Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 26, 2010, 09:22:56 PM
-
Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 1
By On the Net, on April 25th, 2010
There has been a great outcry in the press and on the internet about the terrible new anti-illegal immigrant law signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. The sad reality is that very few people on both sides of the issue have actually read the new law, but their ignorance of the law does not stop them from making statements about it. In the coming weeks I will be reporting on the actual language of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, aka SB 1070 or the anti-immigrant law.
The first thing the new law does is require that all state and local agencies and personnel refrain from not enforcing EXISTING federal laws. A number of elected and non-elected Arizona government officials have made the decision without any legal basis to not enforce existing immigration laws. The question now becomes will these same people ignore the new Arizona law?
One of the most controversial provisions of the new law is the requirement that people must prove they are legally in the U.S. when asked by a police officer. For most people, they can prove legal status merely by showing the officer a valid Arizona driver’s license, a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license or any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
Text of New Arizona Revised Statutes Section 11-1051 (effective 90 days after the end of the current Arizona legislative session). This is not the entire law. Additional parts of the new law will be in future posts.
A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed, the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection shall be immediately notified.
D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. a law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States to a point of transfer that is outside of this state.
E. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:
1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.
2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.
3. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.
4. Pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373 and 8 United States Code section 1644.
F. This section does not implement, authorize or establish and shall not be construed to implement, authorize or establish the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302), including the use of a radio frequency identification chip.
G. A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.
H. A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection G of this section and remit the civil penalty to the state treasurer for deposit in the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund established by section 41‑1724.
I. The court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in a proceeding brought pursuant to this section.
J. Except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith, a law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer’s agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section in which the officer may be a defendant by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency.
K. This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.
http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/
It's also here without commentary: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm
-
B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
to me this says that they cant just pull you out of line like 240 has been saying...
-
bump for a response to those against this bill...where does it say that they will be able to pull ppl over for no reason?
-
It also confirms my point about the drivers license issue.
240 is having another palins' baby moment on this one.
-
And what happens when an American citizen driving through Arizona who happens to look Mexican gets pulled over for speeding, has his driver's license, but no proof of legal US residency? What does he do when the cop demands proof?
A drivers license is neither proof of citizenship nor is it proof of legal permanent residence.
You have any idea how many illegal immigrants in the US have a valid drivers license?
Until just recently, many states provided drivers license study guides in Spanish. The written test itself was offered in Spanish. I'm sure there are states that still do this.
-
And what happens when an American citizen driving through Arizona who happens to look Mexican gets pulled over for speeding, has his driver's license, but no proof of legal US residency? What does he do when the cop demands proof?
A drivers license is neither proof of citizenship nor is it proof of legal permanent residence.
You have any idea how many illegal immigrants in the US have a valid drivers license?
Until just recently, many states provided drivers license study guides in Spanish. The written test itself was offered in Spanish. I'm sure there are states that still do this.
can illegals get licences in arizona loco? this is all that really matters as its asking for arizona license...
not all states allow illegals to have licences and if they stop sooner or later they will have illegals driving with expired licences...
-
Arizona Driver License Manual en Español...courtesy of the State of Arizona. :)
http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/custsvcguide_sp.asp
-
Arizona Driver License Manual en Español...courtesy of the State of Arizona. :)
http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/custsvcguide_sp.asp
LOL and?
many govt documents come in spanish, japanese, chineses etc....
-
can illegals get licences in arizona loco? this is all that really matters as its asking for arizona license...
They could before. Arizona probably put a stop to it, but illegal immigrants can still get a drivers license in another state, then use that to get a drivers license in Arizona. All you need is your out of state drivers license and some other, unspecified form of ID. No questions asked, not test necessary.
not all states allow illegals to have licences and if they stop sooner or later they will have illegals driving with expired licences...
And until then, how can a drivers license be proof of legal US residence or proof of US citizenship?
-
Arizona Driver License Manual en Español...courtesy of the State of Arizona. :)
http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/custsvcguide_sp.asp
I think you have mistaken the govt being accomidating those in this country legally who speak only spanish to the govt welcoming illegals
-
And what happens when an American citizen driving through Arizona who happens to look Mexican gets pulled over for speeding, has his driver's license, but no proof of legal US residency? What does he do when the cop demands proof?
A drivers license is neither proof of citizenship nor is it proof of legal permanent residence.
You have any idea how many illegal immigrants in the US have a valid drivers license?
Until just recently, many states provided drivers license study guides in Spanish. The written test itself was offered in Spanish. I'm sure there are states that still do this.
It seems you generally always take the conservative position in most issues...except this one. Is there a personal connection? In other words, do you empathize with illegal immigrants because you can personally relate to them? Don't you think it's better to have an occasional inconvenience for someone, than to stand by and do absolutely nothing about a problem that has been having serious consequences for our country. Surely you can see what's happened to california because of illegal immigration. I have to get inconvenienced everytime I go to an airport, even though I hardly fit the profile of an Islamic terrorist. I sincerely doubt cops will be pulling over every driver cause they look Mexican.
-
They could before. Arizona probably put a stop to it, but illegal immigrants can still get a drivers license in another state, then use that to get a drivers license in Arizona. All you need is your out of state drivers license and some other, unspecified form of ID. No questions asked, not test necessary.
And until then, how can a drivers license be proof of legal US residence or proof of US citizenship?
You dont think they will step up and put something in place to stop that as well loco?
and possible stay where they get their new license from...I think arizona would be ok with that...
well its gotta start somewhere in since we cant violate the civil rights of ppl then it will simply take a little time to weed out the illegals...
-
The first thing the new law does is require that all state and local agencies and personnel refrain from not enforcing EXISTING federal laws. A number of elected and non-elected Arizona government officials have made the decision without any legal basis to not enforce existing immigration laws. The question now becomes will these same people ignore the new Arizona law?
Sounds like a good law!
One of the most controversial provisions of the new law is the requirement that people must prove they are legally in the U.S. when asked by a police officer. For most people, they can prove legal status merely by showing the officer a valid Arizona driver’s license, a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license or any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
How is a drivers license proof of citizenship?
A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
EXCELLENT!!!
C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed, the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection shall be immediately notified.
EXCELLENT!!!
D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. a law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States to a point of transfer that is outside of this state.
GOOD!!!
E. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:
1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.
2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.
3. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.
4. Pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373 and 8 United States Code section 1644.
Looks good!
F. This section does not implement, authorize or establish and shall not be construed to implement, authorize or establish the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302), including the use of a radio frequency identification chip.
YES!!! Very good!!
G. A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.
GOOD!
H. A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection G of this section and remit the civil penalty to the state treasurer for deposit in the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund established by section 41‑1724.
I. The court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in a proceeding brought pursuant to this section.
J. Except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith, a law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer’s agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section in which the officer may be a defendant by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency.
K. This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.
http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/
It's also here without commentary: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm
Unless I'm missing something, this law looks really good! I'm surprised our politicians are looking out for American interests for the first time in 75 years!!! WTF? ;D
I'm still afraid this is going to lead to abuse of citizens though... :-\
-
It seems you generally always take the conservative position in most issues...except this one. Is there a personal connection? In other words, do you empathize with illegal immigrants because you can personally relate to them? Don't you think it's better to have an occasional inconvenience for someone, than to stand by and do absolutely nothing about a problem that has been having serious consequences for our country. Surely you can see what's happened to california because of illegal immigration. I have to get inconvenienced everytime I go to an airport, even though I hardly fit the profile of an Islamic terrorist. I sincerely doubt cops will be pulling over every driver cause they look Mexican.
No, I do not empathize with illegal immigrants at all. I strongly believe that "illegal" immigration should be "illegal."
I empathize with American citizens who will suffer because of this law only because they happen to "look" and "sound" Mexican. That is unfair.
