taxes paid by illegal immigrants
additional revenue that would be generated by providing a path to citizenship....
Excellent! And let us now relate that to the costs associated with these criminals.. .. .. I'll wait.
Shouldn't they enforce existing laws before they enact new regulation?
Yup - they asked and were refused for years.
You espouse spending additional money to stop illegal immigration, yet you condemn spending money. You can't have it both ways. Shel and Shaw understood...
lol Shel and shaw? Are you serious?
I condemn wasteful spending - always have and will. The rest is yet another figment of your overactive imagination.
Are we done being snide?
Apparently not - When you act like an a-hole, you can count on me to let you know - every time?
~snip~(bold mine)
lol Shel and shaw? Are you serious?
I condemn wasteful spending - always have and will. The rest is yet another figment of your overactive imagination.
Apparently not - When you act like an a-hole, you can count on me to let you know - every time?
Fuck you and your overblown sense of yourself.
Shel, did you get that? We're laughable. We must be stupid. Did you know that? I didn't.
Jesus, class, I knew you were an ass but I didn't think you thought you were better than everyone else.
Now excuse me while I go pick my nose and grunt and fling poo at my cow orkers. You interrupted that process by uttering my name.
I love how some draw conclusions based upon their names being mentioned. your boy spexxie brought you up - not me.
I merely referred to the fact that you and he agreed with his stance. That has been blatantly obvious.
Your intelligence or lack thereof (your choice) was never part of the discussion.
Nor did I ever say that I was "better than everyone else" as you said.
Sorry to interrupt your nosepicking/pooflinging - Have a blessed day.
Have fun stormin' the castle!
There is little direct evidence that illegal aliens pay billions in taxes. We do have direct evidence that they are choking our social systems on the border. Anyone who has lived near the border can clearly attest to this.
An increase in deportations is directly related to increase in border crossings, much of them being funneled due to building of the high tech border fence in Southern Calif.
Now lets look at the facts surrounding the stress on our social systems.
The 1.5 million school-aged illegal immigrants residing in the United States4 and their 2 million U.S.-born siblings can be divided among the states using government estimates of the illegal alien population.5 Using each state’s per-pupil expenditure reported by the U.S. Department of Education,6 cost estimates for educating illegal immigrants in each state are shown below.
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=17193&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1901
Bottom line is that the contributions in monetary gain by illegal immigrants in now way covers the costs to the individual states. We have had to many years of Administration after Administration ignoring the issue. Good on AZ for having the guts to do something about it.
The medical treatment of illegal immigrants accounts for about ten percent of the county’s health department budget. Arizona authorities requested compensation of $41 million from the federal government in 1999 for the incarceration of illegal aliens in state and local jails and prisons (under the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP). However, only $16 million was received, leaving $25 million in uncompensated costs to be borne by Arizona taxpayers.
Link
The CIA reports that the Mexican unemployment rate was recently 4%, lower than 150 other countries and lower than the unemployment rate of the United States.
Mexico is ranked #13 in GDP, higher than 172 countries.
More than 18,000 companies with U.S. investment have operations there.
It has the greatest concentration of wealth per capita in the world.
Mexico is home to the richest man in the world, has nine billionaires and more millionaires than Germany.
In spite of these facts, America continues to send financial aid to Mexico and serve as an illegal immigration 'relief valve.' This is the perfect arrangement for Mexico's elite ruling class by absolving themselves of their responsibilities to their uneducated poor by exporting their angry masses.
Link
We can use some of that money instead.
Illegal immigration in Arizona:
* The federal government estimated that Arizona had one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008.
* Arizona has adopted other laws to deter the settlement of illegal immigrants in the state in recent years. The federal government estimates that the illegal immigrant population dropped by 18 percent in the state from 2008 to 2009, compared to a 7 percent drop for the nation as a whole. This may be evidence that the state enforcement efforts are having an impact.
* The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has found that 22 percent of felonies in the county are committed by illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are estimated to be 10 percent of the county’s adult population.
* Analysis of data from State Criminal Alien Assistance Program showed that illegal immigrants were 11 percent of the state’s prison population. Illegal immigrants were estimated to be 8 percent of state’s adult population at the time of the analysis.
* Approximately 17 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector have criminal records in the United States.
* The issue of illegal immigration and crime is very difficult to measure, and while in Arizona there is evidence that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate share of crime, it is not clear this is the case nationally.
* In 2007, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 12 percent of workers in Arizona are illegal immigrants.
* In 2007, the Center estimated that illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) comprise one-fifth of those in the state living in poverty, one-third of those without health insurance, and one out of six students in the state’s schools.
* In 2007, the Center estimated that one-third of households headed by illegal immigrants in Arizona used at least one major welfare program, primarily food-assistance programs or Medicaid. Benefits were typically received on behalf of U.S.-born children.
* The new law (SB 1070) is extremely popular among Arizona voters. A Rasmussen poll found that 70 percent of voters approve of the new bill, and just 23 percent oppose it.
LinkClassic, stop using all those ugly facts to make your point! You are making way to much sense. :lol:
There is very strong evidence that illegal immigrants contribute significantly to the Social Security "earnings suspense" fund....the funds from received from "bad" social security numbers.
The fund now totals more than $50 billion....the SS Administrator estimates that $5-8 billion/year is from illegal immigrants with false SS card.
You can quibble with the number...$5 billion or $8 billion...but $billions/year is a fact.
FBI/AZ crime stats are facts....increasing budget appropriations are facts....higher deportation numbers are facts.
Just not facts you guys want to hear.
Fuck you and your overblown sense of yourself.
Shel, did you get that? We're laughable. We must be stupid. Did you know that? I didn't.
Jesus, class, I knew you were an ass but I didn't think you thought you were better than everyone else.
Now excuse me while I go pick my nose and grunt and fling poo at my cow orkers. You interrupted that process by uttering my name.
Who or what is laughable?
Every time I read one of classic's response posts that deny or twist or ignore facts that challenge his opinion...I laugh.
Now
this is laughable:
[INDENT]
You have a perspective that is very different than mine. Thats one of the things I love about interacting here. The diversity.[/INDENT]
Classic...your "interactions" consistently demonstrate utter contempt for any posts that challenge yours....and you love the diversity?
You and Merc can carry on now. You two deserve each other.
ps....
keep sending Merc those links of yours....you will have a receptive audience who wont challenge you at all.
And you ignore and post onward when all the FACTS just posted don't agree with your opinions.
I am well aware that I am in the minority on this board. That doesn't make my points/facts nor opinions any more or less true/relevant or valid.
You have a perspective that is very different than mine. Thats one of the things I love about interacting here. The diversity.
your "interactions" consistently demonstrate utter contempt for any posts that challenge yours....and you love the diversity?
Congrats - another masterful job of taking something and reposting it out of context.
I'm sure that your minions will be thrilled - you might even get a haggis or two.
And you ignore and post onward when all the FACTS just posted don't agree with your opinions.
I am well aware that I am in the minority on this board. That doesn't make my points/facts nor opinions any more or less true/relevant or valid.
Congrats - another masterful job of taking something and reposting it out of context.
I'm sure that your minions will be thrilled - you might even get a haggis or two.
I understand that you cant see things as they really are...perhaps because you are not the brightest bulb in the cellar.
Turn on the light, dude!
Oh yay!!! It's The Fucking Asshole Show!!!
I haven't seen this in DAYS!
Nice - said like a true politician.
We're still waiting for you to add up the costs of the criminal immigrants.
C'mon Mr. statistic - where are your numbers?
How much of that help went to AZ? Your statistics are for the entire US not AZ specifically.
Excellent! And let us now relate that to the costs associated with these criminals.. .. .. I'll wait.
What are the costs to the AZ society in terms of infrastructure, education, health care and so on?
After you get that we can compare the two.
Oh yay!!! It's The Fucking Asshole Show!!!
I haven't seen this in DAYS!
It should be pay-per-view.
But I'm done. :)
...You espouse spending additional money to stop illegal immigration, yet you condemn spending money. You can't have it both ways. Shel and Shaw [COLOR="Red"]understood[/COLOR]...
...lol Shel and shaw? Are you serious?
...
...
I merely referred to the fact that you and he [COLOR="Red"]agreed[/COLOR] with his stance. ...
Now you can't tell the difference between
understood and
agreed.
There is very strong evidence that illegal immigrants contribute significantly to the Social Security "earnings suspense" fund....the funds from received from "bad" social security numbers.
The fund now totals more than $50 billion....the SS Administrator estimates that $5-8 billion/year is from illegal immigrants with false SS card.
You can quibble with the number...$5 billion or $8 billion...but $billions/year is a fact.
Great, post your source....
FBI/AZ crime stats are facts....increasing budget appropriations are facts....higher deportation numbers are facts.
Just not facts you guys want to hear.
Yep, all related to an increase in illegals breaking the law by the very fact they are here. Increased budget appropriations for the border war occurred years before your Socialist came to office...
But I'm done. :)
Why yes you are! and you failed again! Well done Demoncratic Shrill!!!!!!!:3eye:
Great, post your source.....
Always happy to provide a source, despite the fact that you rarely if ever respond in kind, when requested. Instead, you demand that others asking you for a source must "prove you wrong"
Just saying :)
How about sworn testimony of the Deputy Commissioner of Social Security:
In TY 2003, $7.2 billion in payroll taxes were credited to the Trust Funds based on wage items placed in the suspense file. This represented approximately 1.3 percent of total payroll taxes credited to the Trust Funds....
...As of October, 2005, approximately 8.8 million W-2s (3.7 percent of the total) representing $57.8 billion in wages remained in the suspense file for TY 2003...
...SSA’s Inspector General will testify later that this growth is due to “unauthorized work by non-citizens”
http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_021606.html
The suspense file has continued to grow since this testimony four ago....at a higher rate than the $7 billion/year
Testimony is not a factual statistic, sorry fail again Demoncratic Shrill....
I think the issue is more than just crime statistics. The costs in other areas is also choking the system. Prisons, healthcare, education...
[YOUTUBE]KjPBtfpn8wI[/YOUTUBE]
There is also a piece on it here from
CBS News
Testimony?
[COLOR="Red"]Testimony is not a factual statistic[/COLOR], sorry fail again Demoncratic Shrill....
To further clarify, it is my understanding that governnment data is not accceptable to either of you as well, since you view such data as "propoganda, biased or unreliable"....unless, of course, that government data supports your position, in which case it is acceptable.
:rolleyes:
One of the things that has been talked about quite a bit down here is that the crime rate in the metro areas has gone down significantly at the same time as more and more of my fellow arizonans are becoming fulltime firearm carriers. The debate has been whether that is cause/effect or just coincidental. . .
It's getting harder and harder for anyone to believe it is "just coincidental." It has been the uniform experience of each and every state that has liberalized concealed carry of weapons (CCW for short).
(And the one reason Spexxvet can survive while hysterically not packing heat is because others can do it for him, and in his place.)
There is very strong evidence that illegal immigrants contribute significantly to the Social Security "earnings suspense" fund....the funds from received from "bad" social security numbers.
The fund now totals more than $50 billion....the SS Administrator estimates that $5-8 billion/year is from illegal immigrants with false SS card.
You can quibble with the number...$5 billion or $8 billion...but $billions/year is a fact.
We're still waiting for you to add up the costs of the criminal immigrants.
C'mon Mr. statistic - where are your numbers?
What are the costs to AZ in terms of infrastructure, education, health care and so on?
After you get that we can compare the two.
Now you are just being an "
argumentative asshole" if I could use your words.
Of course, there is a cost to AZ directly related to illegal immigrants. I have never suggested otherwise. I did say, IMO, the cost reported from some sources is over-inflated and that it is factually incorrect to say that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes.
I have provided data that crime is down statewide and in border cities/counties.
I have provided data that federal expenditures on border security have increased significantly in the last 3-5 years.
And I have provided data that deportations have risen proportionately at the same time.
In fact, according to DHS/Customs data, the number of illegal immigrants currently in the country is at its lowest point in the last 10 years...having peaked in 2007.
IMO, when the governor of AZ describes the current illegal immigration problem in AZ as responsible for "murder, terror and mayhem" and the federal government is "not responding"....I would suggest she is politicizing the problem as much as anyone.
And that means politicizing the issue as much or more than those law enforcement officials in AZ and elsewhere who have expressed concern over the law and who you say are ALL acting for political or financial reasons.
Another fact check
added:
I am not for open borders, as you or others have suggested. I am not for illegal immigrants having more rights than citizens, as you or others have suggested.
IMO, the only way to address the issue is to have comprehensive reform that provides more effective border security (not wasting money on a symbolic fence) AND a pathway to citizenship for most of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country....NOT amnesty as it is mischaracterized for political purposes....but a process where they register, go to the back of the line, have a background check, pay taxes and fines, learn english, etc.
Of course, there is a cost to AZ directly related to illegal immigrants.
First time you have made that admission. Thanks.
it is factually incorrect to say that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes.
I never said they didn't.
I have provided data that federal expenditures on border security have increased significantly in the last 3-5 years.
You actually stated that Obama had done more than Bush. You are now altering your story to say 3-5 years.
No disagreement on this timeframe.
...the number of illegal immigrants currently in the country is at its lowest point in the last 10 years...having peaked in 2007.
Which is directly related to the economic downturn.
added:
I am not for open borders, as you or others have suggested.
I am not for illegal immigrants having more rights than citizens, as you or others have suggested.
Add this - Take
my posts and direct your response to
me -
Take other people's posts and direct your responses to them.
the only way to address the issue is to have comprehensive reform that provides more effective border security (not wasting money on a symbolic fence) AND a pathway to citizenship for most of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country....NOT amnesty as it is mischaracterized for political purposes....but a process where they register, go to the back of the line, have a background check, pay taxes and fines, learn english, etc.
Aside from your fence point (I'd prefer a well constructed wall with checkpoints and medical facilities on the Mexican side) I mostly agree - its in the details of how to accomplish this. Additionally, the problem with anything that is seen as "Amnesty" or preferential treatment for the criminals already here is that creates a rush on the borders. Well that and the still lingering question of Who are these 12 million and which ones do we want to allow to stay?
I see no other way to control immigration without actually controlling it. Without a wall/fence or some other means, there is no way.
It would be a pleasant surprise if you could acknowledge any of the data I provided rather than twist what I post or nitpick it or ignore data that you dont like. Somehow, you are never wrong....or never willing to acknowledge the shortcomings in your own posts.
And for the record, I provide cites when requested...certainly more than you or most others.
Finally, it would pleasant surprise if you could even consider the fact that the supporters of the law have politicized the issue as much as anyone. Somehow, from your perspective, its all on one side...ALL those who have issues with the law have political or financial interests.
Then, I might believe you are interested in an honest discussion.
It would be a pleasant surprise if you could acknowledge any of the data I provided...
????? I acknowledge that you provided data.
...rather than twist what I post or nitpick it or ignore data that you dont like.
?????
Somehow, you are never wrong....or never willing to acknowledge the shortcomings in your own posts.
????? Really? I wish.
And for the record, I provide cites when requested...certainly more than you or most others.
Again lumping people together - I post cites as often, if not more than anyone. Is there somewhere I didn't post a cite that you need?