To make it fair, you would have to force all American citizens to carry proof of citizenship at all times, birth certificate, Naturalization certificate, passport book, passport card, etc. I don't like this either. In this case, I would empathize with all American citizens.
-
I empathize with American citizens who will suffer because of this law only because they happen to "look" and "sound" Mexican. That is unfair.
To make it fair, you would have to force all American citizens to carry proof of citizenship at all times, birth certificate, Naturalization certificate, passport book, passport card, etc. I don't like this either. In this case, I would empathize with all American citizens.
Yes! I don't think it will just be "brown" people either. Watch and see if the police don't use this to harass people of all races. Any power given to police is abused, it's happened over and over and over. Just look what the police have done with their tasers... :-\
If it was up to me, half the police in my state wouldn't carry guns... (<<<I'm not serious about that)
-
Based on the law as it is represented here, I think that the possibilities of abuse are remote and speculative at best. The interaction between a suspect and the police has to be "lawful". Which means the cops cannot randomly decide its time to harass the wetbacks. Secondly, reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause, but it is still an applicable standard that can be quantified objectively. Basically it means that based on the officers experience and observations of the suspects behavior that he/ she reasonably believes that criminal activity is afoot. Reasonable suspicion is never enough to execute an arrest because you always need probable cause. Here, you would use RS to establish PC. RS in this situation the result would be the officer briefly stopping someone if they reasonably suspect that person is breaking the law, then asking them for identification, followed by either arresting them or letting them go. This kind of police activity has been going on for half a century. All this law does is extend Terry Stops to illegal immigrants.
The only way that I think that this law would be overturned is on grounds of pre-emption or some other kind of Supremacy Clause argument. Immigration is pretty much the exclusive legislative responsibility of Congress. Throughout history immigration issues have always been enforced by the federal government.
-
Based on the law as it is represented here, I think that the possibilities of abuse are remote and speculative at best. The interaction between a suspect and the police has to be "lawful". Which means the cops cannot randomly decide its time to harass the wetbacks. Secondly, reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause, but it is still an applicable standard that can be quantified objectively. Basically it means that based on the officers experience and observations of the suspects behavior that he/ she reasonably believes that criminal activity is afoot. Reasonable suspicion is never enough to execute an arrest because you always need probable cause. Here, you would use RS to establish PC. RS in this situation the result would be the officer briefly stopping someone if they reasonably suspect that person is breaking the law, then asking them for identification, followed by either arresting them or letting them go. This kind of police activity has been going on for half a century. All this law does is extend Terry Stops to illegal immigrants.
The only way that I think that this law would be overturned is on grounds of pre-emption or some other kind of Supremacy Clause argument. Immigration is pretty much the exclusive legislative responsibility of Congress. Throughout history immigration issues have always been enforced by the federal government.
So what happens if a cop pulls over an American citizen for speeding, then "reasonably suspects" he is an illegal immigrant and asks for proof of legal US residence. He has his drivers license, which proves nothing. What happens to this American citizen? Does he get arrested for failing to produce proof of legal residence? Does he get sent to Mexico?
-
No, the driver will have a summons date for the ticket and will show up to court with his drivers license and all will be fine.
-
No, the driver will have a summons date for the ticket and will show up to court with his drivers license and all will be fine.
The cop is just going to let him go, not knowing whether or not he is an illegal immigrant, trusting that he'll show up to court? You really believe that?
-
So what happens if a cop pulls over an American citizen for speeding, then "reasonably suspects" he is an illegal immigrant and asks for proof of legal US residence. He has his drivers license, which proves nothing. What happens to this American citizen? Does he get arrested for failing to produce proof of legal residence? Does he get sent to Mexico?
some states it does prove it, stop saying that....
I think he may be detained until it could be cleared up...face it bro in order to deal with this problem youre GOING TO HAVE TO BE INCONVIENCED...simply the FACT of the damn matter...
didnt hear anybody on here complaining about them taking extra security steps at the airports after 9/11 b/c everyone understood that in order to make us safer we had to do it...
name one way that we can address this problem without the possibility of compromising civil rights of citizens...
-
some states it does prove it, stop saying that....
Not in Arizona
I think he may be detained until it could be cleared up...face it bro in order to deal with this problem youre GOING TO HAVE TO BE INCONVIENCED...simply the FACT of the damn matter...
didnt hear anybody on here complaining about them taking extra security steps at the airports after 9/11 b/c everyone understood that in order to make us safer we had to do it...
name one way that we can address this problem without the possibility of compromising civil rights of citizens...
So you are okay with being detained by the police until you are able to prove that you are an American citizen? Not me. That is not okay. And how many times will you have to be detained by the cops before you have enough of this?
-
Not in Arizona
So you are okay with being detained by the police until you are able to prove that you are an American citizen? Not me. That is not okay. And how many times will you have to be detained by the cops before you have enough of this?
are you ok with being detained by the police until you can prove your not drunk?
-
Thats not the law! Geez.
-
Ok- But why would the cop pull you over in the first place?
If you get pulled over for speeding and the cop walks up to the car and asks for your license, insurance and registration he already has the legal right to detain you and write you a summons. If you hand him your license and registration and it checks out in the computer, what reasonable suspicion would he have to suspect that you are in the country illegally? What would give him the right to force you to prove that you're in the country legally? The answer is nothing. But, if you hand the cop an obviously phony drivers license from another state with a picture that doesn't look like you, the car is in someone else's name and you don't speak a word of English- then yes, the cop can detain you to determine your legal status. The rationale would be that based on the aforementioned, the cop would be able to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that your in the country illegally.
You guys keep forgetting that the first thing the law says is that there has to be a lawful interaction between the police and the person being detained. The cops can't just decide to stop and detain anyone and everyone that looks Mexican for no reason and force them to prove they are in the country legally.
-
are you ok with being detained by the police until you can prove your not drunk?
Absolutely. If I'm driving drunk then I deserve it. But if an American citizen is detained until he can prove his US citizenship simply because he looks or sounds Mexican, that is not his fault and it is wrong and unfair. You probably don't look or sound Mexican. So you have nothing to worry about.
-
"The cops can't just decide to stop and detain anyone and everyone that looks Mexican for no reason and force them to prove they are in the country legally. "
IF that is true - then I'm all for the bill. However, I cannot understand why so many repubslicans have said the law violates rights of legal americans. And it seems so vague as to if cops can gaffle you while you're just standing around on the corner.
So they 100% CANNOT ask you to prove citizenship if you're not driving a car? Is this the absolute case?
-
Its called FEAR.
-
"The cops can't just decide to stop and detain anyone and everyone that looks Mexican for no reason and force them to prove they are in the country legally. "
IF that is true - then I'm all for the bill. However, I cannot understand why so many repubslicans have said the law violates rights of legal americans. And it seems so vague as to if cops can gaffle you while you're just standing around on the corner.
So they 100% CANNOT ask you to prove citizenship if you're not driving a car? Is this the absolute case?
That's a very good point that had not been brought up. What about American citizens who look and sound Mexican and do not have a drivers license? Are all American citizens required to have a drivers license?
-
"So they 100% CANNOT ask you to prove citizenship if you're not driving a car? Is this the absolute case?"
Anyone? Bueller?
-
Absolutely. If I'm driving drunk then I deserve it. But if an American citizen is detained until he can prove his US citizenship simply because he looks or sounds Mexican, that is not his fault and it is wrong and unfair. You probably don't look or sound Mexican. So you have nothing to worry about.
what if youre not drunk this isnt any different loco....
its not your fault that you were pulled over for drunk driving and you werent drunk...
Im am mistaken for being mexican quite often...
this law doesnt say it can stop you b/c you look mexican or sound mexican...READ THE LAW!!!!!!!
-
"The cops can't just decide to stop and detain anyone and everyone that looks Mexican for no reason and force them to prove they are in the country legally. "
IF that is true - then I'm all for the bill. However, I cannot understand why so many repubslicans have said the law violates rights of legal americans. And it seems so vague as to if cops can gaffle you while you're just standing around on the corner.