WTF are you talking about?
Finally, it would pleasant surprise if you could even consider the fact that EVERYONE has politicized the issue. Then, I might believe you are interested in an honest discussion.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
ETA - way to take another post out of context again. I let it go because you made some cogent rational points, but immediately after I reply you attack and get all snarky again. Probably is better we do not communicate anymore.
Somethings never change......you are always the victim.
You never twist others post...but yours are take out of context.
Cry me a river, dude, and put me on ignore.
But when I see bullshit and narrow minded generalizations, I will respond.
Was the bullshit part the part where I agreed with you?
Oh wait - that was simply your way of admitting that you, in fact, took my post out of context intentionally and therefore its ok because other people do/did it.
From redux's link:
"Violence is on the Mexican side, like it's breathing on us," said Estrada, whose county has 50 miles of border with Mexico. "But the [Santa Cruz] county is very safe as a whole. If there's any violence here, it's in the rural areas and canyons… There are probably a lot of things going on we're not aware of."
President Obama, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to Face Off Over Immigration at White House
The administration and Congress have been at loggerheads over comprehensive immigration reform legislation that would enhance security along U.S. borders and address the situation of an estimated 10.8 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. Arizona is home to an estimated 460,000 of those immigrants.
Meanwhile, the administration is weighing a legal challenge to Arizona's law on grounds it may impede federal authority to set and enforce national immigration policy and could lead to abuses based on race.
Although the law specifically states that law enforcement officers may not consider race, color or national origin as a basis for inquiring about an individual's immigration status, Latinos and civil rights groups worry the potential for racial profiling is still there.
Link
As an aside... What law doesn't have the potential to be discriminatory? You have humans enforcing them.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer says she and President Barack Obama have agreed to try to work together on a solution to the nation's immigration and border security woes.
Brewer also says Obama assured her that most of the 1,200 National Guard troops he is sending to the southern border will be coming to her state. Brewer recently signed a tough new immigration enforcement law that requires police to check people's immigration status.
Obama has denounced the law as discriminatory.
Brewer spoke Thursday after a half-hour meeting with Obama in the Oval Office.
Read more:
That was less than informative.
(a) Every law enforcement agency shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
As an aside... What law doesn't have the potential to be discriminatory? You have humans enforcing them.
Please point to any other law where citizens (not illegals) of one race or ethnicity are far more likely to be subject to being "questioned" about their immigration status than other races, when not in custody for questioning about any other crime.
Again, I am not talking about illegals, but citizens and legal residents who happen to be Hispanic and who will be faced with the potential prospect of be subjected to more scrutiny to determine if they broke the state law of being in the country illegally based solely on undefined "suspicious" behavior.
BTW...I did get a good laugh out of your signature:
Support America-Support Arizona
Supporting America means supporting the Arizona law?
Does that mean those who have concerns about the AZ law are UnAmerican or somehow not supporting America?
Damn... and I thought supporting America means supporting the right to dissent.
You are such a hypocrite - You choose to support a boycott and I choose to support the state.
Any law - traffic laws - anything where the police have to use their discretion could be construed as being discriminatory.
You are such a hypocrite - You choose to support a boycott and I choose to support the state.
Please explain what is hypocritical about my comment. I dont have problem with you supporting the state. I disagree with you, but I never brought support of America into the equation, which iMO, is nonsense.
But correct me if I am wrong...you are the one who suggests or infers that supporting America has some relation to supporting your position.
If I misinterpreted, please explain what supporting America has to do with support a state law as opposed to expressing concern about a state law.
Support the state or boycott the state..that is everyone's right and it has absolutely nothing to with supporting America.
Any law - traffic laws - anything where the police have to use their discretion could be construed as being discriminatory.
Traffic laws are far more likely to be applied equally to all races (despite "driving while black or brown) than a state law that makes illegal immigration a state crime and thus, by its very nature and objectives, far more likely to be applied more to one race than others
This law has the real potential and likelihood NOT to be applied equally to all citizens and legal residents.
There is no comparison to traffic laws or any other laws.
Please point to any other law where citizens (not illegals) of one race or ethnicity are far more likely to be subject to being "questioned" about their immigration status than other races, when not in custody for questioning about any other crime.
This is about geography, not discrimination.
What if NY passed the same law, written exactly the same way?
This is about geography, not discrimination.
What if NY passed the same law, written exactly the same way?
IMO, and the opinion of many legal experts, this law has a greater potential adverse impact on Hispanic citizens and legal residents than other races. That makes it discriminatory. Others disagree, I get that.
Again, that is why the courts should decide.
Particularly, when the law only requires "reasonable suspicion" and does not prohibit considering race as a factor. It only says race cannot be the sole factor for determining reasonable suspicion. When race is A factor (not the sole factor), it borders or crosses the line of being discriminatory.
If you are a Hispanic citizen or legal resident of AZ, you are more likely to face "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant and in violation of the state law than Anglos, Blacks, Asians.....I honestly dont see how objective observers can suggest otherwise.
IMO, there would be much less concern with the law being potentially discriminatory if it relied on "probable cause" (a greater burden of proof) rather than "reasonable suspicion".
added:
In case I wasnt clear enough about your NY comparison......any law in any state that uses a standard of "reasonable suspicion" and allows race to be a determining factor in that suspicion (just not the sole factor) raises serious legal questions of being discriminatory.
I can imagine the outrage if NY passed a similar law targeting muslims (or anyone who just looks the part.)
Unarmed Predator drones flying along border
No not the Pakistani borders...
EL PASO -- Unarmed Predator drones are now flying along part of the Texas-Mexico border, an official confirmed Saturday.
A member of Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes' office said the flights began earlier last week.
The Federal Aviation Administration had authorized the flights to begin on June 1.
Predators, known for deadly strikes against insurgents in the mountains of Pakistan, can provide detailed images of ground targets from high altitude. Texas lawmakers have said they are convinced the drones will help secure the increasingly violent Southwest border.
The new permit authorizes drones to fly between Fort Huachuca, Ariz., and Big Bend National Park. Lawmakers have asked the FAA to approve flights out of Corpus Christi that would cover the rest of the Texas border and the Gulf of Mexico coastline.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, two weeks ago introduced a bill that would pay for at least six new drone systems and hire pilots to bolster coverage of the entire 2,000-mile Southwest border.
"We must employ state-of-the-art border monitoring and security techniques," Hutchison said in a statement.
Hutchison said that Customs and Border Protection officials told her only 700 miles of the border is under "effective control." The rest of the border becomes an open door for drug cartels, arms dealers, human traffickers and terrorists, she said.
Texas lawmakers have also asked that the FAA to create a faster way of processing applications for new flights.
Link I can imagine the outrage if NY passed a similar law targeting muslims (or anyone who just looks the part.)
Or Christians. :eek:
Seriously. We're so goddammed petrified of terrorists, but we're worried about those folks who are sneaking over here to clean our hotel rooms.
Target any nationality in New York City, call it part of the war on terror, and there will be serious anger and consequences I don't want to ponder.
You know why? Terrorism and power and money are all related, mostly because we want to lie naked in oil all goddam day. (coughBushcough) The Mexican people have little to no say in anything, because they don't have all the money.
Words of Wisdom
[INDENT][YOUTUBE]iFyOaGm7ykA&feature[/YOUTUBE][/INDENT]
I just got back from Mexico. Apparently they still like my money there. All is well.
Words of Wisdom
Words of partisan bullshit.
Words of partisan bullshit.
I would suggest the "words of wisdom" video is political humor as opposed to the partisan bullshit of the AZ governor who has made unsubstantiated claims about the the so-called increase in violent crime that threatens the safety of AZ citizens (despite the fact that violent crime is down statewide and in border cities/counties)?
Or her false claim that that the federal government has done little or nothing to deport illegal immigrants (despite the fact that federal spending has increased substantially as have deportations and the flow of illegals coming into the country is at its lowest point in 10 years)?
IMO, the law may be good partisan politics for an unelected governor,who until she signed the law, had dismal poll ratings and jumped onto a hot button issue that the majority (ie White AZ) supports....but it is terrible public policy.
It is discriminatory....it will adversely impact community policy and the level of trust between police and the Hispanic community...and it will do absolutely nothing to secure the border.
It may get her elected to a full term...thats the bottom line.
IMO, the law ... a hot button issue that the majority[COLOR="Red"] (ie White AZ) [/COLOR]supports....but it is terrible public policy.
Cite please.
It is discriminatory....
Prove it.
that the [COLOR="Red"]majority (ie White AZ)[/COLOR] supports....but it is terrible public policy.
You might be seeing a thinking of a different Arizona, perhaps? The one I live in hardly has a white majority.
You might be seeing a thinking of a different Arizona, perhaps? The one I live in hardly has a white majority.
According to census figures, AZ is majority white, non-Hispanic:
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2008 58.4%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008 (b) 30.1%
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html
Or:
According to the 2005-2007 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau,
White Americans made up 76.4% of Arizona's population; of which 59.6% were non-Hispanic whites. Blacks or African Americans made up 3.4% of Arizona's population; of which 3.3% were non-Hispanic blacks. American Indians made up 4.5% of the state's population; of which 4.1% were non-Hispanic. Asian Americans made up 2.3% of the state's population. Pacific Islander Americans made up 0.1% of the state's population. Individuals from some other race made up 10.8% of the state's population; of which 0.2% were non-Hispanic. Individuals from two or more races made up 2.4% of the state's population; of which 1.4% were non-Hispanic. In addition,
Hispanics and Latinos made up 29.0% of Arizona's population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Arizona
Even factoring in an estimated 1/2 million illegals....it wont change the fact that AZ is majority White, non-Hispanic.
And the polls on the AZ law are equally divided by race.
Cite please.
Prove it.
You first :)
Prove that ALL those constitutional experts, local elected officials and law enforcement officials who oppose the law do so out of political or financial interests, as you stated....and not out of concern about discrimination or concern that the law will not only be ineffective, but counter-productive, creating a greater divide between law enforcement and the Hispanic community.
But as I
posted earlier... IMO, any law that allows race to be a factor in determining "reasonable suspicion" is discriminatory...particularly when one race will obviously be targeted more than others....unless of course, you expect AZ cops to be looking for illegal Canadians or Haitians.
I also said, ultimately, the courts should make that legal determination.
IMO, any law that [COLOR="Red"]allows race to be a factor in determining[/COLOR] "reasonable suspicion" is discriminatory...
Cite please...
I also said, ultimately, the courts should make that legal determination.
And they will.
Cite please...
Are you really that dense or just being an argumentative asshole.
I said In My Opinion.
So why cant you cite a source to support your statement that ALL those who oppose the law are motivated by political or financial interests.
Or why cant you answer the earlier question....what the fuck does supporting America have to do with supporting the AZ law?
Or support your statement with a cite that government data is biased or untrustworthy....of course, unless it supports your position.
added:
I accept that providing crime data on AZ border cities/counties is not enough for you and/or others...or the fact that federal expenditures on border security have increased significantly in recent years....as have deportations....or the fact that the number of illegals coming into the country have been on a decline in recent years.....making the governor's statements less that factual.....and,
IMO, political posturing on her part to get herself re-elected.
I believe the law specifically prohibits race from being a factor.
allows race to be a factor in determining "reasonable suspicion"
I never asked you to back up your
opinion, just the part of the bill where it states that race can be used.
I believe the law specifically prohibits race from being a factor.
I never asked you to back up your opinion, just the part of the bill where it states that race can be used.
I believe that law does not specifically and totally prohibit race from being a factor.
In fact, in the final version, after sending the bill to the governor, the state did remove the language that race cannot be the sole factor in determining reasonable suspicion in an attempt to affirm that there will not be racial profiling.....but what remains is the language "except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."
Which still leave many unanswered questions (the Supreme has ruled in the past that profiling is legal under very limited circumstances, after which the Appeals Court for the district of AZ, in another ruling. said it is not legal)...as does the issue of what constitutes reasonable suspicion.
If not race, then what...the fact that a cop may hear someone speaking Spanish? or as one official suggested, by the clothes one wears?
I'm curious...what would you consider to be factors of reasonable suspicion? And what is to prevent the cops from using race...just the fact that the law says they cant?
Do you honestly believe that the cops will be asking Anglos to provide documentation of their citizenship at a level equal to Hispanics...when not being detained for questioning related to another crime?
I said repeated that it was my opinion that the law raises constitutional issues......and I stand by that.
Oh, and as to AZ being majority white....58-59% is a majority where I come from.
allows race to be a factor in determining "reasonable suspicion" is discriminatory
So you admit that your post above claiming it was, is in fact, false and misleading.
Thank you.
And what is to prevent the cops from using race...just the fact that the law says they cant?
Why are you so biased against the public servants who have sworn to uphold the laws of our country and protect its citizens?
So you admit that your post above claiming it was, is in fact, false and misleading.
Thank you.
Fuck you. I didnt claim anything,....I said it was my opinion.
As others have noted here.....you are transparent in twisting what others post.
Why are you so biased against the public servants who have sworn to uphold the laws of our country and protect its citizens?
Why are you so biased against local elected officials and law enforcement officials who oppose the law or have concerns about its constitutionality to suggest that they are ALL politically or financially motivated?
Or on a broader level, why are you so biased against government data...to make your claim that government data is biased and untrustworthy....unless the data supports your opinion.
And I am still curious what supporting America has to do with supporting a state law.
Insult, deny and deflect... well done.
Insult, deny and deflect... well done.
Fuck off....you cant handle the truth. :D
But you are great at accusing others of "insult, deny and deflect" while refusing to respond to similar questions posed to you regarding your posts.
Why do you keep deflecting this question:
Why are you so biased against local elected officials and law enforcement officials who oppose the law or have concerns about its constitutionality to suggest that they are ALL politically or financially motivated?
Now go stand in the corner and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to demonstrate what a true American you are.
*Note* Nice edit AGAIN after the reply. I guess anyone responding to you will have to quote your original post in its entirety so that your changes after their reply will be, how did you put it... transparent. You do that quite often.
As others have noted here.....you are transparent in twisting what others post.
Show us all the twist - Quote by quote...
ETA
Fuck off....you cant handle the truth.
Then magically all this appears after being replied to...
But you are great at accusing others of "insult, deny and deflect" while refusing to respond to similar questions posed to you regarding your posts.
Why do you keep deflecting this question: Why are you so biased against local elected officials and law enforcement officials who oppose the law or have concerns about its constitutionality to suggest that they are ALL politically or financially motivated?
Now go stand in the corner and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to demonstrate what a true American you are.
Perfect example
Deal with it any way you like, asshole.
And you've gone too far
But you know it don't matter anyway.
You can rely on your old man's money...
:lol:
I knew I liked Hall & Oates.
The Arizona Diamondbacks announced that Daryl Hall and John Oates have canceled their post-game concert at Chase Field that had been scheduled to follow a game against the Dodgers on July 2.
Hall and Oates issued the following statement:
"In addition to our personal convictions, we are standing in solidarity with the music community in our boycott of performing in Arizona at this time. We would like to emphasize that this has nothing to do with the management of the Arizona Diamondbacks, who have been professional and cooperative throughout our dealings with them. This is our response to a very specific action of the state."