So they 100% CANNOT ask you to prove citizenship if you're not driving a car? Is this the absolute case?
goodness your an idiot...can you break the law outside of your car? well if they are investigating another crime outside your car and they have suspicion to believe youre illegal they can request papers...
-
what if youre not drunk this isnt any different loco....
its not your fault that you were pulled over for drunk driving and you werent drunk...
Im am mistaken for being mexican quite often...
this law doesnt say it can stop you b/c you look mexican or sound mexican...READ THE LAW!!!!!!!
Do they book people in the US until they prove that they are not drunk? I thought they just did a test on the street. They do book people they mistake for illegal immigrants. Happens all the time.
And I know what the law says. I never said they can stop you for looking Mexican. I said, after stopping you for speeding, they can book you and deport you for looking Mexican. They've done this before.
-
goodness your an idiot...can you break the law outside of your car? well if they are investigating another crime outside your car and they have suspicion to believe youre illegal they can request papers...
Cops come up to people, usually brown and black people, walking down the street or sidewalk and ask questions, even ask for id sometimes. People complain about this all the time.
-
Do they book people in the US until they prove that they are not drunk? I thought they just did a test on the street. They do book people they mistake for illegal immigrants. Happens all the time.
And I know what the law says. I never said they can stop you for looking Mexican. I said, after stopping you for speeding, they can book you and deport you for looking Mexican. They've done this before.
they do if you cannot prove youre not drunk or refuse to prove it...LOL bro again what law targeting illegals would you be ok with? give me one...
-
Cops come up to people, usually brown and black people, walking down the street or sidewalk and ask questions, even ask for id sometimes. People complain about this all the time.
sure it does, GENERALLY its in the process of investigating a complaint or crime but thats the way it is...will be the same with or without this bill...
what law would you be ok with targeting illegals?
-
they do if you cannot prove youre not drunk or refuse to prove it...LOL bro again what law targeting illegals would you be ok with? give me one...
Why would they think that you are drunk in the first place?
-
Why would they think that you are drunk in the first place?
b/c they had resonable suspicion under the law...
-
b/c they had resonable suspicion under the law...
Which has nothing to do with racial profiling. Arizona's new immigration law does.
-
Based on the language of the law that was posted in this thread the cops cannot randomly ask people to prove that they are legal for no reason. The people who wrote this law had to know that constructing the legislation any other way would 100% guarantee that the law would be repealed on equal protection, due process and first amendment grounds (in addition to numerous federal civil rights statutes).
That is why the language/ concept of a "lawful" interaction with the police in the Arizona law is so important. The police cannot lawfully detain someone solely because of their race under any circumstances. That's the law of the land in all 50 states according to the Constitution. In order to create a lawful dialogue the cops have to have a reason to stop you. Speeding, public drunkenness, a 911 call where the suspect fits the persons description, or reasonable suspicion that a criminal act is in the process of being committed etc.
-
GW - I tried explaining this to these guys, but I give them slack since they never took Law School level Crim Pro like we did.
-
Which has nothing to do with racial profiling. Arizona's new immigration law does.
how do you know this? they havent even constructed what reasonable suspicion is under this law?
-
Based on the language of the law that was posted in this thread the cops cannot randomly ask people to prove that they are legal for no reason. The people who wrote this law had to know that constructing the legislation any other way would 100% guarantee that the law would be repealed on equal protection, due process and first amendment grounds (in addition to numerous federal civil rights statutes).
That is why the language/ concept of a "lawful" interaction with the police in the Arizona law is so important. The police cannot lawfully detain someone solely because of their race under any circumstances. That's the law of the land in all 50 states according to the Constitution. In order to create a lawful dialogue the cops have to have a reason to stop you. Speeding, public drunkenness, a 911 call where the suspect fits the persons description, or reasonable suspicion that a criminal act is in the process of being committed etc.
Yes, I understand. But once they have stopped you for whatever reason, they can and they will detain/deport an American citizen who looks Mexican and fails to produce proof of citizenship. It is already happening, and this new law just opens the door for this to happen many times more. Read the articles I posted on the Mexican Repatriation thread.
-
Yes, I understand. But once they have stopped you for whatever reason, they can and they will detain/deport an American citizen who looks Mexican and fails to produce proof of citizenship. It is already happening, and this new law just opens the door for this to happen many times more. Read the articles I posted on the Mexican Repatriation thread.
LOL you act like if they cant prove citizenship at that very instant they get dragged from their car and tossed across the border...
read the bill there are alot of checks and balances that are in place to assure that citizens are not deported...
you think that ICE should be disbanded? after all im sure that over the course of their tenure they have certainly deported someone who was a legal US citizen...
-
a pro-bill sheriff on Hardball just sold the bill pretty well.
He said if the person doesn't have an ID, he calls in ICE and they start deportation, it's that simple.
He was doing a great job explaining how the bill will help, said he wouldn't abuse it, etc.
-
a pro-bill sheriff on Hardball just sold the bill pretty well.
He said if the person doesn't have an ID, he calls in ICE and they start deportation, it's that simple.
He was doing a great job explaining how the bill will help, said he wouldn't abuse it, etc.
So now you are in favor of it because you saw a pro-law guy on MSNBC but were previously against it when you saw an anti-law person on FOX?
I got it. ::) ::) ::)
-
LOL you act like if they cant prove citizenship at that very instant they get dragged from their car and tossed across the border...
read the bill there are alot of checks and balances that are in place to assure that citizens are not deported...
you think that ICE should be disbanded? after all im sure that over the course of their tenure they have certainly deported someone who was a legal US citizen...
Did you not read any of the articles I posted on the Mexican Repatriation thread about the government often detaining and deporting American citizens? And you are okay with this?
What gives a cop "reasonable suspicion" that somebody is an illegal immigrant?
-
I didn't say I was in favor of it. I said he did a good job presenting his side of it.
-
Did you not read any of the articles I posted on the Mexican Repatriation thread about the government often detaining and deporting American citizens? And you are okay with this?
What gives a cop "reasonable suspicion" that somebody is an illegal immigrant?
Dude you are totally missing the point here. The cops cannot randomly stop people who look Mexican and force them to prove they are here legally. Reasonable suspiscion is the burden of proof that police need to detain someone or stop them to ask them questions (lawful interaction)-- it is not the standard for investigating whether or not somebody is an illegal alien. To arrest someone for any offense the cops need to establish probable cause. So in summation- RS to stop someone if cops suspect a crime is being committed, PC to arrest someone if the cops reasonably believe that the person has committed a crime. Keep in mind once again, that looking Mexican cannot serve as reasonable suspicion for detaining someone to inquire about their legal status.
Furthermore, you make it sound like deportation proceedings take place within 10 seconds of the cops stoping someone. Trust me our government is incapable of doing things that efficently. If someone was wrongfully detained, then they will have the opportunity to prove it.
-
Did you not read any of the articles I posted on the Mexican Repatriation thread about the government often detaining and deporting American citizens? And you are okay with this?
What gives a cop "reasonable suspicion" that somebody is an illegal immigrant?
It seems to me you're looking at the wrong part of the system. Of course we should never deport an American citizen, anymore than we should wrongfully convict somebody of a crime. But, that doesn't mean cops shouldn't ask a question, detain, and investigate just as they would if they suspected me of being a bank robber.
Now, if ICE is wrongfully deporting people that the cops bring to their attention, then we need to address that issue with ICE and put in sufficient safeguards.
But, I see absolutely no reason why cops, our first line of defense, shouldn't be allowed to get the ball rolling.
-
a pro-bill sheriff on Hardball just sold the bill pretty well.
He said if the person doesn't have an ID, he calls in ICE and they start deportation, it's that simple.