And you've gone too far
But you know it don't matter anyway.
You can rely on your old man's money...
:lol:
I knew I liked Hall & Oates.
Damn! I might even have gone to that game. It's the only stadium i know of that has a pool inside one of the special booths where you can swim and watch the game at the same time. :-)
Found a poll from MSNBC -
Do you support Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration?
In July, Arizona will begin enforcing a new law that requires law enforcement officers to check someone’s immigration status if they have reason to suspect that he or she is in the country illegally. Do you think this is a good idea?
Yes 95.9%832,784 votes ----- No 4.1% 36,017 votes
Of course not that it means anything.
And you've gone too far
But you know it don't matter anyway.
You can rely on your old man's money...
:lol:
I knew I liked Hall & Oates.
Support America - Support Karaoke and sing Sara Smile
How about Out of Touch? :D
Found a poll from MSNBC -
Of course not that it means anything.
LOL
This was a online poll....totally unscientific and one which in right wings sites across the net linked to the poll and encouraged supporters to flood the poll.
One example from
right wing news
A more interesting (and more scientific) poll is the NBC/WSJ poll....where 64% favor the law and at the same time, 66% believe it will lead to discrimination.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/05/12/4433376-poll-nearly-two-thirds-back-az-lawSupport America - Support Karaoke and sing Sara Smile
Senora Smile
Senora Smile
Hombre eater
:lol2:
Hey...it solves the immigration problem.
she's watching..she's waiting...she only comes out at night and she'll chew them up.
Oh, so nothing Republicans and conservatives ever do is ever valid because... well, they're Republicans and conservatives, is that it, Redux?
God, your bigotries and your kneejerkery are appalling. But then, what use have you for values so long as you have the Party?
And, from
Ruben Navarrette, who's made a business of being "all
inmigrantes all the time," weighs in with another of his rather strained columns, viz.,
• The scope and intent of the law have always been clear. Truth: Supporters like to forget that there have been two versions of the law. The first was defective and had to be fixed one week after it was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer.
IOW, the problem was noted and the patch was applied well before the law went into effect. No point for Mr. Navarrette here.
• Arizona is being invaded. The law is a cry for help. Truth: No, it’s a claim to victimhood. Our society is full of people who duck responsibility for their actions by playing the victim. Now states are doing it. Arizona has illegal immigrants because Arizonans hire them. Take away the “help wanted” sign, and they won’t come.
As if that were anything like a realistic option. I'd call this shot a two-cent special. When México has a middle class visible to the naked eye, the immigration problem will dry up. It's an economic problem with an economic solution; it will not be tractable by remedies of law nor of fortification.
. . . Under existing federal statutes, immigrants may have their citizenship questioned but only by federal agents. Under the Arizona law, that power is extended to local police. Many legal scholars believe this to be clearly unconstitutional because immigration policy is a federal responsibility and not something that can be done piecemeal by individual states.
And he would -- what? Continue the present ineffectuality? Federal agencies not getting the job done they
say should be done, while doing something...? A state is indicting the Fed for not doing something assigned it by the Constitution; of course the Fed deserves to be embarrassed at this. Complaining about it isn't going to help
anyone.
And finally, this straining at a gnat while clearly not recognizing he's doing so:
• This law makes Arizonans safer. Truth: Quite the opposite. By sending illegal immigrants underground, Arizona has created a pool of ready-made victims who can be preyed upon at will because they won’t report crimes to police. Scoundrels, thieves and predators will pounce.
That's the
present situation, Ruben
carito. What's this "if this goes on" scenario of yours? Oh, right -- this is the kind of strained thinking that's all through your columns any time inmigrantes come up.
Oh, so nothing Republicans and conservatives ever do is ever valid because... well, they're Republicans and conservatives, is that it, Redux?
God, your bigotries and your kneejerkery are appalling. But then, what use have you for values so long as you have the Party?
This from one who consistently resorts to childish name-calling of democrats,,,and relies on knee jerk libertarian talking points that he cant support with facts?
Pot meet kettle.
And, from Ruben Navarrette, who's made a business of being "all inmigrantes all the time," weighs in with another of his rather strained columns, viz.,
IOW, the problem was noted and the patch was applied well before the law went into effect. No point for Mr. Navarrette here.
Constitutional issues still remain both regarding the question if immigration law is solely the responsibility of the federal government as identified in the Constitution.,..and the question of discrimination based on reasonable suspicion, including racial profiling if it meets the test of the standard set by the Court (and many legal experts across the political spectrum dont think it does)
More on the second issue:
Late changes to the Arizona immigration law "lay to rest questions over the possibility of racial profiling." ... not quite
One would think that die hard libertarians like you would be concerned about any potential infringement of civil liberties....but i guess not if it wont impact you directly.
]And he would -- what? Continue the present ineffectuality? Federal agencies not getting the job done they say should be done, while doing something...? A state is indicting the Fed for not doing something assigned it by the Constitution; of course the Fed deserves to be embarrassed at this. Complaining about it isn't going to help anyone.
Spending on border security has increased from $6 billion to $10 billion in the last 4=5 years......Deportations are up significantly in those years and the total number of illegals and the number of new illegals coming into the country is at the lowest point in 10 years. And the violent crime issue? Debunked.
Why cant you guys accept any of the above facts.
The fed response has been far from perfect...but ineffectual? Because it hasnt solved the problem completely, despite making significant progress in the last 4-5 years?
As to the effectiveness of the law in dealing with the current illegals....many law enforcement officials have serious doubts, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police:
[INDENT]The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police (AACOP) remains in opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 1070. The provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner...
http://www.leei.us/main/media/AACOP_STATEMENT_ON_SENATE_BILL_1070.pdf
[/INDENT]
A liberal, partisan Democrat organization?
So putting the constitutional issues aside, please, explain how this law will help with border security? Or why you think it wont result in mistrust of police within the Hispanic community. Or why it wont put the cops in a no-win situation with undefined standards of reasonable suspicion?
added:
Ultimately, IMO, the only effective solution...bring them out in the open through a pathway to citizenship...NOT amnesty, as it is falsely characterized by many on the right, but a process of registration, background checks, payments of fines and taxes, English language requirements, and going to the back of the line.
The added benefit....$tens of billions in additional annual tax revenues and probably $billions in savings in law enforcement expenditures.
So they finally are sending a message to the illegals on the border.
Deadly force should be used more often.
Wow - without knowing the specifics, I would say that the death of a 14 year old boy is tragic. Relating this incident to the increase of deadly force for border security is highly questionable.
Arizona's tough new immigration enforcement law is fueling an exodus of Hispanics from the state seven weeks before it goes into effect, according to officials and residents in the state.
Though no one has precise figures, reports from school officials, businesses and individuals indicate worried Hispanics — both legal and illegal — are leaving the state in anticipation of the law, which will go into effect July 29.
Schools in Hispanic areas report unusual drops in enrollment. The Balsz Elementary School District is 75% Hispanic, and within a month of the law's passage, the parents of 70 students pulled them out of school, said District Superintendent Jeffrey Smith. The district lost seven students over the same one-month period last year, and parents tell Smith the Arizona law is the reason for leaving.
~snip~
Juan Carlos Cruz, an illegal immigrant who has worked in plant nurseries for 20 years, huddled with dozens of relatives over the Memorial Day Weekend in the backyard of his brother's Phoenix-area home to plot out the family's next move to avoid what they say will be harassment by police. Virginia and California are the front-runners.
"If I were alone, I'd try to stay. But I have a family, and I have to find a place where we can live with more freedom," said Cruz, who hopes to move July 4 to blend in with holiday weekend traffic. "This is getting too hard."
Poll: More Americans want an Ariz.-style immigration law in their states
Big jump in Latino registration for Democrats We will see. Never believe the first reports.
I may have posted this before but don't remember. While the state is far from emptying out I have personally seen some evidence that a fair amount of illegals are hitting the road.
1) An adult tournament I always play in cancelled because some of the teams who were registered had to bail out due to lack of players. They are local teams I am familiar with and it was no secret they weren't all legal.
2) One of the soccer clubs I interact with is having serious problems because about half their coaches packed up and left rather than risk the chance of getting caught here.
3) One of the golf courses I know the management at is royally screwed. They are redoing the course from bottom up and the company that won the contract did so based on their access to a 200 person workforce. They've only been able to keep about 30 there regularly and have now resorted to hiring college kids. The management acknowledges that their workforce was primarily daylaborers who have left the area.
There doesn't seem to be any significant effect here, but obviously things are changing a bit.
Its not a solution to the problem....it just shifts it elsewhere....with hard working legal Hispanics leaving as well.
And makes AZ even more majority white.
Perhaps they can go to CA of Wash DC. More states are/will be following AZ lead.
The real issue could be what happens if/when they go back to Mexico (that is where the vast majority are from) to find a country that neither cares, wants nor can provide for them. Perhaps this will will be the impetus for them to take back their country.
Perhaps they can go to CA of Wash DC. More states are/will be following AZ lead.
The real issue could be what happens if/when they go back to Mexico (that is where the vast majority are from) to find a country that neither cares, wants nor can provide for them. Perhaps this will will be the impetus for them to take back their country.
I think it is reasonable to assume they will go to neighboring states. The gov of NM doesnt support the law, neither does the gov of CA or the two new candidates for gov in CA, nor does the gov of TX.
It is not a solution. It is pushing the problem, to whatever limited extent, onto some one else.
Why do you think (or do you) more states should follow AZ's lead before they know it the law is constitutional and, if it is, whether or not it is enforceable and effectively addresses the problem.
IMO, for any state to mimic AZ before those issues are resolved, are doing so for political purposes, not for the best public policy. Certainly the other border states are not rushing to follow the AZ lead..and good for them (including the two biggest states, CA and TX, with republican governors and with the biggest problems) for not jumping on the bandwagon despite the clamoring from the right.
It is not a solution. It is pushing the problem, to whatever limited extent, onto some one else.
Seems like thats whats been happening for years, if not decades. This time however it is being pushed onto those that are responsible for it - The Fed Gov't.
Why do you think (or do you) more states should follow AZ's lead before they know it the law is constitutional and, if it is, whether or not it is enforceable and effectively addresses the problem.
IMO - If the Fed Gov't isn't going to address the issue and uphold its responsibilities, then the states should be able to do so.
This law in general, not specifically, does just that. It has brought this issue to the forefront again and the ball is now clearly in the Fed's court.
Do you really believe it was just coincidence that those 1,200 troops were ordered to be sent to the border and the $500 million??
Or was that simply political pandering on Obama's part? Was it a step in the right direction. IIRC - Bush sent 6000 troops.
5 times more than Obama.
IMO, for any state to mimic AZ before those issues are resolved, are doing so for political purposes, not for the best public policy. Certainly the other border states are not rushing to follow the AZ lead..and good for them (including the two biggest states, CA and TX)
Then let them go there. That shouldn't be a problem for you. According to you, those states don't see it as an issue... or do they? There is so much conflicting information.
Seventy-six percent of Houston Business Journal readers that responded to the survey would support an immigration law similar to that in Arizona.
Twenty-three percent said "no."There were 1,486 total responses.
As expected, the question resulted in a broad range of comments for and against the cause.
Nancyrae S. commented, "It really is tiresome to hear and read the ignorant remarks of the uninformed. This bill doesn't turn a state into a police state - you will not be required to present papers just because of your skin color or speech.
"The bill requires law enforcement to ask for proof of status if you are stopped for breaking the law. This proof can be as simple as a driver's license. Contrary to the idiotic remarks made by government officials - you will not be deported while out for ice cream or because you are overheard speaking in a different language."
Link
There certainly are no easy answers. There is no magic bullet, pill nor potion that will make this just go away. People will be hurt, there is no doubt. It simply must be dealt with and not pushed off as many things are in politics.
Seems like thats whats been happening for years, if not decades. This time however it is being pushed onto those that are responsible for it - The Fed Gov't.
IMO - If the Fed Gov't isn't going to address the issue and uphold its responsibilities, then the states should be able to do so.
This law in general, not specifically, does just that. It has brought this issue to the forefront again and the ball is now clearly in the Fed's court.
The federal government has increased spending on border enforcement from $6 billion to $10 billion since 2006.
The number of deportations has risen significantly in recent years.
And the total number of illegal in the country is at the lowest point in 10 years.
How is that NOT addressing the issue?
Do you really believe it was just coincidence that those 1,200 troops were ordered to be sent to the border and the $500 million??
Or was that simply political pandering on Obama's part? Was it a step in the right direction. IIRC - Bush sent 6000 troops.
5 times more than Obama.
There may or may be a direct correlation.....just as with the approval of of the use of drones, something requested for year and which Bush would not pursue.
If you look at
Obama's 2011 budget request (from Feb) there are significant increases...and this was before the AZ law was enacted.
Then let them go there. That shouldn't be a problem for you. According to you, those states don't see it as an issue... or do they?
Of course they see it as an issue, they just dont see the AZ law as an effective solution.
According to them, not me:
Governor Perry...
AZ law not right for Texas
Meg Whitman, republican nominee for governor of CA:
critical of AZ immigration law and would veto it.
There certainly are no easy answers. There is no magic bullet, pill nor potion that will make this just go away. People will be hurt, there is no doubt. It simply must be dealt with and not pushed off as many things are in politics.
Again, how is increasing border security funding by more 50% over the last 4-5 years and more aggressively pursuing deportation NOT dealing with? It seems like you expect the feds to have a magic bullet, rather than make steady significant progress.
Do you really believe it was just coincidence that those 1,200 troops were ordered to be sent to the border and the $500 million??
Or was that simply political pandering on Obama's part? Was it a step in the right direction. IIRC - Bush sent 6000 troops.
5 times more than Obama.
Do you mean the 1,200 troops that have yet to receive orders to go to the border? I know a number of the senior officers in the AZ NG headquarters and they still haven't heard much about being mobilized so it isn't happening anytime soon.
And the total number of illegal in the country is at the lowest point in 10 years
Honest question: If they are illegal and we have no accurate way of knowing who they are, where they are, or how many there are... how do you know there are fewer now than in the last 10 years?
Do you mean the 1,200 troops that have yet to receive orders to go to the border? I know a number of the senior officers in the AZ NG headquarters and they still haven't heard much about being mobilized so it isn't happening anytime soon.
Honest question: If they are illegal and we have no accurate way of knowing who they are, where they are, or how many there are... how do you know there are fewer now than in the last 10 years?
Fair question....IMO, the best available data is the annual DHS report....unless you know of something better, hopefully not from a partisan interest group that cant support their own numbers.
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf
And I stand corrected, 2009 showed the lowest total number of illegals in the country in the last five years.
so we can count them, we just can't seem to get them back out of the country. weird.
so we can count them, we just can't seem to get them back out of the country. weird.
I would frame the questions differently....should we prevent more from coming in. Yes, and the feds have been making progress doing that.
For those 10+ million already here.....should we find a way to round them all up, ensuring that it is constitutional and no legals are caught up in the sweep and toss them out (at a cost of $billions) OR find a way to bring them out from underground, the vast majority of whom are hard working and not creating havoc or committing violent crimes. and put a process in place so that they become contributing taxpayers, after a process of "paying their dues" (and contribute $billions).
and the feds have been making progress doing that.
I believe the recession is mostly responsible for that, not the feds.
How could they be counted, much less sweptup, without someone asking if they are legal?
Why is that someone more qualified than AZ police?
I believe the recessions is mostly responsible for that, not the feds.
So it has little or nothing to do with increased funding for border security over the last 4-5 years?
How would explain the increasing number of deportations?
How could they be counted, much less sweptup, without someone asking if they are legal?
Why is that someone more qualified than AZ police?
Why do you think the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police oppose the law:
[INDENT]The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police (AACOP) remains in opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 1070. The provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.
http://www.leei.us/main/media/AACOP_STATEMENT_ON_SENATE_BILL_1070.pdf
[/INDENT]
Perhaps because they think it will be difficult to enforce, take resources away from other activities and lead to greater mistrust within the Hispanic community and in effect, hurt crime fighting efforts.
There may or may be a direct correlation.....
:eyebrow:
just as with the approval of of the use of drones, something requested for year and which Bush would not pursue.
"It's Bush's fault? c'mon.
Governor Perry...AZ law not right for Texas[/URL]
Securing the border should be a top priority, Perry said, noting that he has a standing request for 1,000 National Guard troops to support civilian law enforcement efforts to keep the border secure.
I will continue to work with the legislative leadership to develop strategies that are appropriate for Texas,” Perry said. “Until the federal government brings the necessary resources to bear, we will continue to commit state funding and resources for additional border security efforts in order to protect our communities and legitimate cross-border trade and travel, while enforcing the laws already on the books.”
Meg Whitman, republican nominee for governor of CA:
critical of AZ immigration law and would veto it.
She's an R trying to run for office in CA - nuff said.
So it has little or nothing to do with increased funding for border security over the last 4-5 years?
Don't start that shit.
It is a known fact that in good economic times more people try to enter than during a recession.
Don't start that shit.
It is a known fact that in good economic times more people try to enter than during a recession.
In fact, with Mexico in recession as well, many still see better opportunities there....but the number that have gotten across has decreased as a result of increased funding for border security over the last 4-5 years, including Bush years.
The suggestion that the feds have not been acting on the issue over the last 4-5 years, is a myth, by any measure....just as the myth that illegals are creating havoc and committing violent crimes....both of which have been used by the governor and others to justify the law.
The suggestion that the feds have not been acting on the issue over the last 4-5 years, is a myth,
I never said the fed has not been acting. STOP DOING THAT!
I never said the fed has not been acting. STOP DOING THAT!
What you said a few posts ago was: IMO - If the Fed Gov't isn't going to address the issue and uphold its responsibilities...
My response...the feds have been addressing the issue more in the last 4-5 years (including Bush...so stop saying I blame Bush) than previous years, by any measure.
But, I was referring more to the honorable governor of AZ....if you read the full statement :)
IMO, we lost the best opportunity for comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. It had bi-partisan support, including Bush.
Then McCain backed away from his own Kennedy-McCain
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 to run for president and felt a need to pander to the conservative wing of his own party to get the nomination.
We could probably have a comprehensive bill this year if only a handful of Republicans would agree to a process of providing a pathway to citizenship for most (not all) of the illegals already here.
Geveryl nails it again...
It's our house, our rules
I have watched, listened and thought about illegal immigration in this country, and decided I would not voice my opinion until I had been able to weigh all sides of the issue and draw my own conclusion.
I am sympathetic to those who come to this country seeking a better life. We all wish to be able to work and provide for our families.
However, I have no sympathy for the blatant hypocrisy shown by Mexico's own president regarding immigration, and the seeming inability of those who support illegal immigration to entertain the thought that those who do not support their stance may have valid reasons.
A few weeks ago, Wolf Blitzer interviewed Mexico's President Felipe Calderon. As I listened to the interview, I kept reaching for my Q-tips, because I wanted to make sure I clearly comprehended what Calderon was saying.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to reenter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.
After Wolf Blitzer asked President Calderon about the law, Calderon explained that the law "was true, but it is not anymore," and that that illegal immigration has not be a crime in Mexico, since "one year ago."
One year?
Hmmm. Since illegal immigration has been a problem in this country for more than one year, and those who support illegals do so because they feel the laws in this country are too harsh, than they are either ignorant of the Mexican law or are fine with the mistreatment of illegals in their own country, but not by the so-called mistreatment of illegal immigrants in the United States.
After being asked by Blitzer if people coming from Central America (e.g. Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) could "just come into Mexico," Calderon said, "No, they need to fill out a form."
Then Calderon added that in addition to all the immigrants from Central America who needed documentation, the Mexican police on the border go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
According to Calderon, if someone sneaks into Mexico, not only can he or she not get a job, but Calderon stressed emphatically (and I'm quoting him) , "We send them back. We send them back."
By the end of the interview my ears were bleeding. It seemed that Calderon was totally oblivious to the blatant hypocrisy and gall exhibited during the interview.
I wonder if he and those who support illegal immigration has ever heard of "practice what you preach." There is obviously a problem in Mexico that desperately needs to be fixed; otherwise, so many people from that country wouldn't feel the need to come here for better opportunities.
President Calderon adheres to the same laws (and some even worse) that he berates the state of Arizona for legalizing, but no one seems to want to address that issue.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Regarding illegal immigrants from Mexico, Calderon lives in the crystal cathedral.
It's interesting that those fighting against securing the Mexican border don't exert that same energy into fighting for the rights of Mexican citizens in Mexico. Calderon made it abundantly clear that Mexico is his "house," and in his house the occupants must play by his rules.
The United States of America is our house. As my parents used to say, "As long as you live in our house, you'll abide by our rules."
Geveryl Robinson, formerly of Savannah, lives and writes in Knoxville. [email]geveryl@gmail.com[/email].
http://savannahnow.com/column/2010-06-12/robinson-its-our-house-our-rulesGeveryl nails it again...
It's our house, our rules
Absolutely, it is our house and should be our rules.
And you were the one who pointed out that our rules (the constitution) assigns the power to "establish uniform rules of naturalization" to the federal government.
States can help enforce...they cannot legislate powers above those in federal law.....so, many constitutional experts believe, says the supremacy clause
Can Arizona’s controversial new immigration law — allowing the police to stop people and demand proof of citizenship — pass constitutional muster?
To many scholars, the answer is, simply, no.
“The law is clearly pre-empted by federal law under Supreme Court precedents,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, an expert in constitutional law and the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law.
Since the 1800s, the federal government has been in charge of controlling immigration and enforcing those laws, Professor Chemerinsky noted. And that is why, he argued, Arizona’s effort to enforce its own laws is destined to fail.
But even some experts who say they are troubled by the law said it might survive challenges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28legal.html
That is the second question for the courts....entirely separate from the question of the potential discriminatory nature of the AZ law.
more from the link...
Because the Arizona statute draws directly on federal statutes concerning documentation and other issues, “the Arizona law is perfect concurrent enforcement,” Professor Kobach said.
“The coverage of this law and the text of the law are a little hard to square,” Mr. Baker said. “There’s nothing in the law that requires cities to stop people without cause, or encourages racial or ethnic profiling by itself.”
The new law is controversial even within Arizona. Its critics include the attorney general,
Terry Goddard, a Democrat running for governor. Mr. Goddard called the law a “tragic mistake” that “does nothing to make us safer.”
Mr. Kobach said the courts had long given the police broad authority to stop people and to make immigration arrests — and asserted that the bill “expressly prohibits racial profiling,” because it stated that officers “may not solely consider race, color or national origin.”
Julie Pace, an Arizona lawyer who brought suit challenging the 2007 law, issued, with her colleagues, an analysis of the new law arguing that “the word ‘solely’ makes this purported anti-discrimination provision an authorization to allow racial profiling and discrimination, as long as the government is not 100 percent racially motivated.”
Stewart A. Baker, a former Department of Homeland Security policy official who worked on immigration overhaul in the Bush administration, said fears of the new law were overblown.
more from the link...
Thanks....I wasnt trying to hide anything....just doing what you do frequently....posting selected parts of a link.
None of which makes the constitutionality of the law any less controversial....the point that I have made repeatedly.
As to highlighting Goddard, are you suggesting that his motivation is political and the current governor's is not? Or the legal experts who support the law have different motivations than those who question its constitutionality?
Just asking...given that you said ALL those legal experts, elected officials and law enforcement officials who have concerns are motivated by political or financial interests. :)
added:
I understand its your opinion, I am just trying to understand the reasoning behind it...why you think one side is more motivated by the best public interest and the other by political/financial interests? Based on what?
I also posted the
AACOP statement opposing the law, not based on the constitutionality, but on the potential negative impact on law enforcement. Other police organizations disagree. Is one group of law enforcement officials more politically motivated? Why?
None of which makes the constitutionality of the law any less controversial....the point that I have made repeatedly.
And we have agreed - Its a controversial issue.
As to highlighting Goddard, are you suggesting that his motivation is political and the current governor's is not? Or the legal experts who support the law have different motivations than those who question its constitutionality?
It does make things more interesting and ones opinion on this issue just months beforehand would have some impact on it, yes.
Especially one who is a D running for office in AZ.
why you think one side is more motivated by the best public interest and the other by political/financial interests? Based on what?
That is not my belief, I think that they are, both sides are motivated by the power, both political & financial. They are more concerned with keeping their current jobs and getting the next "better" one.
They do more campaigning and work harder at that than they do at the job they were elected to do. They all have created these problems and they constantly act outraged that these problems exist. ALL OF THEM. I'm personally sick and tired of hearing about the ills of our nation when EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM is directly traceable to those elected to solve them. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to them and the decisions they make. I couldn't give a rats ass if they have a D or an R stamped on their forehead.
Is one group of law enforcement officials more politically motivated? Why?
How should I know? Perhaps it is their personal belief systems. Perhaps it is those who help to keep them in power. Perhaps they too are all full of shit. Dunno.
As someone pointed out about you in another discussion, when all you look for is the negative....that is all you see.
IMO, you only look at the negatives of the federal actions and some nebulous negative motivations of those who oppose the law.
I know you dont agree.
And who might that someone be?
When the overwhelming truth stares you in the face and you refuse to see it, you are an idiot. I choose to no longer "believe" in that which obviously is not true.
You make your living the same way they do. That is how I view your posts. You are one of them.
FWIW and it none of your business, I see a great deal of positives in the world. Especially over the last year.
And IMO, when you say
"If the Fed Gov't isn't going to address the issue and uphold its responsibilities....", you are ignoring the facts that the federal government has done more in the last 4-5 years than previous years....more money, better border security, more deportations......
The overwhelming truth? The feds have been addressing the issue....there it is...staring you right in the face.
I agree with this...
You dont see the positives in anything the feds do.
Just my opinion...just as you have your opinion of me. :)
btw...i think only an idiot would say that I make my living the same was as they do...given that I havent been a lobbyist for more than 15 years and you have no idea how I make my living.
All that extra money has been dumped into high tech surveillance devices, that they haven't been able to get to work.
Yes..even with the increased spending in each of the last 4-5 year on both border security and enforcement (deportation)....more needs to be done.
I suggested what I thought it should be....comprehensive federal legislation with even tougher border enforcement AND a pathway to citizenship (with penalties).
NOT a state law that is questionably constitutional, does not have the support of the major law enforcement organization in the state and drives legal residents (not just illegals) out of the state.
All that extra money has been dumped into high tech surveillance devices, that they haven't been able to get to work.
I dont think that is the case.
Money has gone to more border patrol agents, more customs and enforcement agents, more DoJ prosecutorial resources, more on employment eligibility verification systems. etc.
Peanuts.
I would suggest looking at budget/appropriation figures.
the federal government has done more in the last 4-5 years than previous years....
Completely irrelevant. It obviously isn't ENOUGH. Its like being sorta pregnant.
Get the job done
[SIZE="7"].[/SIZE]I agree with this...You dont see the positives in anything the feds do.
Well you certainly have picked out a wonderful example.
Lets see what was before that - shall we?
Senators load financial overhaul with irrelevancies
Read more:
I think they see this as one of the last pieces of legislation getting done before the potential clusterfuck returns.
Exactly what is wrong with realizing, in advance, that congress will not get much done for the next couple years as the supermajority deteriorates and it becomes two years of our elected officials basically running for their next term while being paid for this term?
NOT a state law that is questionably constitutional, does not have the support of the major law enforcement organization in the state and drives legal residents (not just illegals) out of the state.
I guess it falls to those of us without a large blind spot to mention it has 70 percent of the state's population -- Hispanics too -- supporting it. They're
tired of trailer-trash behavior, of banditos ducking back across the border, of property crimes... all that stuff. Redux, whatever his virtues and qualities may be, does not live in Arizona, and has but little knowledge of it.
I guess it falls to those of us without a large blind spot to mention it has 70 percent of the state's population -- Hispanics too -- supporting it. They're tired of trailer-trash behavior, of banditos ducking back across the border, of property crimes... all that stuff. Redux, whatever his virtues and qualities may be, does not live in Arizona, and has but little knowledge of it.
It certainly does not have 70 percent support among the state's Hispanics...more like 70 percent of Hispanics oppose it.
I also found it ironic that, according to one national poll, it has 2/3 majority support nationwide AND a slighlty larger majority believing it is discriminatory. IMO, a sad commentary when a majority of the population thinks its ok to discriminate (as long as it is discriminating against someone else).
And while I dont live in AZ, I knew that it has a majority white population...despite the assertion by our resident Arizonan to the contrary.
How many of those Hispanics in the polls are here illegally? Are related to or know someone... C'mon.
That would pretty much invalidate that poll info - no?
How many of those Hispanics in the polls are here illegally? Are related to or know someone... C'mon.
That would pretty much invalidate that poll info - no?
Knowing how legitimate polling works, I would assume the respondents are from voting rolls...legal residents.
Because they might know or be related to an illegal, their opinion doesnt count as much as any other citizen?
WTF? Thats not a bigoted statement?
But I forgot...you are never wrong!
What are you talking about? There you go again trying to put words in my mouth. no no no ...
If their opinion is based upon being related to a person here illegally. How is that not a biased response?
What are you talking about? There you go again trying to put words in my mouth. no no no ...
If their opinion is based upon being related to a person here illegally. How is that not a biased response?
Whining again about putting words in your mouth...'nope..you just dont get it, which is no surprise.
Their bias is no more than your bias that the fed arent doing the job..or my bias that I think the law in unconstitutiohnal..or the bias of some Whites who just dont like Hispanics.
Everyone has a bias...but you evidently think some are more biased than others.
Turn on the light, dimwit!
Uh no. That would not be true, but thats ok. If you really cannot see the difference between the two, thats fine.
Keep on pushing the same old tired partisan lines. Some here will cheer you on.
Of course, you know whats in the hearts of minds of every Hispanic person polled.
Just like you know whats in the hearts of minds of every constitutional expert or law enforcement officials who are concerned about the law...they are all motivated by politcal or financial interests.
No, you're not biased.
Cite for those left reading your dribble - or mine for that matter exactly where I said I know
whats in the hearts of minds of every constitutional expert or law enforcement officials who are concerned about the law...they are all motivated by politcal or financial interests.