He was doing a great job explaining how the bill will help, said he wouldn't abuse it, etc.
what the fuk did you think was going to happen?...you dont have proof so they drag you out of your car, hog tie you and drag you to the border stopping every 15 mins to sodomize you and when you finally reach the border the simply throw you over
nat enq. mentality is a curse i tell you ;)
-
B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).
Who defines what "reasonable suspicion" is?
A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
So a cop may not "solely" consider race, color or national origin, but he may consider them as long as it is not the only thing considered. ::)
It's so great and so much better to be white in the USA!
-
Do you cry and bitch this much when Guatemalans are deported from Mexico?
Did you ever raise your concern that the Mexican authorities might exile one of their citizens to Guatemala, Colombia or Ecuador?
How come it's fine for every other nation to enforce their immigration laws but not ok for USA to do it?
You are so stupid is not even funny anymore. Are white people the only legal citizens in the USA? This law is only looking out only for whites? Is that what you believe? I am not white and I am a legal citizen of this country. And I hope American politicians grow some balls and return every wetback to their rightful nation.
Like Mark Levin says, "Get the hell out of my country, you idiot!"
Send all illegals back. Only a paranoid illegal would make the arguement you are making. This law must hit close to home. I don't have to even guess. I know you are affected by it because you or someone you know is a criminal.
-
Do you cry and bitch this much when Guatemalans are deported from Mexico?
Did you ever raise your concern that the Mexican authorities might exile one of their citizens to Guatemala, Colombia or Ecuador?
How come it's fine for every other nation to enforce their immigration laws but not ok for USA to do it?
You are so stupid is not even funny anymore. Are white people the only legal citizens in the USA? This law is only looking out only for whites? Is that what you believe? I am not white and I am a legal citizen of this country. And I hope American politicians grow some balls and return every wetback to their rightful nation.
Like Mark Levin says, "Get the hell out of my country, you idiot!"
Send all illegals back. Only a paranoid illegal would make the arguement you are making. This law must hit close to home. I don't have to even guess. I know you are affected by it because you or someone you know is a criminal.
loco is from Venezuela and he hates Hugo Chavez so cut him some slack :D You have something in common.
-
loco is from Venezuela and he hates Hugo Chavez so cut him some slack :D You have something in common.
Thanks Hugo! Just to clarify, I don't hate anybody, not even Hugo Chavez. I just don't like him as president and I think after 11 years in office, he should step down and give somebody else a chance. :)
-
Do you cry and bitch this much when Guatemalans are deported from Mexico?
Did you ever raise your concern that the Mexican authorities might exile one of their citizens to Guatemala, Colombia or Ecuador?
How come it's fine for every other nation to enforce their immigration laws but not ok for USA to do it?
Didn't I tell you already that I believe illegal immigration should be illegal? Or do you have trouble reading?
You are so stupid is not even funny anymore. Are white people the only legal citizens in the USA? This law is only looking out only for whites? Is that what you believe? I am not white and I am a legal citizen of this country. And I hope American politicians grow some balls and return every wetback to their rightful nation.
No, it was a sarcastic comment. And I did not say that white people are better. I said being white in the USA is clearly better. ;)
Like Mark Levin says, "Get the hell out of my country, you idiot!"
Venezuela is your country? And no, I do not have family or friends in the US that are there illegally.
Send all illegals back. Only a paranoid illegal would make the arguement you are making. This law must hit close to home. I don't have to even guess. I know you are affected by it because you or someone you know is a criminal.
You really believe with a law like this only a paranoid illegal would make arguments like the ones I'm making? What about Latino American citizens who happen to "look" and "sound" like illegal immigrants? Shouldn't they be paranoid too?
By the way, if you are not white, what are you if you don't mind me asking? Are you African American?
-
Didn't I tell you already that I believe illegal immigration should be illegal? Or do you have trouble reading?
No, it was a sarcastic comment. And I did not say that white people are better. I said being white in the USA is clearly better. ;)
Venezuela is your country? And no, I do not have family or friends in the US that are there illegally.
You really believe with a law like this only a paranoid illegal would make arguments like the ones I'm making? What about Latino American citizens who happen to "look" and "sound" like illegal immigrants? Shouldn't they be paranoid too?
By the way, if you are not white, what are you if you don't mind me asking? Are you African American?
Have you read the law?Its simply enforcing the federal laws on the book.The reason democrats oppose it is because they are scared it will lead to showing ID at polling booths and they will no longer be able to steal elections.
-
Have you read the law?Its simply enforcing the federal laws on the book.The reason democrats oppose it is because they are scared it will lead to showing ID at polling booths and they will no longer be able to steal elections.
Yes, I have read the law. See first post on this page.
-
Only a paranoid illegal would make the arguement you are making. This law must hit close to home. I don't have to even guess. I know you are affected by it because you or someone you know is a criminal.
::)
The law has also picked up its share of Republican critics: On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today, host Joe Scarborough — a former GOP congressman from Florida — said he thinks Hispanics in Arizona who are in the U.S. legally will be targeted. "That is un-American. It is unacceptable and it is un-American."
Marco Rubio, a Republican Senate candidate in Florida, said that requiring people to carry documentation is "not really something that Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state." And former Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a longtime crusader against illegal immigration, thinks the law goes too far. "I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1812
dario73,
Are these people, making these arguments, paranoid illegals? ::)
-
::)
The law has also picked up its share of Republican critics: On MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today, host Joe Scarborough — a former GOP congressman from Florida — said he thinks Hispanics in Arizona who are in the U.S. legally will be targeted. "That is un-American. It is unacceptable and it is un-American."
Marco Rubio, a Republican Senate candidate in Florida, said that requiring people to carry documentation is "not really something that Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state." And former Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a longtime crusader against illegal immigration, thinks the law goes too far. "I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1812
dario73,
Are these people, making these arguments, paranoid illegals? ::)
show us in the bill where it says ppl will be pulled over for looking mexican...I can show you where it says that cant happen, can you show me where it says it can?
-
Don't wait for an answer to that.
-
show us in the bill where it says ppl will be pulled over for looking mexican...I can show you where it says that cant happen, can you show me where it says it can?
No!!Of course he cant!!Then he puts up a lib like Joe Scarborough who is the biggest sellout in the country.Then Marko Rubio who is running for the senate in Florida.The fact is the bill CLEARLY states what it wil do and it will stand up to challenges.
-
show us in the bill where it says ppl will be pulled over for looking mexican...I can show you where it says that cant happen, can you show me where it says it can?
"Police can detain and demand papers from anyone they have "lawful contact" with, but since the law defines illegal immigrants as trespassing when in any part of the United States, this gives the police the freedom to question people who are otherwise not breaking the law or engaging in suspicious activity."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1812
Isn't this true?
-
Its more hyperbole from the race hustlers.
-
No!!Of course he cant!!Then he puts up a lib like Joe Scarborough who is the biggest sellout in the country.Then Marko Rubio who is running for the senate in Florida.The fact is the bill CLEARLY states what it wil do and it will stand up to challenges.
Nevertheless, they make the arguments that, according to dario73, only paranoid illegals would make.
-
Its more hyperbole from the race hustlers.
It's more than enough reason for Latino American citizens to worry they'll get harassed by police, possibly getting detained and eventually even sent to Mexico.
-
"Police can detain and demand papers from anyone they have "lawful contact" with, but since the law defines illegal immigrants as trespassing when in any part of the United States, this gives the police the freedom to question people who are otherwise not breaking the law or engaging in suspicious activity."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1812
Isn't this true?
No, it's not true, it's the opinion of that writer. There's nothing in the law that gives the police justification to make a lawful contact if there is nobody breaking the law or any suspicious activity.
She's putting the cart before the horse, trying to claim that the police can just assume somebody may be tresspassing and that gives them reasonable suspicion to question. It's hypothetical bullshit.
-
I think IF this bill ends up being abused by LEO, tancredo will be looking VERY good for 2012 nomination.