Because I never did nor do I agree with your constant misrepresentations of my opinions. Is it too hard for you to just agree to disagree? Are you that small of a man that you cannot handle anyone else that doesn't agree with you? None of these issues are as black and white as you try to paint them.
Black and white would be...
...suggesting that if a
Hispanic person is related to or knows an illegal, that would pretty much invalidate that poll info.
That would also be knowing whats in the hearts and minds of those Hispanic persons polled...and since you dont, it only demonstrates your own bias.
Completely irrelevant. It obviously isn't ENOUGH. Its like being sorta pregnant.
Get the job done[SIZE="7"].[/SIZE]
How much are you willing to personally pony up to do ENOUGH?
What are you dribbling about now?
Obama's 2011 proposed budget proposal (from Feb - before the AZ law) includes an increase to $3.6 billion to expand the number of Customs and Border Patrol officers....an increase to $1.6 billion for customs enforcement programs to identify and remove illegal aliens who commit crimes and $137 million more to expand immigration-related verification programs.
Completely irrelevant? Then lets put it to deficit reduction instead.
What are you dribbling about now?
Which part were you incapable of understanding? Let me know, and I'll explain again. I'll even type it real slowly.
What is the relevance of your question. Why would I personally pay anything n addition to what I already pay the Fed Gov't to do the job they were elected and swore to do.
Given that a president's budget request doesnt matter as much as Congressional appropriations:
In 2007, discretionary spending on border security was $6.3 billion. When Democrats took control of Congress, discretionary spending on border security continued to rise year after year. It went to $7.9 billion in 2008; to $9.8 billion in 2009; and to $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2010.
Completely irrelevant?
What is the relevance of your question. Why would I personally pay anything n addition to what I already pay the Fed Gov't to do the job they were elected and swore to do.
Because you have espoused the concept of lowering taxes, but now you claim that not enough tax money is being spent to close the border and get illegal aliens out of our country. You even posted that you think spending should be cut evenly across the board. These seem to be conflicting positions, and I am merely asking for you to clarify.
How much are you willing to personally pony up to do ENOUGH?
Which part were you incapable of understanding? Let me know, and I'll explain again. I'll even type it real slowly.
I am merely asking for you to clarify.
Bullshit. You are being an asshole on purpose and we both know it.
:rant:
There is too much waste in our Gov't - across the board. I am not familiar enough with the inner machinations to give a comprehensive answer on where to cut/save/spend.
I can see that things are headed toward a very dangerous and potentially disastrous direction if we continue the path we are on.
This applies to more than just immigration. Its the direction and attitude of our leaders over the past decade or more. We are breeding a populous of entitlement. Who doesn't want something/everything for free? Well many are too ignorant and short-sighted to realize that it really isn't free. The cost is HUGE.
Much like the immigration issue. When one looks at the overall picture and the sheer number of people we allow to come here legally and illegally, it simply is not sustainable. We must control who comes into our country - period.
One area that needs to be addressed is how many we allow legally. Is it enough? Apparently not. Who set the number at what it is and why? How was that number determined? What is the process where are the bottlenecks ... Things need to be streamlined so that the legal path is more palatable to those who earnestly want to come here and become a part of this nation. Conversely, for those that want to simply feed off of us the penalties need to be clearly defined and swiftly meted out. Not tied up in months or years of red tape. Other countries have problems, other people have their issues. They need to fix their own problems - we cannot do it for the whole world. Actually we never could. No matter how noble that thought or gesture may have been. We need to get our own shit straight.
:rant:
Bullshit. You are being an asshole on purpose and we both know it.
I guess your definition of being an asshole is asking for clarification when someone is being a hypocrit. Gotcha.
There is too much waste in our Gov't - across the board. I am not familiar enough with the inner machinations to give a comprehensive answer on where to cut/save/spend.
But you posted
Completely irrelevant. It obviously isn't ENOUGH. Its like being sorta pregnant.
Get the job done[SIZE="7"].[/SIZE]
If you're "not familiar enough with the inner machinations to give a comprehensive answer on where to cut/save/spend" then shut the fuck up. IMHO, you just want to be the one who decides where to cut and where to spend more.
... Conversely, for those that want to simply feed off of us the penalties need to be clearly defined and swiftly meted out...
Who is "simply feeding off of us"? Who is enabling it? Who benefits? Who should you really be going after? How do you accomplish what you want to accomplish?
I guess your definition of being an asshole is asking for clarification when someone is being a hypocrit. Gotcha.
You are full of shit and we both know it.
If you're "not familiar enough with the inner machinations to give a comprehensive answer on where to cut/save/spend" then shut the fuck up.
So what you are saying is that anyone who doesn't have a comprehensive understanding of our gov't should STFU? Guess you won't be posting much anymore either.
Taking that to the next level would be telling those same people note to vote. You really are more stupider than even I thought.
IMHO, you just want to be the one who decides where to cut and where to spend more.
You got that out of what I posted? You really need to learn how to read for comprehension.
Who is "simply feeding off of us"? Who is enabling it? Who benefits? Who should you really be going after? How do you accomplish what you want to accomplish?
You don't get to ask anymore questions - You must first elaborate upon the inner machinations of our Gov't and display your comprehensive knowledge thereof.
Your entire post was even less than what little I expected from you.
You really are more stupider than even I thought.
Bwahahahaha.
You are full of shit and we both know it.
No sunbstance.
So what you are saying is that anyone who doesn't have a comprehensive understanding of our gov't should STFU?
Foolishness.
Guess you won't be posting much anymore either.
Ha Ha. It is to laugh.
Taking that to the next level would be telling those same people note to vote.
Assinine reach.
You really are more stupider than even I thought.
Poor grammer. Shows your stupidity.
You got that out of what I posted?
Yes
You really need to learn how to read for comprehension.
Did
You don't get to ask anymore questions - You must first elaborate upon the inner machinations of our Gov't and display your comprehensive knowledge thereof.
No substance.
Your entire post was even less than what little I expected from you.
Thank you.
Your post had absolutely no value - no facts, no imformation, just gobblety-gook.
My posts have absolutely no value - no facts, no imformation, just gobblety-gook.
I agree - Thats why you have now joined your friend on ignore.
I even left your spelling mistakes alone for posterity.
I agree - Thats why you have now joined your friend on ignore.
...
:sniff: We'll give you a trophy for playing a good game - loser.
According to census figures, AZ is majority white, non-Hispanic:
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2008 58.4%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008 (b) 30.1%
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html
Or:
According to the 2005-2007 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, White Americans made up 76.4% of Arizona's population; of which 59.6% were non-Hispanic whites. Blacks or African Americans made up 3.4% of Arizona's population; of which 3.3% were non-Hispanic blacks. American Indians made up 4.5% of the state's population; of which 4.1% were non-Hispanic. Asian Americans made up 2.3% of the state's population. Pacific Islander Americans made up 0.1% of the state's population. Individuals from some other race made up 10.8% of the state's population; of which 0.2% were non-Hispanic. Individuals from two or more races made up 2.4% of the state's population; of which 1.4% were non-Hispanic. In addition, Hispanics and Latinos made up 29.0% of Arizona's population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Arizona
Even factoring in an estimated 1/2 million illegals....it wont change the fact that AZ is majority White, non-Hispanic.
And the polls on the AZ law are equally divided by race.
Dear Redux,
I have not responded to this post for a number of days because I had nothing to say. You posted information that seems to be reliable in response to one of my posts. While this information seems inconsistent with what I see with my own eyes on a daily basis I see no reason for your source to be incorrect so therefore I must assume my own previously held belief was inaccurate so I see no value in arguing a point that seems to be settled.
Sincerest regards,
Lookout
There is a difference between "running away" and just not seeing anything worth discussing further.Dear Redux,
I have not responded to this post for a number of days because I had nothing to say. You posted information that seems to be reliable in response to one of my posts. While this information seems inconsistent with what I see with my own eyes on a daily basis I see no reason for your source to be incorrect so therefore I must assume my own previously held belief was inaccurate so I see no value in arguing a point that seems to be settled.
Sincerest regards,
Lookout
There is a difference between "running away" and just not seeing anything worth discussing further.
Thank you for your sincere response, even if it didnt acknowledge your initial smart ass remark.
It is certainly better than saying the data is completely irrelevant.
Seriously? My original smart ass remark about arizona not looking predominantly white from a street level view? It doesn't look that way. You posted stats saying differently. I don't see the point in arguing just for the sake of arguing. that's not why I come to the cellar.
Redux and all his responses are completely irrelevant. Get a grip man.
Redux and all his responses are completely irrelevant. Get a grip man.
Right.....census data, FBI and AZ crime reports, significantly increased federal appropriations for border security and immigration enforcement in each of the last four years, higher deportation numbers.....its all propaganda!
You're on to me, dude.
added:
Oh...and I suppose the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police is a secret arm of the Democratic Party!
Good Job Comrade! You have achieved the highest level of support of your party!
Good Job Comrade! You have achieved the highest level of support of your party!
Facts are a bitch....unless you convince yourself its all propaganda.
:lol2: You go Classic...
When the going gets tough.... the weak use ignore.:cool:
Facts are a bitch....unless you convince yourself its all propaganda.
Facts are a bitch..... and you convince yourself it is not proaganda...
You failed.
Again.
:corn:
Facts are a bitch..... and you convince yourself it is not proaganda...
You failed.
Again.
:corn:
repubican shill.
Well, Spexx, you've done a helluva job the last two pages of cementing your reputation as the Cellar's alpha wanker.
Mind you, I can think of better reputations to establish.
There are amiable people who believe in all the wrong things... one such is in the Oval Office now.
And Redux goes to some trouble to cite further monies being thrown at the problem. Well and good, at least for the Border Patrol. But can proportional results be observed -- say, that could not be just as well credited in both origin and amount to the economic downturn that produced a definite slacking in numbers coming across the Mexican border?
[YOUTUBE]3owMAs2t2Fo&feature[/YOUTUBE]
I found her statement at the 20 second mark very odd. Perhaps its just me - actually it probably is.
Preventing exploitation isn't odd. Whats odd is how they would enforce fair pay of undocumented workers.
Whats odd is how they would enforce fair pay of undocumented workers.
That was the part to which I was referring.
What do they say? Here is your check and your deportation papers?
Milwaukee County would boycott doing business with firms in Arizona to protest that state’s tough immigration law, under a measure endorsed Thursday by a County Board panel.
The county would avoid new contracts with Arizona firms or the state of Arizona and possibly discontinue any current contracts with firms in that state, under a resolution unanimously approved by the board’s finance committee. It also would bar county employees from travel to conferences in Arizona.
The aim would be to punish the state for the immigration law Arizona enacted last month that makes it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry immigration documents and gives police broad power to detain a suspected illegal immigrant.
Supervisors Peggy West and Elizabeth M.Coggs called the Arizona law racist.
“It reminds me of the days of apartheid in South Africa,” said Coggs.
The resolution goes to the full County Board Thursday.
Ok fine. Lets fast forward to Thursday ....
“Liberal Democrat County Supervisor Peggy West of Milwaukee demonstrates her superior intellectual abilities.”
They were debating whether the Milwaukee County Board in Wisconsin should boycott Arizona.
Her actual words: “If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this. But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border.”
[YOUTUBE]WQp8M0bkarM&feature[/YOUTUBE]
Yeh ok...:eyebrow:
God bless the idiots, one and all. On a serious note, it is an easy mistake to make. I'm sure geology wasn't her major in college.
I wonder if she knows that
AZ is majority White?
It is an easy mistake to make.
From a recent debate of Republican candidates for governor of AZ:
Brewer immediately jumped in, saying, “We are a nation of laws. And they are coming across our border illegally. And the majority of them in my opinion and I think in the opinion of law enforcement is that they are not coming here to work. They are coming here and they're bringing drugs. And they're doing drop houses and they're extorting people and they're terrorizing the families. That is the truth, Matt. That is the truth...”
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/87586
The majority are not coming to work? The majority are drug-dealing extortionists and terrorizing families?
The honorable governor AZ should do some fact checking of her own.
At this point he's probably right. Since the start of the recession the ones seeking work have been leaving, but the ones involved in crime, or escaping Mexican Authorities keep coming.
At this point he's probably right. Since the start of the recession the ones seeking work have been leaving, but the ones involved in crime, or escaping Mexican Authorities keep coming.
Beyond a few anecdotes, the overwhelming data would suggest otherwise. The vast majority of illegals do not commit other crimes.
And putting that aside, police chiefs in AZ have expressed that one of their concerns with the law is that it will have an adverse impact on community policing, resulting in less trust of the police among the Hispanic community.
added:
Oh, and the "he" (governor) is a she.
[YOUTUBE]bzDlN7VLmXQ&feature[/YOUTUBE]
SOME police chiefs in AZ have expressed...
Fixed it for you.... [/Reduxpropaganda]
Fixed it for you.... [/Reduxpropaganda]
If you're gonna fix it, then fix it correctly....
The non-partisan AZ Association of Chiefs of Police has expressed....
Unless you have evidence that the AACOP is a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. ;)
added:
I am curious...do you think this is not propaganda:
[INDENT]...the majority of them in my opinion and I think in the opinion of law enforcement is that they are not coming here to work. They are coming here and they're bringing drugs. And they're doing drop houses and they're extorting people and they're terrorizing the familie[/INDENT]
It has nothing more than the fact that they are not the MAJORITY of opinions in AZ, unless you have something to bring to the table that refutes iin AZ that is the majority opinion?
It has nothing more than the fact that they are not the MAJORITY of opinions in AZ, unless you have something to bring to the table that refutes iin AZ that is the majority opinion?
I agree that the AACOP does not represent the majority of opinion....just the majority of the top police executives in the state, who I think most would agree, have a greater understanding of the potential impact of the law than the average citizen.
Polls make for great politics, but not always the best policy.
Polls fail on many levels. You know that as well as I do.
The most important thing for me is to get TEXAS and NM on board with the policy and lawful laws that AZ has inacted. Let Calif deal with the hoards by their inactions. I am cool with that.
Polls fail on many levels. You know that as well as I do.
The most important thing for me is to get TEXAS and NM on board with the policy and lawful laws that AZ has inacted. Let Calif deal with the hoards by their inactions. I am cool with that.
The first step should be for the federal judiciary to determine if the AZ law, is in fact, lawful....or should we just assume it is because it is popular and the governor says it is lawful.
UPDATE - Teen shot by Border Patrol had smuggling arrests
EL PASO, Texas (AP) - A 15-year-old Mexican boy shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent was among El Paso's most wanted juvenile immigrant smugglers, according to federal arrest records reviewed by The Associated Press.
The records show Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereca had been arrested at least four times since 2008 and twice in the same week in February 2009 on suspicion of smuggling illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border. Hernandez was repeatedly arrested along the U.S. side of the border near downtown El Paso, not far from where he was killed, but was never charged with a crime by federal prosecutors.
A Border Patrol agent shot and killed Hernandez June 7 while trying to arrest illegal immigrants crossing the muddy bed of the Rio Grande. Some witnesses said a group of people on the Mexican side were throwing rocks at the agents. Agents are generally permitted to use lethal force against rock throwers.