-
No, it's not true, it's the opinion of that writer. There's nothing in the law that gives the police justification to make a lawful contact if there is nobody breaking the law or any suspicious activity.
She's putting the cart before the horse, trying to claim that the police can just assume somebody may be tresspassing and that gives them reasonable suspicion to question. It's hypothetical bullshit.
Doesn't the law define illegal immigrants as trespassing when in any part of the United States?
-
Is it the law already, yes. Is this only about enforcing the law? Is that the only issue with this? I'm not sure. Ok, lets say someone gets pulled over for speeding. While the cop has them pulled over he smells pot. We'll I think everyone here knows what's going to happen next. This car is getting searched and he's probably busted for more than speeding and we're all fine with that. But let's change it up a bit. Let's just say that the same cop is now driving around looking for people that look like what he imagines the type would be who smokes pot and then detaining them long enough for a search. Am I missing something or does this not open the door up to all that kind of stuff? Are there not other ways for a state to challenge the federal government on matters? yup, many. So why open this box. If you don't think the cops take this in every other direction they can, hahaha... I want illegal immigration dealt with like everyone else. I'm just not sure we should shoot ourselves in the foot getting it done. Maybe I'm wrong, just saying shit like this makes me wonder about what's next.
-
GMAFB. I am of Italian American descent and know the deal all too well with the mafia in NYC and how we can be treated etc. However, I also know that the actual mob posed a huge threat and and was a masdsive crime problem and have no problem with the fforts the govt took to stamp ourt the mob influence in a lot of areas.
Its only the recent illegals and their apologists who refuse to deal with the crimials in their midst and resort to this hyperbolic bs when it is overwhelmingly illegals from south of the border committing ghastly crimes ranging from id theft to murder, etc.
Screw these illegals and you know what? Maybe if legal hispanics did not demand that we continue to favor lawless behavior it would never have gotten to this point. Granted that is only part of it, but it plays a large role as well.
-
Doesn't the law define illegal immigrants as trespassing when in any part of the United States?
And that has what to do with a cop making lawful contact?
You're trying to imply the cops are going to stop people based on looks alone, yet you can't back that up with anything.
-
These recent mofos' need to STFU and either go back home or assimilate and get with the fucking program.
-
And that has what to do with a cop making lawful contact?
You're trying to imply the cops are going to stop people based on looks alone, yet you can't back that up with anything.
Define "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion."
I'm not implying anything. This law as is gives cops the freedom to make "lawful contact" with Latino American Citizens if the cops have "reasonable suspicion" that these Latinos are illegal immigrants and demand proof of legal US residence. "Lawful contact" they can claim would be trespassing.
Again, define "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion."
-
this may end up being known as a RINO bill.
many of the true conservatives are against it. Palin, Mccain - they're for it but they were also for amnesty.
Weird bill thus far. Are yall saying tancredo and Kristol are WRONG and that this bill does not infringe on the rights of legal americans?
-
We have been over this many times and I already gave plenty of examples.
-
I'm sure CNN and MSNBC will show this clip
-
this may end up being known as a RINO bill.
many of the true conservatives are against it. Palin, Mccain - they're for it but they were also for amnesty.
Weird bill thus far. Are yall saying tancredo and Kristol are WRONG and that this bill does not infringe on the rights of legal americans?
You have truly gone off the deep end.
-
Is it the law already, yes. Is this only about enforcing the law? Is that the only issue with this? I'm not sure. Ok, lets say someone gets pulled over for speeding. While the cop has them pulled over he smells pot. We'll I think everyone here knows what's going to happen next. This car is getting searched and he's probably busted for more than speeding and we're all fine with that. But let's change it up a bit. Let's just say that the same cop is now driving around looking for people that look like what he imagines the type would be who smokes pot and then detaining them long enough for a search. Am I missing something or does this not open the door up to all that kind of stuff? Are there not other ways for a state to challenge the federal government on matters? yup, many. So why open this box. If you don't think the cops take this in every other direction they can, hahaha... I want illegal immigration dealt with like everyone else. I'm just not sure we should shoot ourselves in the foot getting it done. Maybe I'm wrong, just saying shit like this makes me wonder about what's next.
How is this ANY different then what cops do now?
To 240,what are you talking about?EVERY single right wing talk show host is FOR it.EVERY conservative is FOR it.RINOS like Scarborough and Hukabee are against it along with every single idiot lib in the country including the king of idiots Obama.
-
Define "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion."
I'm not implying anything. This law as is gives cops the freedom to make "lawful contact" with Latino American Citizens if the cops have "reasonable suspicion" that these Latinos are illegal immigrants and demand proof of legal US residence. "Lawful contact" the can claim would be trespassing.
Again, define "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion."
Once again, you're putting the cart before the horse. You're saying that a cop can LOOK at somebody, determine from that look that they may be illegally tresspassing, and then make a lawful contact.
There's nothing in the law to suggest that, nor can you demonstrate that's what will happen.
-
Define "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion."
I'm not implying anything. This law as is gives cops the freedom to make "lawful contact" with Latino American Citizens if the cops have "reasonable suspicion" that these Latinos are illegal immigrants and demand proof of legal US residence. "Lawful contact" the can claim would be trespassing.
Again, define "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion."
the way i read it, you cannot stop someon b/c you think they may be an illegal you have to be in the process of investigating a crime or complaint...you cannot simply stop someone for being mexican
basically if someone is caught stealing a car the cops make lawful contact with this person if then they find reason to believe that they are illegal they are required to inquire about their status...
if you dont know the definitions of these terms why are you against it?
-
These recent mofos' need to STFU and either go back home or assimilate and get with the fucking program.
Haha...you gotta love how were always being told that the US should stay out of another country's business and we've got clowns from Canada, Venezuela, etc., telling us how we should conduct things in our country.
-
This whole thing has been a textbook example of left wing hyperbole and stupidty as evidenced by 240.
-
Once again, you're putting the cart before the horse. You're saying that a cop can LOOK at somebody, determine from that look that they may be illegally tresspassing, and then make a lawful contact.
There's nothing in the law to suggest that, nor can you demonstrate that's what will happen.
I'm not saying that. The law is saying it.
B. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).
Who defines what "lawful contact" is? By law all illegal immigrants are trespassing.
Who defines what "reasonable suspicion" is?
A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
So a cop may not "solely" consider race, color or national origin, but he may consider them as long as it is not the only thing considered.
-
the way i read it, you cannot stop someon b/c you think they may be an illegal you have to be in the process of investigating a crime or complaint...you cannot simply stop someone for being mexican
basically if someone is caught stealing a car the cops make lawful contact with this person if then they find reason to believe that they are illegal they are required to inquire about their status...
if you dont know the definitions of these terms why are you against it?
A cop can stop a Latino and demand papers if "reasonable suspicion exists" that he is trespassing.
If you don't know the definitions of these terms, then why are you for it?
-
Is it the law already, yes. Is this only about enforcing the law? Is that the only issue with this? I'm not sure. Ok, lets say someone gets pulled over for speeding. While the cop has them pulled over he smells pot. We'll I think everyone here knows what's going to happen next. This car is getting searched and he's probably busted for more than speeding and we're all fine with that. But let's change it up a bit. Let's just say that the same cop is now driving around looking for people that look like what he imagines the type would be who smokes pot and then detaining them long enough for a search. Am I missing something or does this not open the door up to all that kind of stuff? Are there not other ways for a state to challenge the federal government on matters? yup, many. So why open this box. If you don't think the cops take this in every other direction they can, hahaha... I want illegal immigration dealt with like everyone else. I'm just not sure we should shoot ourselves in the foot getting it done. Maybe I'm wrong, just saying shit like this makes me wonder about what's next.
Yes, it's only about enforcing the law. They can't enforce this law without racial profiling.
-
I'm not saying that. The law is saying it.
Who defines what "lawful contact" is? By law all illegal immigrants are trespassing.