Mexico after a bicycle-mounted Border Patrol agent arrives in the riverbed. The agent detains one man on the U.S. side of the border and fires two audible shots toward Mexico after putting the man on the ground. The video shows what appears to be a body underneath a nearby railroad bridge spanning the border.
Border Patrol officials have said the agent told the rock throwers to stop and back off, but they persisted and he fired several times.
A federal official familiar with the investigation said Friday there is evidence that Hernandez was throwing rocks at the agent at the time of the shooting. The official, who has been briefed on the case and reviewed some evidence, spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak about the case publicly.
he records also show that in one case, federal prosecutors declined to charge Hernandez because there were no "extenuating circumstances or endangerment."
Daryl Fields, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Antonio, said he could "neither confirm nor deny that information."
Border Patrol officials have declined to comment on his criminal record, citing an ongoing FBI investigation into whether the shooting was justified under Border Patrol rules and whether the agent, who remains unidentified, violated Hernandez's civil rights.
FBI Special Agent William Weiss also declined to comment Friday.
Link The first step should be for the federal judiciary to determine if the AZ law, is in fact, lawful....or should we just assume it is because it is popular and the governor says it is lawful.
To late. The Feds had their chance. That chance has come and gone for many years.... many years and many Administrations. Time for the States to take over. None of the laws inacted in AZ violate current Federal Law. The Feds should have no say from this point forward. Each state has the right to deal with it as they see fit within the constraints of current law that has not been enforced by the Feds.
To late. The Feds had their chance. That chance has come and gone for many years.... many years and many Administrations. Time for the States to take over. None of the laws inacted in AZ violate current Federal Law. The Feds should have no say from this point forward. Each state has the right to deal with it as they see fit within the constraints of current law that has not been enforced by the Feds.
But werent you the one who pointed out that Constitution gives the power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization" to the federal government (Congress)? The "supremacy clause" may be at issue as well.
In fact, we dont know if the new law violates federal law (on one or more points of law). We have lots of opinions on both sides. And that is why we have a federal judiciary and it has yet to rule.
And
this detail of just who's coming over the border is now making it into the national news and getting commented on. It had appeared in Arizona papers in a very small way, and not gotten national attention.
Seems at long last they're trying it -- even going to the trouble of taking Spanish lessons in an effort to gain enough proficiency to at least fool the Border Patrol or ICE.
The most important thing for me is to get TEXAS and NM on board with the policy and lawful laws that AZ has inacted.
See, here's the funny thing. Texas began moving on this a long time ago, but for some reason no one noticed. As of October 2008, you have to show proof of citizenship in order to obtain or renew a driver's license. If you are an immigrant here legally, but not a citizen, you are given a special driver's license that includes your visa's expiration date in big numbers on the front. If you're on an indefinite visa, your license is only good for 1 year, then you have to come back and renew it again. If your visa expires in less than 6 months, tough shit, you don't even get one of the special licenses.
Wow what great legislation. Makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't every state do that?
on the snarky side... That really is Bush's fault - good for him!
Well, strictly speaking, it was Rick Perry's doing, but I've always maintained that Bush was a much better politician (and person) back when he was governor--before he went senile. You gotta believe me, he used to be a brilliant debater. I truly believe that we will eventually find out he was already in the throes of early Alzheimer's during his presidency, just like with Reagan.
Cheney kept him drugged, like in the nursing homes.;)
See, here's the funny thing. Texas began moving on this a long time ago, but for some reason no one noticed. As of October 2008, you have to show proof of citizenship in order to obtain or renew a driver's license. If you are an immigrant here legally, but not a citizen, you are given a special driver's license that includes your visa's expiration date in big numbers on the front. If you're on an indefinite visa, your license is only good for 1 year, then you have to come back and renew it again. If your visa expires in less than 6 months, tough shit, you don't even get one of the special licenses.
It is a start.
My daughter wears one of
these.
I didn't know she lives in AZ.
Myrick outlined a complex set of potential threats and evidence of their existence. She said "Iranian agents and members of Hezbollah" are thought to be learning Spanish in Hugo Chavez-run Venezuela before trying to obtain false documents to enter the United States as purported Mexicans.
The only wonderment to be found here is that it took so many years to happen.
Now if Venezuela loses Chavez, likely the terrs lose a resource, right? And Venezuela regains a growing economy. Hardly anything here not to like.
It's from
here, which was just the first hit I got on actual text and not bloggage about it. Fox News -- but you cannot call yourself enlightened if you refuse to read Fox News, can you now? :lol:
After 6 attempts over several years, in 2003 an appellate court upheld Fox New's first amendment right to report false information. The court decided that the FCC position against news distortion is only a policy, not a law, rule, or regulation.
Raise your standards UG.
We in the cellar have upped our standards, so ....up yours!
Jinx, all I can say is you must raise yours. Plenty of room up here at my level, and it's really pretty nice. I'm blessed with enlightenment and intelligence. You could be. Doesn't worry me any.
Part of my intellectual quality is in how I resist the silly and narrow shibboleths of Northeastern liberal opinion, which tends to mire itself in misperception. I get out of that verkrampte region; I've been around the world. (Professional New Yorkers seem to me provincial and rather Babbity.) I've seen the regrettable results of too much government, strongman government, and so on. What you see here is the result of that experience. Now since when have you manifested anything comparable?
After 6 attempts over several years, in 2003 an appellate court upheld Fox New's first amendment right to report false information.
Hmmm
Well that certainly puts another nail in that coffin of public opinion supporting immigration reform.
How would it be different if the same law was applied to illegal drugs or illegal handguns? "You look suspiciously like you have illegal drugs or an illegal handgun on your person. Prove that you don't."
Hmmm
Maybe real. Maybe a plant, 'shopped, or sarcasm from an opponent. Is there any more info on this?
How would it be different if the same law was applied to illegal drugs or illegal handguns? "You look suspiciously like you have illegal drugs or an illegal handgun on your person. Prove that you don't."
They already do that for anyone they have detained, no different from this law.
They already do that for anyone they have detained, no different from this law.
I dont think it is the same at all.
Legislating or regulating the criminal possession of guns and drugs are within the purview of the states.
Being an illegal immigrant is a federal crime. AZ is attempting to make it a state crime with restrictions above the federal law (that a person can be questioned about immigration status w/o being held for other crimes).
Being an illegal immigrant is a federal crime. AZ is attempting to make it a state crime with restrictions above the federal law (that a person can be questioned about immigration status w/o being held for other crimes).
The restrictions are the same as what the feds can do. They can still question someone about thier immigration status and hold them for that reason alone. ICE does it everyday. The threshold in the AZ law is lower, they can only do this
if they are being detained or stopped for other reasons.
The restrictions are the same as what the feds can do. They can still question someone about thier immigration status and hold them for that reason alone. ICE does it everyday. The threshold in the AZ law is lower, they can only do this if they are being detained or stopped for other reasons.
No....under the AZ law, the police can question a person on immigration status based solely on "reasonable suspicion" of being illegal with NO other reason for having been detained. This is a higher threshold than current federal immigration law.
No....under the AZ law, the police can question a person on immigration status based solely on "reasonable suspicion" with NO other reason for having been detained.
Ok, even if this is the case, that is no different from what the feds can do now.
Ok, even if this is the case, that is no different from what the feds can do now.
No...under federal immigration law, state/local law enforcement officials can question one's immigration status ONLY when a person is being detained for another cause.
The federal law does not allow cops to determine, based on "reasonable suspicion" (undefined), that a person may be illegal and require that person to prove his citizenship/residency.
I stand corrected, they can stop them to check for immigration status. I still don't see or have a problem with it. Here is the Bill that the majority of the Obama administration failed to even read before they commented on it's evilness.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdfNo...under federal immigration law, state/local law enforcement officials can question one's immigration status ONLY when a person is being detained for another cause.
But the Border Patrol and ICE are defacto law enforcement agencies and they can do this already, so it is not more stringent than current Federal law.
I stand corrected, they can stop them to check for immigration status.
So if they stop people to check for illegal handguns or drugs?
But the Border Patrol and ICE are defacto law enforcement agencies and they can do this already, so it is not more stringent than current Federal law.
Questioning one's status at the border as that person attempts to enter the US is far different than questioning one's status on the streets of Phoenix, based solely on a cops reasonable suspicion and NOT being detained for questioning on another matter.
It's interesting that the DOJ suit that 'they' keep saying will be filed any second focuses not on 4th amendment or lawful contact issues, but on federal jurisdiction to set immigration policy.
I don't really get that, because the AZ law doesn't set new policy, it's just an attempt to enforce known public policy with state and local agencies.
On the other hand, we have California passing the Compassionate Use Act way back in '96 - that puts state law at direct odds with Federal.
It's interesting that the DOJ suit that 'they' keep saying will be filed any second focuses not on 4th amendment or lawful contact issues, but on federal jurisdiction to set immigration policy.
I don't really get that, because the AZ law doesn't set new policy, it's just an attempt to enforce known public policy with state and local agencies.
From what I have read, the DoJ is considering challenges on both issues, but the supremacy clause issue would logically be the first test, being the more overriding of the two.
The timing....it is common practice NOT to file too far in advance, particularly if the fed and the state are privately attempting at some level to reach an agreement on modifications to the law.
But how does the supremacy issue make any sense here?
That would be like saying that state and local law agencies cannot enforce federal drug laws. But they do.
But how does the supremacy issue make any sense here?
That would be like saying that state and local law agencies cannot enforce federal drug laws. But they do.
It is not saying that at all.
AZ law enforcement officials can and do enforce the federal immigration law, based on language in the federal law and an agreement between the feds and the state.
The AZ law goes beyond what that agreement allows under the federal law by criminalizing illegal immigration at the state level. The
Supremacy Clause establishes that the federal law always prevails when federal/laws are in conflict.
Don't states have individual drug laws?
ie. Marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law, but penalties/enforcement for possession vary by state.
Don't states have individual drug laws?
Possession of illegal drugs has never been solely a federal crime nor does federal law identify it as such.
What the AZ laws does is make illegal immigration a state crime when federal law (and the Constitution?) deems it to be solely a federal crime....that the states can help enforce, but NOT make more restrictive than the federal law.
Questioning one's status at the border as that person attempts to enter the US is far different than questioning one's status on the streets of Phoenix, based solely on a cops reasonable suspicion and NOT being detained for questioning on another matter.
ICE is all over the country, not just the border. The Border Patrol operates all over the country, but primarily at the border. I have seen Border Patrol Agents in Oklahoma City.
ICE is all over the country, not just the border. The Border Patrol operates all over the country, but primarily at the border. I have seen Border Patrol Agents in Oklahoma City.
ICE agents are federal agents enforcing a federal law.
Possession of illegal drugs has never been solely a federal crime nor does federal law identify it as such.
What the AZ laws does is make illegal immigration a state crime when federal law (and the Constitution?) deems it to be solely a federal crime....that the states can help enforce, but NOT make more restrictive than the federal law.
State Troopers seem to be the ultimate law enforcement agency at all state levels. It seems to me that they have great leeway to enforce all law, both state and federal. You keep saying the AZ law is more restrictive, when it is not. We have already agreed that Federal police agencies (ICE and Border Patrol) have the same authority that they are giving to local and state police agencies in AZ.
State Troopers seem to be the ultimate law enforcement agency at all state levels. It seems to me that they have great leeway to enforce all law, both state and federal. You keep saying the AZ law is more restrictive, when it is not. We have already agreed that Federal police agencies (ICE and Border Patrol) have the same authority that they are giving to local and state police agencies in AZ.
In the opinion of many, the AZ law is more restrictive because it create state arrest authority for violations of federal immigration law in situations that do not exist under federal law.
The issue is not state troopers being the ultimate law enforcement agency, but the state legislature and governor enacting a law that says illegal immigration is a state crime...when the Constitution (?) and federal law deem immigration legislation/regulation to be a federal matter...with enforcement support from the state.
What the AZ laws does is make illegal immigration a state crime when federal law (and the Constitution?) deems it to be solely a federal crime....that the states can help enforce, but NOT make more restrictive than the federal law.
Shortly after the
U.S. Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the
U.S. Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility
[1].
Supreme Court case, Chy Lung v. Freeman.
We are not called upon by this statute to decide for or against the right of a state, in the absence of legislation by Congress, to protect herself by necessary and proper laws against paupers and convicted criminals from abroad, nor to lay down the definite limit of such right, if it exist. Such a right can only arise from a vital necessity for its exercise, and cannot be carried beyond the scope of that necessity. When a state statute, limited to provisions necessary and appropriate to that object alone, shall, in a proper controversy, come before us, it will be time enough to decide that question. The statute of California goes so far beyond what is necessary, or even appropriate, for this purpose, as to be wholly without any sound definition of the right under which it is supposed to be justified. Its manifest purpose, as we have already said, is, not to obtain indemnity, but money.
In the opinion of many, the AZ law is more restrictive because it create state arrest authority for violations of federal immigration law in situations that do not exist under federal law.
Illegal immigration is a crime. ICE and Border Patrol arrest and detain persons who are here illegally everyday. The only difference I see is that now a state level or lower duely appointed law enforcement official can now assist the feds in doing the same, arresting and detaining persons for a violation of crime. They arrest people who can be tried under federal law on a daily basis, it just so happens that they are liable to arrest for similar violations at the state level. I don't see how that is more restrictive.
Supreme Court case, Chy Lung v. Freeman.
The Supreme Court ruled the state law was unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce and immigration. It also held that the state law violated 14th amendment rights of non-residents (that it did not apply only to citizens).
Sorry I edited
my post so many times. Trying to make sense of it.
I don't see "unconstitutional" anywhere really. CA demanding payment for accepting prostitutes is what "invades the right of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and is therefore void." not enforcing existing immigration law by state/local agencies.
In the context of, "If you don't pay us $500 per hooker on board, the ship may not dock."
1. The statute of California which is the subject of consideration in this case does not require a bond for every passenger, or commutation in money, as the statutes of New York and Louisiana do, but only for certain enumerated classes, among which are "lewd and debauched women."
2. But the features of the statute are such as to show very clearly that the purpose is to extort money from a large class of passengers, or to prevent their immigration to California altogether.
3. The statute also operates directly on the passenger, for unless the master or owner of the vessel gives an onerous bond for tine future protection of the state against the support of the passenger, or pays such sum as the Commissioner of Immigration chooses to exact, he is not permitted to land from the vessel.
4. The powers which the commissioner is authorized to exercise under this statute are such as to bring the United States into conflict with foreign nations, and they can only belong to the federal government.
5. If the right of the states to pass statutes to protect themselves in regard to the criminal, the pauper, and the diseased foreigner landing within their
borders exists at all, it is limited to such laws as are absolutely necessary for that purpose, and this mere police regulation cannot extend so far as to prevent or obstruct other classes of persons from the right to hold personal and commercial intercourse with the people of the United States.
6. The statute of California in this respect extends far beyond the necessity in which the right, if it exists, is founded, and invades the right of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and is therefore void.
If this case is precedent, and I dont know that it is, the Supreme Court said that Congress had exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce and immigration.
That is not to say the states cant help enforce...but they simply do not have the power to regulate immigration.
Regulate, not enforce. AZ wants to enforce the regulations.
Regulate, not enforce.
AZ wants to regulate by making illegal immigration a state crime.
The state already has the power to enforce the federal law.
Beyond the legal issues:
A delegation of feds met with AZ officials yesterday to review the federal commitment to border enforcement.
Among the highlights of those enforcement efforts:
The President’s Strategic and Integrated Southwest Border Strategy: During the past year, since the Southwest Border Initiative was launched, the Administration has:
* Doubled the personnel assigned to Border Enforcement Security Task Forces by deploying additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special agents;
* Tripled the number of ICE intelligence analysts along the Southwest border in April 2009;
* Begun screening, for the first time, 100 percent of southbound rail shipments for illegal weapons, drugs, and cash;
* Deployed 13 additional cross-trained canine teams, which identify firearms and currency, to the Southwest border to augment the five teams already in place;
* Deployed 326 additional Border Patrol agents between ports of entry and 58 Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers at the ports of entry;
* Deployed five additional Z-Backscatter Units, which help CBP to identify anomalies in passenger vehicles, to the Southwest border to augment the six already there;
* Seized, through the combined efforts of CBP and ICE, $85 million in illicit cash along the Southwest border - a 22 percent increase over the same period during the previous year;
* Seized 1,404 firearms and 1.62 million kilograms of drugs along the Southwest border - according to CBP and ICE, this reflects increases of 22 and 14 percent respectively from the same period during the previous year;
* Seized $29.5 million in illicit southbound cash along the Southwest border - according to CBP, a 39 percent increase over the same period during the previous year;
* Deployed two new DEA SWB enforcement groups in El Paso and Phoenix, and added 25 new DEA intelligence analysts;
* Deployed two new FBI Border Corruption Task Forces in Del Rio and Houston.
* Added 200 new U.S. Marshal service positions including Deputy U.S. Marshals and Asset Forfeiture Criminal Investigators at the Southwest Border to increase fugitive apprehension and cross border violent crime response; to identify and seize the financial assets of the cartels; to increase court security and prisoner operations; and to investigate and mitigate security threats and improve security awareness for judiciary and other court personnel;
* Surged ATF agents to Arizona to target gun trafficking to Mexico.
* Hired nearly 50 additional Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys to prosecute drug and arms trafficking and bulk cash smuggling by the Mexican cartels, and added five DOJ attorneys to focus exclusively on extradition requests from Mexico. There were 107 extraditions from Mexico to the United States in 2009, a record, compared to 12 in 2000;
* Increased cooperation with U.S. and Mexican law enforcement to target money laundering and bulk-cash smuggling, including $50 million in DOJ grants to federal, state, and local law enforcement, a 120-day multifaceted ICE operation, and the hiring of a DOJ prosecutor dedicated exclusively to targeting money laundering cases in and to Mexico;
* Resumed DOJ asset-sharing of forfeited proceeds with the Mexican government as a result of successful bi-lateral criminal investigations;
* Trained 5,462 Mexican prosecutors and investigators at the state and federal level and in the executive and judicial branches, on target to reach 9,261 trained by the end of 2010;
* Planned the expansion of El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) to include additional staffing to collect, analyze and disseminate intelligence and support law enforcement operations against a broad array of transnational threats;
* During the past year and a half, DOJ-led multi-agency law enforcement investigations (which may include DEA, FBI, ATF, ICE, CBP, and others) have yielded important results: “Project Deliverance” resulted in more than 2,200 arrests, seizure of approximately 74 tons of drugs and $154 million in U.S. currency; “Project Coronado” resulted in the arrest of 303 individuals in 19 states and seizure of $3.4 million in U.S. currency, 729 pounds of methamphetamine, 62 kilograms of cocaine, 967 pounds of marijuana, 144 weapons and 109 vehicles; “Operation Xcellerator” resulted in the arrest of more than 750 individuals on narcotics-related charges and the seizure of more than 23 tons of narcotics and more than $59 million in cash;
* Arizona received more than $223 million in FY2009 through DOJ programs including OJP, COPS, and formula based grants – an increase from $38 million in FY2008;
* Arizona has also received almost $20 million over the last two years for Operation Stonegarden, which enhances cooperation and coordination between and among federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies; and
* As part of his comprehensive plan to secure the Southwest border, President Obama requested $600 million in supplemental funds last week for enhanced border protection and law enforcement activities, partially offset by cancelling $100 million from the SBInet program within DHS. The President will also authorize the deployment of up to an additional, requirements-based 1,200 National Guard troops to the border.
http://www.imperialvalleynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7548&Itemid=2
Seems like alot to me for 1+ year, along with authorizing an additional 1,200 National Guard troops to the border.
But evidently not enough for the governor.
If the right of the states to pass statutes to protect themselves in regard to the criminal, the pauper, and the diseased foreigner landing within their
borders exists at all, it is limited to such laws as are absolutely necessary for that purposeand, this mere police regulation cannot extend so far as to prevent or obstruct other classes of persons [COLOR=Navy](legal aliens?)[/COLOR] from the right to hold personal and commercial intercourse with the people of the United States.
Sounds reasonable to me. I still think the Feds are trying to make a problem out of something and they are having a really hard time becoming creative about it. But given the ability of lawyers to twist laws and facts around I am sure they will come up with some thing.
Henderson V. Mayor of NYC
1. The case of the City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 103, decided no more than that the requirement from the master of a vessel of a catalogue of his passengers landed in the city, rendered to the mayor on oath, with a correct description of their names, ages, occupations, places of birth, and of last legal settlement, was a police regulation within the power of the state to enact, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
[QUOTE]In February, 1824, the Legislature of New York passed "an act concerning passengers in vessels arriving in the port of New York." By one of the provisions of the law, the master of every vessel arriving in New York from any foreign port or from a port of any of the states of the United States other than New York is required, under certain penalties prescribed in the law, within twenty-four hours after his arrival, to make a report in writing containing the names, ages, and last legal settlement of every person who shall have been on board the vessel commanded by him during the voyage, and if any of the passengers shall have gone on board any other vessel or shall, during the voyage, have been landed at any place with a view to proceed to New fork, the same shall be stated in the report. The Corporation of the City of New York instituted an action of debt under this law against the master of the ship Emily for the recovery of certain penalties imposed by this act, and the declaration alleged that the Emily, of which William Thompson was the master, arrived in New Fork in August, 1829, from a country out of the United States, and that one hundred passengers were brought in the ship in the voyage, and that the master did not make the report required by the statute referred to. The defendant demurred to the declaration, and the judges of the circuit court being divided in opinion on the following point, it was certified to the Supreme Court.
...
The Supreme Court directed it to be certified to the Circuit Court of New York that so much of the section of the act of the Legislature of New York as applies to the breaches assigned in the declaration does not assume to regulate commerce between the port of New York and foreign ports, and that so much of the said act is constitutional.
The act of the Legislature of New York is not a regulation of commerce, but of police, and, being so, it was passed in the exercise of a power which rightfully belonged to the state. The State of New York possessed the power to pass this law before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. The law was "intended to prevent the state's being burdened with an influx of foreigners and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such." The end and means here used are within the competency of the states, since a portion of their powers were surrendered to the federal government.
[/QUOTE]
I dont see any of the cases you cited as precedent for various reasons, the most clear of which is that they were adjudicated BEFORE Congress acted to regulate immigration, starting in the late 19th century.
What the Court has said since then is that Congress alone has the power to regulate immigration.
Enacting a state law criminalizing illegal immigration is regulating....beyond enforcing the federal law.
But whatever the case, IMO, the federal courts should make the determination.
Link(s)?
And any chance you could note the edits/changes in arguments you make to your posts after the fact?
Link(s)?
And any chance you could note the edits/changes in arguments you make to your posts after the fact?
No time to search right now, I'll search around later.
But as I said, IMO, the constitutionality should be determined by the federal courts. Hey, if the courts say it is constitutional, I will have no complaints.
And my edits were grammatical or typos, no change in the substance of my post.
The reason I went off on the USSC precedence tangent was because you said, unlike the drug laws, immigration law has only ever been entirely a Fed issue (paraphrased, I'd quote it if it was still there). Now it doesn't make sense...
And now you're saying courts made it a Fed issue later.
With all due respect, neither one is trained to interpret the law or previous Court decisions.
There are experts on both sides of the issue.
From my layman's perspective, I think there is a supremacy clause issue or a conflict pre-emption issue, as described here
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizonas-immigration-law-supremacy-and-federal-preemption.html
You can find other opinions.
Because of the controversy, IMO, it needs to be resolved through a legal process. That is one reason we have a federal judiciary....to resolve issues of state v federal powers.
And any chance you could note the edits/changes in arguments you make to your posts after the fact?
The reason I went off on the USSC precedence tangent was because you said, unlike the drug laws, immigration law has only ever been entirely a Fed issue (paraphrased, I'd quote it if it was still there). Now it doesn't make sense...
And now you're saying courts made it a Fed issue later.
Been there done that. Enjoy. :nuke:
If you quote the post you are responding to, it doesn't change in your quote, when the original post is edited later.
No , but it does clog up the board to quote every post every time.
Yes it does, but for some people it's necessary.
The Supreme Court ruled the state law was unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress had exclusive power to regulate foreign commerce and immigration.
The USSC cases I have provided links for show a precedence for specific immigration issues not affecting commerce to be considered a police matter and within a states right to legislate.
Another perspective from former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, hardly a raging liberal.
Although she wisely does not go into details (given that it would be poor form for a former justice to make a legal judgment in the media), her concern is the potential for profiling
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342604575222691122620592.htmlIf you quote the post you are responding to, it doesn't change in your quote, when the original post is edited later.
Ya... too late. Guess I'll have to remember that...
The USSC cases I have provided links for show a precedence for specific immigration issues not affecting commerce to be considered a police matter and within a states right to legislate.
And as I noted, those cases were before the federal government asserted its express power to regulate immigration.
And, again, we aint the experts and we have a difference of opinion.
And still no links.
I would encourage you to start by reading the constitutinal law profs blog:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizonas-immigration-law-supremacy-and-federal-preemption.html
And, I would encourage Classicman to either join the discussion fully or stay out of it.
I don't want to read a blog, I would like a link to the USSC case you claim supports your argument.
I don't want to read a blog, I would like a link to the USSC case you claim supports your argument.
The cases I was referring to are around the supremacy clause...going back as far as John Marshall and the first Court regarding the Constitution's expressed powers reserved for Congress and the fact that the states cannot interfere in that process.
To better understand one perspective on the supremacy clause, read the blog.
Ok, but,
The USSC cases I have provided links for show a precedence for specific immigration issues not affecting commerce to be considered a police matter and within a states right to legislate.
Those cases were BEFORE Congress assumed its expressed powers to regulate/legislate immigration.
And as a result, IMO those cases are not likely to be cited, but I could very well be wrong.
The principles behind the supremacy clause have stood the test of time, but I could be wrong in the case as well.
Under the 4th Amendment exceptions to detainment can be made...
Exceptions
The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with a few exceptions.
Where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In Michigan v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints. In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S. 543 (1976), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless immigration checkpoints. In Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless checkpoints for driver's licenses and registration. In Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S. 419 (2004), the Supreme Court allowed focused informational checkpoints. However, discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.[29]
Another exception is at borders and ports of entry.
Roadblocks may be used to capture a particular fleeing criminal or locate a bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
And here the courts found that stopping people who look like they are of Mexican ancestory is legal:
We further believe that it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to the secondary inspection area at the San Clemente checkpoint on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving-patrol stop. Thus, even if it be assumed that such referrals are made largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry, 16 we perceive no constitutional violation. Cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S., at 885 -887. As the intrusion here is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it, we think it follows that the Border Patrol [428 U.S. 543, 564] officers must have wide discretion in selecting the motorists to be diverted for the brief questioning involved. 17
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=428&invol=543Under the 4th Amendment exceptions to detainment can be made...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
And here the courts found that stopping people who look like they are of Mexican ancestory is legal:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=428&invol=543
Absolutely, I think i pointed out earlier (days ago) that the Court had ruled that racial profiling in that manner to be legal, under limited circumstances (checkpoints).
Does the AZ law go beyond that?
In another case, the Court of Appeals ruled that “Hispanic appearance is not, in general, an appropriate factor” for determining suspicion, especially in areas with large Hispanic populations."
United States v. Montero-Camargo
Another precedent perhaps, not directly on immigration, but on the issue of supremacy clause and the matter of sedition (catching commies, not illegals):
Nelson, a member of the Communist Party, was convicted of violating the Pennsylvania Sedition Act. This Act was implemented prior to Congress's adoption of the Smith Act of 1940 (amended in 1948) which prohibited the same conduct as Pennsylvania's law.
The Court held that Pennsylvania's law was unenforceable and was superseded by the federal act. Chief Justice Warren argued that the scheme of federal regulation of seditious activities was "pervasive" and "left no room for the states to supplement it." Furthermore, the federal act dealt with an issue of primary importance to the national government which made any enforcement of similar state laws potentially harmful to the smooth execution of national statutes
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_10
That is why, IMO, as I have said repeatedly, it is for the federal courts to make that determination.
Well, until then, I would hope that AZ can conduct it's business without interference from the Feds. Further, the sooner the other border states join AZ the better. Maybe the Feds will be pushed to control the borders.
Those cases were BEFORE Congress assumed its expressed powers to regulate/legislate immigration.
And as a result, IMO those cases are not likely to be cited, but I could very well be wrong.
The principles behind the supremacy clause have stood the test of time, but I could be wrong in the case as well.
Do you have links for these cases yet?
Do you have links for these cases yet?
I provide the link to the case involving the supremacy clause that may has as much precedent as those cases you cited...the issue of a state sedition law (as opposed to immigration law). You want more cases involving the supremacy clause, I'll be happy to find them....where state laws have been struck down because the federal law was overriding.
The one I cited may or may not be cited as precedent....just as those you cited may or may not.
How many times do I have to say that IMO, it is for the federal courts to make that determination. Neither one of us or others who have expressed opinions are experts.
Why not let the the federal judiciary do what the Constitution expressly charges it to do?
You provided a link to a blog... that has some other links to some bills...
What the Court has said since then is that Congress alone has the power to regulate immigration.
I would like the link to this case.
I have provided links to supreme court cases wich rule that specific immigration issues, not relating to commerce, are considered a police matter and are within a state's right to legislate. You said a later ruling refuted that. I would like a link to that case.
You provided a link to a blog... that has some other links to some bills...
I would like the link to this case.
I have provided links to supreme court cases wich rule that specific immigration issues, not relating to commerce, are considered a police matter and are within a state's right to legislate. You said a later ruling refuted that. I would like a link to that case.
I was referring to the supremacy clause in more general terms and stated it poorly as I later said. I was wrong to specifically refer to rulings involving that clause and immigration law, despite the fact that many constitutional experts believe it has merit.