Who defines what "reasonable suspicion" is?
So a cop may not "solely" consider race, color or national origin, but he may consider them as long as it is not the only thing considered.
No, the law is not saying that - you are. Let's start from square one.
All illegal aliens are tresspassing. Now, how does a cop know if somebody is illegal or tresspassing?
THEY DON'T!!!!
And the law does not allow them to just walk up and ask based on race. There needs to be some type of reasonable suspicion.
-
No, the law is not saying that - you are. Let's start from square one.
All illegal aliens are tresspassing. Now, how does a cop know if somebody is illegal or tresspassing?
THEY DON'T!!!!
And the law does not allow them to just walk up and ask based on race. There needs to be some type of reasonable suspicion.
Exactly! Apart from race, color, or national origin, how can a cop know if somebody is illegal?
-
If there were 20 Million Zips, dagos, wops, and greezers, in this country even doing a fraction of what the illegals from south of the border are doing, I personally would be the biggest proponent of deporting their calzone asses back to sicily, rome, naples, turino, than anyone.
-
If there were 20 Million Zips, dagos, wops, and greezers, in this country even doing a fraction of what the illegals from south of the border are doing, I personally would be the biggest proponent of deporting their calzone asses back to sicily, rome, naples, turino, than anyone.
Stop hiring illegal immigrants and they will leave voluntarily. No jobs, no illegal immigrants.
"According to Princeton political scientist Douglas Massey, the number of illegal immigrants dropped by 100,000 in Arizona over just the last year and has fallen from 12.6 million in 2008 to 10.8 million in 2009 countrywide, as the recession means fewer jobs for immigrants and U.S. citizens alike."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100427/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1812
-
However, we also have to end the ability of them to benefit from welfare, section 8, food stamps, medicaid, etc.
You simply cant have open borders and a welfare state at the same time.
-
Exactly! Apart from race, color, or national origin, how can a cop know if somebody is illegal?
Now you're getting it. So a cop can't just stop anybody and start questioning them. So what's the problem with the law?
-
Exactly! Apart from race, color, or national origin, how can a cop know if somebody is illegal?
He doesnt ,which is why th law states that the asking of papers can only be done if the cop is investigating a crime.BUT again,a cop RIGHT now can stop ANYONE for ANY reason.If your in a car he DEMADS license and registration.
-
However, we also have to end the ability of them to benefit from welfare, section 8, food stamps, medicaid, etc.
You simply cant have open borders and a welfare state at the same time.
The only way that an illegal immigrant can get benefits, is if she has a baby born in the US. How does this law fix that? You can't deport the baby because he is an American citizen. You can't deport the mom because then what will you do with the baby?
Relative to the number of illegal immigrants in the US, few even try to get benefits for fear that they will be detained and deported. That is why many illegal immigrants do not even report crimes committed against them, because they are afraid if they report the crime, they will be detained and later deported for being in the US illegally.
-
The only way that an illegal immigrant can get benefits, is if she has a baby born in the US.
Hehe...I'm not sure it's even possible to argue with this level of ignorance.
If you truly believe that, you know absolutely nothing about this country or what's going on.
-
The Year 2017
January 11th: Joe Smuckeroo is at Dairy Queen with is daughter. He's detained and brought in for questioning because a cop thinks he looks like a pedo.
April 14th: Jerry Balloni snaps at his wife in Walmart. A cop there on another call hears the spat over lawn chairs and detains the guy for beating his wife since it sounds like he could be the type who beats his wife.
May 27th: The Hernadez family has chalked up a record 47 times being stopped and asked to show their papers. They've lived in Phoenix since 1995 and moved there from New Mexico where there family has lived since the early days of America.
July 12th: The order is given that anyone with a Ron Paul Lives bumpersticker be pulled over and checked.
August 4th: The parent's of an obese child are arrested on child abuse at the new Exxon-Walmart store in Rapid City, SD on the assumption that the parents were feeding their child crap 24/7. That's what it looks like and everyone agreed.
September 20th: 333387 is detained and questioned based on posts he made many years ago on some website called getbig, federal authorities tagged him as a potential domestic threat. 3333 is lucky, it took 4 years for them to get to him, there were 78,000 people on the list of looks like a domestic threat lined up before him to be detained and questioned.
November 25th: Drinking with Bob flees the country.
November 27th: Fox News reports that Drinking with Bob has been detained and questioned 43 times before fleeing the county. He's now wanted on insanity charges because authorities think it's insane to flee questioning when you haven't been charged with anything. Wanted, mentally unstable for looking and sounding dangerous...
December 13th: Dennis Pingo Fandango checks himself into the mental hospital after being detained 117 times in 3 months for having a bullshit name and refusing to have a biometric transmitting chip implanted.
Ok, a few items are lol, but you get the point...
-
Hehe...I'm not sure it's even possible to argue with this level of ignorance.
If you truly believe that, you know absolutely nothing about this country or what's going on.
Then please inform me. How else can an illegal immigrant get government benefits?
-
Where the hell do I even begin? My friend who is a detective has filled me in on so much of this I dont know where even to begin.
They are raping the taxpayer sna dsystem blind.
I swear, if this were guineas from italy doing this shit, I would join the ravioli patrol myself and rid the nation of these freeloaders.
-
Then please inform me. How else can an illegal immigrant get government benefits?
If they want medical care, all they have to do is show up at the emergency room.
There's a loophole in SSI allowing them to collect.
The Supreme Court has ruled that illegal alien children may not be turned away from schools.
Here's a GAO report detailing the numerous benefits illegals can and do get.
http://archive.gao.gov/d45t15/150100.pdf
Educate yourself...
-
Then please inform me. How else can an illegal immigrant get government benefits?
Of course, let's not forget about identity theft on top of all the legal methods.
Educate yourself...
-
If they want medical care, all they have to do is show up at the emergency room.
There's a loophole in SSI allowing them to collect.
The Supreme Court has ruled that illegal alien children may not be turned away from schools.
Here's a GAO report detailing the numerous benefits illegals can and do get.
http://archive.gao.gov/d45t15/150100.pdf
Educate yourself...
just out of curiosity, what can you get treatment for in the emergency room and what can't you get treatment for? For example, Cancer, we all know that many of us end up with cancer. If you go into the emergency room with cancer will you get treatment needed for cancer?
-
These dirtbags are breaking and entering our country and committing all sorts of theft and people excuse this shit?
WTF?
Try this garbage anywhere else and you get booted immediately and a jail cell, if you are lucky.
-
Your concerns are greatly unfounded unless you are a an illegal alien who has already committed a crime.
-
just out of curiosity, what can you get treatment for in the emergency room and what can't you get treatment for? For example, Cancer, we all know that many of us end up with cancer. If you go into the emergency room with cancer will you get treatment needed for cancer?
To my knowledge, only emergency medical treatment would be covered. So I apologize if my other post is misleading and I'll rephrase to say:
If they want emergency medical care, all they have to do is show up at the emergency room.
IDK all the procedures covered under "emergency" though.
Now, there may be some states that provide for follow-up care of illegals, IDK.
As to your other question, yes I think you brought up a good point and I suppose there will be room for abuse by the cops if they can find it. I guess that's true of just about any law though and just like other laws, we need to be vigilant of that type of abuse.
-
Do I or do I not have legit concerns about this law? Please see my posts in this thread. Do I have legit concerns or no? If not why?
-
If they want medical care, all they have to do is show up at the emergency room.
There's a loophole in SSI allowing them to collect.
The Supreme Court has ruled that illegal alien children may not be turned away from schools.
Here's a GAO report detailing the numerous benefits illegals can and do get.
http://archive.gao.gov/d45t15/150100.pdf
Educate yourself...
::)
From your own article, p5:
"Illegal aliens are not eligible for Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Unemployment Compensation, employment training under the Job Training Partnership Act, and financial assistance for higher education. Under the Medicaid program, they are eligible for emergency services only."
As for the other benefits you mentioned for illegal immigrants children, if there are no jobs for the parents in the US, the parents will voluntarily leave. If the parents voluntarily leave, they will take their children with them.
Educate yourself...
-
::)
From your own article, p5:
"Illegal aliens are not eligible for Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Unemployment Compensation, employment training under the Job Training Partnership Act, and financial assistance for higher education. Under the Medicaid program, they are eligible for emergency services only."
As for the other benefits you mentioned for illegal immigrants children, if there are no jobs for the parents in the US, the parents will voluntarily leave. If the parents voluntarily leave, they will take their children with them.
Educate yourself...
That's your counter argument? Pointing out the stuff they don't qualify for?
HAHAHA...what are you 12?
You're claim was that they don't get any benefits unless they're a woman with an anchor baby. The study provides you with numerous benefits ALL illegals receive.
Educate yourself...
-
That's your counter argument? Pointing out the stuff they don't qualify for?
HAHAHA...what are you 12?
You're claim was that they don't get any benefits unless they're a woman with an anchor baby. The study provides you with numerous benefits ALL illegals receive.
Educate yourself...
I said no jobs, no illegal immigrants. To which 333386 responded by bringing up welfare benefits to illegals as a reason for them to stay even if there are no jobs for them.
Explain to me how an illegal immigrant without a job can stay in the US unless the illegal immigrant is a woman with children born in the US.
-
Your concerns are greatly unfounded unless you are a an illegal alien who has already committed a crime.
Not if you are a Latino American citizen.
Hugo's concerns are legit that this law opens the door for a police state. Soon all American citizens will have to carry papers on them at all times.
-
To my knowledge, only emergency medical treatment would be covered. So I apologize if my other post is misleading and I'll rephrase to say:
If they want emergency medical care, all they have to do is show up at the emergency room.
IDK all the procedures covered under "emergency" though.
Now, there may be some states that provide for follow-up care of illegals, IDK.
As to your other question, yes I think you brought up a good point and I suppose there will be room for abuse by the cops if they can find it. I guess that's true of just about any law though and just like other laws, we need to be vigilant of that type of abuse.
Ok, thanks, I was a bit confused because so many have been saying that everyone can get the same medical by just going to the emergency room so I was starting to wonder, like really? lol... I think I even heard it on Fox a few times.
As for the last part. In my lifetime, I've never seen anything go back after it's been established. I've only seen the new established and built on. At some point I started to realize that if that's the case, then I must look at everything new based on where they would or could take it next in the near future. It's not so much a case of abuse. Abuse is the misuse of a current law. Where my concerns lay are with what the new law lays a foundation for.... In my silly 2017 view, I mock where it might go. But trust me, if you remember this thread in 2017, it actually might not sound so silly. That's because I've watched them build and pile on and build and pile on for my whole life. It's not just with this one law. It's with so many federal, state and local. I know I'm supposed to be the liberal of the board, but sometimes I wonder if I'm not actually the most concervative person here. lol
-
Not if you are a Latino American citizen.
Hugo's concerns are legit that this law opens the door for a police state. Soon all American citizens will have to carry papers on them at all times.
Is this not cool, we're totally in agreement for once :D I never thought I would here you say "Hugo's concerns are legit" lololol.... :D
-
Not if you are a Latino American citizen.
Hugo's concerns are legit that this law opens the door for a police state. Soon all American citizens will have to carry papers on them at all times.
You get pulled over by the cops: "License and registration please"
You go buy a gun: "Drivers license and permit please?"
You go tot he hospital: "Insurance info please?"
You go to cash a check: "Drivers license please"
-
You get pulled over by the cops: "License and registration please"
You go buy a gun: "Drivers license and permit please?"
You go tot he hospital: "Insurance info please?"
You go to cash a check: "Drivers license please"
Soon...
...You get pulled over by the cops: "Birth certificate, Naturalization certificate or US passport please"
-
Is this not cool, we're totally in agreement for once :D I never thought I would here you say "Hugo's concerns are legit" lololol.... :D
It is cool!
But I think you and I might be in agreement on more issues than you might think. :)
-
Soon...
...You get pulled over by the cops: "Birth certificate, Naturalization certificate or US passport please"
I wish the SS would say that to our president already. ;D
-
You get pulled over by the cops: "License and registration please"
You go buy a gun: "Drivers license and permit please?"
You go tot he hospital: "Insurance info please?"
You go to cash a check: "Drivers license please"
That's not the same. It's not synonymous with what we're talking about.
You get pulled over by the cops: There was a reason, speeding, traffic violation, problem with your car etc.
Now, you can get pulled over based on how you look. Big fucking difference.
Your last three examples are shit because they're not even subject to the authorities so they really don't apply to the situation we're talking about do they.....
-
Explain to me how an illegal immigrant without a job can stay in the US unless the illegal immigrant is a woman with children born in the US.
If you would stop cherry-picking the study for what you want to find, you would see, illegals can get many benefits, including benefits for which they may not even be eligible.
For example: "Illegal aliens may also be receiving public housing assistance, even though by law they are not eligible for these benefits. The alien restrictions in the law are not being applied because the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has not finalized
a regulation on alien eligibility."
Of course there are many programs that are strict and they can't access, but there a sufficient number that they can and do.
And we can stop pretending like they don't steal other people's identities...
-
It is cool!
But I think you and I might be in agreement on more issues than you might think. :)
yea, I think so too. :)
-
I wish the SS would say that to our president already. ;D
lol...that was good one.
-
would I be better off creating a gimmick to ask some of the questions I ask? Is it getting in the way that I'm a mod?
-
Explain to me how an illegal immigrant without a job can stay in the US unless the illegal immigrant is a woman with children born in the US.
And it continues...
This Backgrounder examines illegal immigration-related document fraud and identity theft that is committed primarily for the purpose of employment. It debunks three common misconceptions: illegal aliens are “undocumented;” the transgressions committed by illegal aliens to obtain jobs are minor; and illegal-alien document fraud and identity theft are victimless crimes. It discusses how some community leaders rationalize these crimes, contributing to a deterioration of the respect for laws in our nation, and presents a variety of remedies, including more widespread electronic verification of work status (E-Verify and the Social Security Number Verification Service) and immigrant outreach programs to explain the ramifications and risks of document fraud and identity theft.
The findings include:
•Illegal immigrants are not “undocumented.” They have fraudulent documents such as counterfeit Social Security cards, forged drivers licenses, fake “green cards,” and phony birth certificates. Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment.
•Most (98 percent) Social Security number (SSN) thieves use their own names with stolen numbers. The federal E-Verify program, now mandated in only 14 states, can detect this fraud. Universal, mandatory use of E-Verify would curb this and stop virtually 100 percent of child identity theft.
•Illegal immigration and high levels of identity theft go hand-in-hand. States with the most illegal immigration also have high levels of job-related identity theft. In Arizona, 33 percent or all identity theft is job-related (as opposed to identity theft motivated simply by profit). In Texas it is 27 percent; in New Mexico, 23 percent; in Colorado, 22 percent; California, 20 percent; and in Nevada, 16 percent. Eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of illegal aliens in their total population are among the top 10 states in identity theft (Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, Nevada, New York, Georgia, and Colorado).
•Children are prime targets. In Arizona, it is estimated that over one million children are victims of identity theft. In Utah, 1,626 companies were found to be paying wages to the SSNs of children on public assistance under the age of 13. These individuals suffer very real and very serious consequences in their lives.
•Illegal aliens commit felonies in order to get jobs. Illegal aliens who use fraudulent documents, perjure themselves on I-9 forms, and commit identity theft in order to get jobs are committing serious offenses and are not “law abiding.”
•Illegally employed aliens send billions of dollars annually to their home countries, rather than spending it in the United States and helping stimulate the American economy. In October 2008 alone, $2.4 billion was transferred to Mexico.