I also provided a link to an Appeals Court ruing (the most recent) that a state cant use race to determine "reasonable suspicion"
And I am still not clear if you even support the idea that the federal judiciary should make the legal determination as the Constitution suggests when laws involve the U.S govt....or if you think the AZ law should be accepted on faith or because its popular.
added:
On another immigration issue, the Court did strike down a Texas law that attempted to deny education to children who were illegal immigrants....not on the basis of the supremacy clause, but equal protection.
Plyler v. DoeFor the record:
Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) is a case applying the law of conflict preemption. The United States Supreme Court held that a state system of alien registration was superseded by a federal system (the Alien Registration Act) because it was an "obstacle to accomplishment" of its goals.
Justice Hugo L. Black emphasized the supremacy of federal power over this area of law:
[INDENT]That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787, and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute,...[/INDENT]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hines_v._Davidowitz
And I am still not clear if you even support the idea that the federal judiciary should make the legal determination....or if you think the AZ law should be accepted on faith, because its popular and the governor says its constitutional or for some other reason.
BTW, the buzz is that the DoJ might announce its filing with the court tomorrow after Obama gives a speech on immigration reform.
[IMG]http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2571/fedsaz2.png" alt="Image" />[/IMG]
...
That is so true... :)
[IMG]http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2571/fedsaz2.png" alt="Image" />[/IMG]
I think the assumption of an accent simply because of his outward physical appearance smacks of racism... where's my lawyer?:D
And how come that Uncle Sam has such a big nose? :D Big nosed people should protest.
I thought it was Ted Kennedy.
I'm not sure that's Uncle Sam. It's like Uncle Durante or something.
Skidamarink a dinky dink,
Skidamarink a doo
(my grandma used to sing that to me.) :)
Dear Senator Frist:
There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran aliens. Consider the following:
1. Illegal aliens generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, and government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.
2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.
3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.
4. Illegal aliens are NOT critical to the economy. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents.
5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants (legal immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.
6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are not immigrants by definition. The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.
7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote". Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end.
8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S. During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their schoolchildren.
9. Although some illegal aliens enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?
10. There is a labor shortage in this country. This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.
11. It is racist to want secure borders. What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price? For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There have already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more. You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here? There will be a reckoning. It will come in November of this year, again in 2008 and yet again in 2010. We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.
David J. Stoddard, U.S. Border Patrol (RET), Arizona
Collected via e-mail, 2006
Link
and a copy of
his testimony from 2002.
I think Mr. Stoddard makes some excellent points and rebukes a lot of the political banter from both sides.
BREWSTER, Wash. — The Obama administration has replaced immigration raids at factories and farms with a quieter enforcement strategy: sending federal agents to scour companies’ records for illegal immigrant workers.
While the sweeps of the past commonly led to the deportation of such workers, the “silent raids,” as employers call the audits, usually result in the workers being fired, but in many cases they are not deported.
Over the past year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted audits of employee files at more than 2,900 companies. The agency has levied a record $3 million in civil fines so far this year on businesses that hired unauthorized immigrants, according to official figures. Thousands of those workers have been fired, immigrant groups estimate.
Employers say the audits reach more companies than the work-site roundups of the administration of President George W. Bush. The audits force businesses to fire every suspected illegal immigrant on the payroll— not just those who happened to be on duty at the time of a raid — and make it much harder to hire other unauthorized workers as replacements. Auditing is “a far more effective enforcement tool,” said Mike Gempler, executive director of the Washington Growers League, which includes many worried fruit growers.
Immigration inspectors who pored over the records of one of those growers, Gebbers Farms, found evidence that more than 500 of its workers, mostly immigrants from Mexico, were in the country illegally. In December, Gebbers Farms, based in this Washington orchard town, fired the workers.
“Instead of hundreds of agents going after one company, now one agent can go after hundreds of companies,” said Mark K. Reed, president of Border Management Strategies, a consulting firm in Tucson that advises companies across the country on immigration law. “And there is no drama, no trauma, no families being torn apart, no handcuffs.”
President Obama, in a speech last week, explained a two-step immigration policy. He promised tough enforcement against illegal immigration, in workplaces and at the border, saying it would prepare the way for a legislative overhaul to give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the country. White House officials say the enforcement is under way, but they acknowledge the overhaul is unlikely to happen this year.
In another shift, the immigration agency has moved away from bringing criminal charges against immigrant workers who lack legal status but have otherwise clean records.
Republican lawmakers say Mr. Obama is talking tough, but in practice is lightening up.
“Even if discovered, illegal aliens are allowed to walk free and seek employment elsewhere” said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “This lax approach is particularly troubling,” he said, “at a time when so many American citizens are struggling to find jobs.”
Link
An interesting plan - The penalty for an illegal being employed here is to lose their job, but they are allowed to walk free and remain in the country ... now unemployed. :eyebrow:
Well except for criminal element escaping the law at home, aren't all these illegals coming here for work? Make it harder to find work and you take away the incentive for coming. Not as dramatic as machine gunning them down in the streets, but maybe as effective.
BUT, the border still must be secured, because not all of the interlopers are poor peasants looking for honest employment.
Yes you take away the incentive for coming. That must be part of the overall plan, but for those that are already here, why just let them walk away?
Doesn't this go back to the "we know how many are here, but we cannot find them?"
Well there were thousands. Yes a drop in the bucket, but its a start.
This way, they pay their own ticket home instead of you. :haha:
but for those that are already here, why just let them walk away?
Avoiding the costs of deportation? I'm assuming most will come back anyways.
Link
An interesting plan - The penalty for an illegal being employed here is to lose their job, but they are allowed to walk free and remain in the country ... now unemployed. :eyebrow:
But on the next page of that link: (italics and underlining are mine)
"Many immigrants purchased new false documents and went looking for jobs in more distant orchards, former Gebbers Farms workers said.
But the word is out among growers in the region to avoid hiring immigrants from the company because ICE knows they are unauthorized."
Also, I'm taken by the political irony of these two sequential paragraphs.
“Even if discovered, illegal aliens are allowed to walk free and seek employment elsewhere” said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “This lax approach is particularly troubling,” he said, “at a time when so many American citizens are struggling to find jobs.”
"Employers say the Obama administration is leaving them short of labor for some low-wage work, conducting silent raids but offering no new legal immigrant laborers in occupations, like farm work, that
Americans continue to shun despite the recession. Federal labor officials estimate that more than 60 percent of farm workers in the United States are illegal immigrants."
I agree it is an "interesting plan"... sort of setting it up so the problems solve themselves.
That is, as word spreads that
illegal immigrants can't find work, they don't come here illegally.
And when businesses stop breaking our laws by hiring those "low wage workers", and maybe have to raise their wages/prices the
legal immigrants and/or unemployed Americans can take jobs with a livable wage.
Not if there's no work. ;)
That is, as word spreads that illegal immigrants can't find work, they don't come here illegally.
I would think that there would have to be a better opportunity wherever they came from. This includes more than just the wages.
And when businesses stop breaking our laws by hiring those "low wage workers", and maybe have to raise their wages/prices the legal immigrants and/or unemployed Americans can take jobs with a livable wage.
As the wages rises so will the incentive for the illegals.
I think its a good start and something that was long overdue. The last administration should have been doing the same type of thing.
I would think that there would have to be a better opportunity wherever they came from. This includes more than just the wages.
As the wages rises so will the incentive for the illegals.
I think its a good start and something that was long overdue. The last administration should have been doing the same type of thing.
Amen
The problem really isn't that hard to solve if the politicians and their owners wanted to fix it.
1) Use the E-verify system in every state to verify work eligibility. If a company is caught knowingly employing illegals the company has to shut it's doors for 10 days. Second offense is 30 days. Third offense is permanent. When the risk outweighs the rewards the employers will change their ways or cease to be employers.
2) Scrap the current complex immigration process. Legal immigration should be easier. If they can pass a simple but thorough background check let them in. Steady employment must be maintained as they will be ineligible for welfare benefits. If during the first 2 years they go more than 120 days unemployed, out they go.
Once those 2 steps are in place illegal immigration should all but stop for those who are just seeking a better way of life. The drug runners, human smugglers, and other criminals should be the only ones left trying to sneak in. Then start step 3.
3) Secure the border. That doesn't necessarily mean a wall across the southern US, but it does mean border patrol has the ability to patrol without interference. Anyone sneaking into the US is a criminal and they should be treated as such. Arrest them and return them using the Eisenhauer method of deportation. Don't return them to the border, ship them to southern mexico(or nothernmost part of canada ;) ) and drop them off. If someone illegally entering the US violently engages US LE then the solution is simple - shoot them on the spot as you would any other violent invasion force.
of course none of that will happen because illegal immigration is a wonderful topic to keep the citizenry divided and controllable by those elected to serve us.
great points LO...
of course none of that will happen because illegal immigration is a wonderful topic to keep the citizenry divided and controllable by those elected to serve us.
The saddest truth of them all. But don't forget distracted as well.
#1 The E-verify system already exists.
So if a business hires an "illegal" they are either doing so knowingly or they are purposely not being deligent.
(Ooops, did I forgot to check that felllow ???)
That's why I have no sympathy for businesses that get fined when they get caught or the politicians that support them.
But shut-downs probably have immediate ramifications for any "legal" employees of the company.
For the rest of what you say, I'm either in agreement or could live with it, especially your last line.
The problem really isn't that hard to solve if the politicians and their owners wanted to fix it.
1) Use the E-verify system in every state to verify work eligibility. If a company is caught knowingly employing illegals the company has to shut it's doors for 10 days. Second offense is 30 days. Third offense is permanent. When the risk outweighs the rewards the employers will change their ways or cease to be employers.
2) Scrap the current complex immigration process. Legal immigration should be easier. If they can pass a simple but thorough background check let them in. Steady employment must be maintained as they will be ineligible for welfare benefits. If during the first 2 years they go more than 120 days unemployed, out they go.
Once those 2 steps are in place illegal immigration should all but stop for those who are just seeking a better way of life. The drug runners, human smugglers, and other criminals should be the only ones left trying to sneak in. Then start step 3.
3) Secure the border. That doesn't necessarily mean a wall across the southern US, but it does mean border patrol has the ability to patrol without interference. Anyone sneaking into the US is a criminal and they should be treated as such. Arrest them and return them using the Eisenhauer method of deportation. Don't return them to the border, ship them to southern mexico(or nothernmost part of canada ;) ) and drop them off. If someone illegally entering the US violently engages US LE then the solution is simple - shoot them on the spot as you would any other violent invasion force.
of course none of that will happen because illegal immigration is a wonderful topic to keep the citizenry divided and controllable by those elected to serve us.
I really don't have an issue with any of that. I won't have a problem paying higher prices for products and services, and I won't have a problem with more federal government employees to do the work that will need to get done.
I'd also add:
Knowingly employing an undocumented alien makes you inelligible for public office.
Undocumented aliens who are treated at a hospital and can't pay will be stablized and deported.
Utah agencies probe alleged illegal immigrant list
State agencies are investigating whether any of their employees leaked Social Security numbers and other personal information after a list of 1,300 people who an anonymous group claims are illegal immigrants was circulated around Utah.
The anonymous group mailed the list to several media outlets, law enforcement agencies and others this week, frightening the state's Hispanic community. A letter accompanying the list demanded that those on it be deported immediately.
The list also contains highly detailed personal information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, workplaces, addresses and phone numbers. Names of children are included, along with due dates of pregnant women on the list.
Republican Gov. Gary Herbert wrote in a tweet Tuesday that he has asked state agencies to investigate the list's origin.
"We've got some people in our technology department looking at it right now," said Dave Lewis, communication for the state Department of Workforce Services. "It's a high priority. We want to figure out the how's and why's."
Just a couple thoughts ... How bout finding out why this group can do your job better than you can? Oh and if they are illegal - enforce the law.
Lewis noted his department is one of several with access to the information included in the list. He said his agency didn't receive a copy of the list from the governor's office until late Tuesday.
Most of the names on the list are of Hispanic origin.
"My phone has been ringing nonstop since this morning with people finding out they're on the list," said Tony Yapias, former director of the Utah Office of Hispanic Affairs. "They're feeling terrorized. They're very scared."
Link
Gee really??? Perhaps thats because they are here illegally?
She noted that because ICE has finite resources, it focuses its efforts "first on those dangerous convicted criminal aliens who present the greatest risk to the security of our communities, not sweeps or raids to target undocumented immigrants indiscriminately.
Then you're not doing your cushy government job, bitch.
Now that I think of it, she probably just got handed a years quota in a day.
Once Mexico has a middle class visible without magnification, we don't have these problems any more. The United States doesn't really have an immigration problem; Mexico has a middle class one that it has not solved.
Once Mexico has a middle class visible without magnification, we don't have these problems any more. The United States doesn't really have an immigration problem; Mexico has a middle class one that it has not solved.
And why are we therefore responsible for fixing it. The sooner we stop enabling the sooner it'll stop. Is that your plan?
PROVIDENCE, RI (AP) - Supporters of Arizona's new illegal immigration law have cited Rhode Island as a state where police have carried out comparably tough enforcement without a court challenge from the Obama administration.
But in Rhode Island, both sides of the debate agree that the executive order issued by Gov. Don Carcieri in 2008 is far less sweeping than the Arizona law, which takes effect this month.
Arizona's law requires local police officers, while enforcing other laws, to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
The Rhode Island executive order directs State Police to assist with immigration enforcement, but it merely encourages local police to seek the immigration status of suspects they encounter.
Some police departments say they don't want their officers acting as immigration agents.
There is no Arizona.
[YOUTUBE]22tktN87ASk[/YOUTUBE]
And why are we therefore responsible for fixing it. The sooner we stop enabling the sooner it'll stop. Is that your plan?
No. Because I can't honestly say I've got one. So that sure as hell wouldn't be it. Unfortunately, to be sure.
No, I do not think it falls to us to be "responsible for fixing it." Not as an exertion of the US national will, I mean. From a libertarian point of view, it's a frightful ethical dilemma: property rights are regarded as something sacred and not to be arbitrarily messed with by any entity, but a concentration of all property in the hands of the favored few is clearly the road to stagnated poverty also. That's the very thing the
ilegales trek north to escape, and they labor away diligently once they've gotten here (yes, I'm speaking only in generalities -- well-attested ones) to keep free of that. This very thing is all over Oxnard, and all over the inhabited end of Ventura County generally.
It may be summed up as "Regulations be damned,
!hay que vivir!" It is hard to gainsay that. But they wouldn't have to come north if they had anything like opportunity down south, would they? Central American countries aren't a solution; they are no more libertarian, no more packed with smallholders, than Mexico is. Ain't a livin' down there either.
And we libertarians don't
like fixing problems by force: it isn't fair to the people with property now to rape it from them and parcel it out to others whose qualification for receiving it is they didn't have any previously, and hence it wasn't fair to them. WTF kind of qualification is that, eh? Quite enough to get the libertarian philosopher to disparage "fairness" as any proper policy driver. Unfortunately, it also discourages the libertarian thinker from attaining to any fix for the economic problem at all, and how friggin' useless is that? About all we end up doing is damning and blasting latifundianism as a stagnating force: that's a lot more being said than being done. The old but apt punchline about "33 1/3 revolutions per minute" doesn't seem to have done or meant enough to fix the problem of property and prosperity either.