•Tolerance of corruption erodes the rule of law. Corruption is a serious problem in most illegal aliens’ home countries. Allowing it to flourish here paves the way for additional criminal activity and increased corruption throughout society.
•Leaders support perpetrators and ignore victims. Political, civic, religious, business, education, and media leaders blame Americans for “forcing” illegal aliens to commit document fraud and identity theft. No similar concern is expressed for the American men, women, and children whose lives are destroyed in the process.
•The Social Security Administration and Internal Revenue Service facilitate illegal immigrant-driven identity theft. Both turn a blind eye to massive SSN fraud and take no action to stop it. The Social Security Administration assigns SSNs to new-born infants that are being used illegally. The IRS demands that victims pay taxes on wages earned by illegal aliens using their stolen SSNs, while taking no action to stop the identity theft.
•State and local governments need to adopt tougher laws to supplement federal efforts. The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is targeting large document fraud rings and the most egregious employers, but their resources are limited and stretched across multiple priorities. In 2007, identity theft cases represented only 7 percent of the total ICE case load.
•Employers must do their part. They can ensure that they have a legal workforce by using a combination of the federal government’s E-Verify and Social Security Number Verification Service systems and by signing up for the federal government’s IMAGE program or privately conducted audits.
http://www.cis.org/IdentityTheft
-
If you would stop cherry-picking the study for what you want to find, you would see, illegals can get many benefits, including benefits for which they may not even be eligible.
For example: "Illegal aliens may also be receiving public housing assistance, even though by law they are not eligible for these benefits. The alien restrictions in the law are not being applied because the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has not finalized
a regulation on alien eligibility."
Of course there are many programs that are strict and they can't access, but there a sufficient number that they can and do.
And we can stop pretending like they don't steal other people's identities...
Oh, that's great! So all these laws are already in place to keep illegal immigrants from receiving benefits, but they are not being enforced. So the solution is to create new laws to stop Latinos on the streets and demand proof of legal US residence?
How am I pretending like they don't steal other people's identities? They do, but don't tell me that all illegals steal identities in order to get government benefits. Most of them are farmers, uneducated and incapable of pulling off identity theft on their own. Most illegals identities are given to them by the Coyotes, the men on the Mexican side of the border who get paid to take illegals across the US. The identity theft may be later used to obtain government benefits, but its original purpose is to help them get jobs.
So it all goes back to no jobs, no illegals. Funny how Americans keep attacking the problem from all the wrong angles instead of going to the root of the problem. Stop hiring illegals.
Even this law is ineffective in solving any problems. If you manage to detain and deport 100,000 illegal immigrants as a result of this law, those illegals will have a beer in Mexico and by the next Sunday they'll be back in Arizona.
-
You get pulled over by the cops: There was a reason, speeding, traffic violation, problem with your car etc.
Now, you can get pulled over based on how you look. Big fucking difference.
No you can't get pulled over based on how you look.
-
would I be better off creating a gimmick to ask some of the questions I ask? Is it getting in the way that I'm a mod?
Sorry, didn't really see it as a question, but I do think it might be a stretch for things to come to that in 2017. I guess I don't see any difference between this law and what the Feds are supposed to be doing already.
And maybe we do need to add some safeguards. For example if an officer is shown to have some type of disproportionate amount of traffic stops where he "found" and illegal, maybe that should be a basis for an investigation...or something along those lines (I would have to give it more thought). I see where you're going, but I'm trying to take an optimistic view as I don't think cracking down on employers is enough. We should have this law, crack down on employers, tighten loopholes, etc.
-
So the solution is to create new laws to stop Latinos on the streets and demand proof of legal US residence?
That's not the solution being proposed, that's just you lying about it.
I'm not disagreeing about the jobs issue, I think you're right. But that has to be just one aspect of a multi-targeted approach.
-
No you can't get pulled over based on how you look.
yea, that's my point, now and in the past you can't get pulled over based on how you look. Now I guess you can.
-
That's not the same. It's not synonymous with what we're talking about.
You get pulled over by the cops: There was a reason, speeding, traffic violation, problem with your car etc.
Now, you can get pulled over based on how you look. Big fucking difference.
Your last three examples are shit because they're not even subject to the authorities so they really don't apply to the situation we're talking about do they.....
Jesus Christ what is it with you guys?! The cops cannot fucking pull you over for looking Mexican. Reasonable Suspiscion is not a hunch that is based on racial profiling. There has to be some concrete reason that can be articulated for the police to detain you beyond the way you look. Key: LAWFUL INTERACTION. I mean what do you think is going to happen in AZ now-- Mexican check points for dark skinned drivers? C'mon dude your smarter than this.
-
That's not the solution being proposed, that's just you lying about it.
I'm not disagreeing about the jobs issue, I think you're right. But that has to be just one aspect of a multi-targeted approach.
How am I lying about it, and why would I lie about it? ::)
-
these days I don't find myself agreeing with Obama very much. I'm at this point pretty sure I'm not voting for him again, but I agree with this:
"Now suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed that's something that could potentially happen... That's not the right way to go."--Obama
-
Its a straw man argument.
-
Obama is a *ucking moron who is totally misinterpreting the language of the law. Pretty pathetic for an alleged constitutional law professor. He should brush up on his criminal procedure. Nothing but mindless pandering to the illegal voting bloc and the Latino voters.
-
yea, that's my point, now and in the past you can't get pulled over based on how you look. Now I guess you can.
No they can't. See GW's post. The language of the law requires them to make "lawful contact" before they can inquire about immigration status:
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person . . . ."
-
GW - having passed the bar exam yourself, I have not seen so much disinformation, hyperbole, ignorance, and utter bs since the OJ Trial.
-
No they can't. See GW's post. The language of the law requires them to make "lawful contact" before they can inquire about immigration status:
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person . . . ."
The level of absolutely ignorance displayed by many on this board over this law is truly embarassing. Its OJ'esqe at this point.
-
Jesus Christ what is it with you guys?! The cops cannot fucking pull you over for looking Mexican. Reasonable Suspiscion is not a hunch that is based on racial profiling. There has to be some concrete reason that can be articulated for the police to detain you beyond the way you look. Key: LAWFUL INTERACTION. I mean what do you think is going to happen in AZ now-- Mexican check points for dark skinned drivers? C'mon dude your smarter than this.
Calm down, let's talk about this without getting bitchy.
The law essentially legalizes racial profiling
The law puts communities of color in the crosshairs by requiring state and local government workers to determine if a person is illegally in the United States based on a “reasonable suspicion.”
Legal experts maintain that the law will result in racial profiling, as it does not prohibit police officers from relying on race or ethnicity in deciding who to investigate. Of course all Arizonans don’t all look alike. Like America, Arizona is a diverse state with multiple generations of U.S. citizens. Three out of every 10 Arizonans are Hispanic, 1 out of 10 is American Indian, and 13 percent are foreign born.
cont... http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/arizona_facts.html
-
Its a straw man argument.
no it's fucking not ::) come on, you post here more than anyone, you have got to have more than that 3333.... I even have more respect for you than that. Let's make this a good debate! Calling a straw man where it doesn't exist is not it for me.... You got more, bring it...
What's ironic is that we're actually on the same side in regards to the immigration issue. I was preaching it here way before you.
-
Hugo - I p[assed the bar exam, practice law, took advanced criminal procedure, and am telling you that the hyperbole and spin on this is completely bogus.
-
Hugo - I p[assed the bar exam, practice law, took advanced criminal procedure, and am telling you that the hyperbole and spin on this is completely bogus.
That's cool. I got respect for what you've done and all. Can you expand for the layman like me? In such a way as to answer my questions?
-
Call me the ultimate thread killer :D
cricket.... cricket.......
-
I'm on the way to the gym and will respond later. George w has done a good job thought.
-
I'm on the way to the gym and will respond later. George w has done a good job thought.
I knew you were a Bush fan >:(