Arizona immigration law....

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-06-2010, 07:08 PM
5speed

I think everybody needs to stop worrying about hurting peoples feelings over this. If you are an illegal you will eventually be caught. It is Arizona that kept hiring illegals but didnt want to bitch about it until it made a bad impact on them.
08-09-2010, 04:18 PM
bu villain

Since these arguments are becoming very fragmented, I will just sum up my opposition to this law.

1. In my opinion, since the original law itself is a federal law, the fed gov should be in charge of enforcement. It should be the fed gov's choice whether or not it enlists states to help.
2. Probable cause for being an "illegal immigrant" is too vague and thus too easy to abuse.

I believe most proponents of this law have a valid desire to acheive better enforcement of immigration policy. I have no problem putting more agents on the border, using technology to help stop illegal crossing, or employment checks. I say go for it! As someone who spent more than a year and thousands of dollars getting someone through the process of legal immigration, I stand behind the importance of using a legal process. But I also know first hand we need comprehensive immigration reform.

This law is nothing but a bandaid to a gaping wound and it comes with too steep a price by disregarding the appropriate division of authority and opening up avenues for abuse. Call me a liberal, anti-borders security, PC or any other names you want but this is my honest assessment. If you can't respect that at least, then how can you expect to have a meaningful debate.
08-09-2010, 05:48 PM
BanginJimmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by bu villain

Since these arguments are becoming very fragmented, I will just sum up my opposition to this law.

1. In my opinion, since the original law itself is a federal law, the fed gov should be in charge of enforcement. It should be the fed gov's choice whether or not it enlists states to help.
2. Probable cause for being an "illegal immigrant" is too vague and thus too easy to abuse.

I believe most proponents of this law have a valid desire to acheive better enforcement of immigration policy. I have no problem putting more agents on the border, using technology to help stop illegal crossing, or employment checks. I say go for it! As someone who spent more than a year and thousands of dollars getting someone through the process of legal immigration, I stand behind the importance of using a legal process. But I also know first hand we need comprehensive immigration reform.

This law is nothing but a bandaid to a gaping wound and it comes with too steep a price by disregarding the appropriate division of authority and opening up avenues for abuse. Call me a liberal, anti-borders security, PC or any other names you want but this is my honest assessment. If you can't respect that at least, then how can you expect to have a meaningful debate.

Your reasoning is fine but I have 2 questions to ask you.

1. If the feds refuse to enforce their laws who is supposed to do it?

2. If it is the feds responsibility to enforce border laws, shouldnt it also be their responsibility to pay the states for the services the illegals use?

3. Do you agree with Obama that immigration reform should be nothing more than a blanket amnesty?
08-10-2010, 03:49 PM
bu villain

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Your reasoning is fine but I have 2 questions to ask you.

1. If the feds refuse to enforce their laws who is supposed to do it?

I believe the correct action would be to sue the government and have it resolved in a court. Similar to what is happening with the AZ law now except that if that AZ law is thrown out, we are back to square one and have just wasted time and money that could have been spent on the lawsuit the state should have filed in the first place. On a side note, the federal government does enfore the law to some extent. How should we define what is adequate enforcement? They will never be able to stop every single illegal immigrant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

2. If it is the feds responsibility to enforce border laws, shouldnt it also be their responsibility to pay the states for the services the illegals use?

I could see that being a possible and reasonable outcome if a lawsuit was filed and it was determined the government was not making a reasonable attempt at enforcement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

3. Do you agree with Obama that immigration reform should be nothing more than a blanket amnesty?

No I do not think blanket amnesty is a good option. Wasn't a good idea when Reagan did it, not a good idea now.
08-10-2010, 10:53 PM
BanginJimmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by bu villain

I believe the correct action would be to sue the government and have it resolved in a court. Similar to what is happening with the AZ law now except that if that AZ law is thrown out, we are back to square one and have just wasted time and money that could have been spent on the lawsuit the state should have filed in the first place. On a side note, the federal government does enfore the law to some extent. How should we define what is adequate enforcement? They will never be able to stop every single illegal immigrant.

What extent does the fed govt actually enforce it? Have you looked at the guy that killed the nun in VA? He was turned over to ICE twice and both times was immediately released.

Also, what happens if you get another activist on the bench that throws out the case saying the govt is doing enough? What recourse do you follow then? The added time and money appealing to the 9th Circus then the Supreme Court?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bu villain

No I do not think blanket amnesty is a good option. Wasn't a good idea when Reagan did it, not a good idea now.

That is the dems definition of comprehensive immigration reform.
08-11-2010, 04:00 PM
bu villain

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

What extent does the fed govt actually enforce it? Have you looked at the guy that killed the nun in VA? He was turned over to ICE twice and both times was immediately released.

Not sure what your anecdote has to do with my question. Again, my question was How do you determine what level of enforcement is reasonable? I'm not asking whether you think the current level of enforcement is reasonable. I already know the answer to that question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Also, what happens if you get another activist on the bench that throws out the case saying the govt is doing enough? What recourse do you follow then? The added time and money appealing to the 9th Circus then the Supreme Court?

There is nothing else to do. That is how our system works. You can't ignore the courts just because you don't agree with the outcome. The AZ method is exactly the same anyways except they pushed the government to take them to court instead of the other way around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

That is the dems definition of comprehensive immigration reform.

Ok good to know, doesn't change how I feel about it.
08-11-2010, 05:30 PM
BanginJimmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by bu villain

Not sure what your anecdote has to do with my question. Again, my question was How do you determine what level of enforcement is reasonable? I'm not asking whether you think the current level of enforcement is reasonable. I already know the answer to that question.

That is even easier. If you are an illegal and caught in the US, by any method, you are shipped to the border and dropped there. No more nice plane rides to whatever airport you like. No more catch and release policies just because they havent been convicted of a violent crime here in the US. Simply lock them up until the bus is full then bus them to the nearest border where they are handed over to the Mexican border police. Any property they have here is auctioned off to pay for their detention and bus trip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bu villain

There is nothing else to do. That is how our system works. You can't ignore the courts just because you don't agree with the outcome. The AZ method is exactly the same anyways except they pushed the government to take them to court instead of the other way around.

So we end up right where we are now. The states being forced to fend for themselves by fed inaction, but when they try to fend for themselves, they are attacked by the feds. Sounds to me like AZ is taking the right approach. I said earlier in this thread, I really dont believe Brewer really cares about this law. I think it was more of a wakeup call to Washington. No matter what happens with this law the feds are going to be forced to act in some way. If they work to secure the border AZ wins because ti will slow the flood of illegals into the state. If they dont work on securing the border, GOP wins a major national security victory politically. Its a win/win for AZ as long as it is in GOP hands.
08-12-2010, 08:35 AM
Total_Blender

It still does nothing to actually stop the illegals from coming in. You can send them out all you want but as long as there are jobs for them waiting in AZ and conditions remain bad in Mex. and Central America they are going to keep coming in.

Its just a play for votes in an election year. If they were serious about using state authority to handle an immigration problem they would go after the employers that hire illegals. They are just trying to make the federal gov't look like the bad guy.
08-12-2010, 12:45 PM
Glides

Quote:

Originally Posted by bu villain

1. In my opinion, since the original law itself is a federal law, the fed gov should be in charge of enforcement. It should be the fed gov's choice whether or not it enlists states to help.

So, I want to make sure I get this straight, you say it should be the Fed gov's choice to enlist states to help....so should states just sit around and wait for the call? Or should they decide to police themselves and their legislature because the fed's aren't doing it? I'll make it easier for you. It's the police departments job to protect you. So when a person breaks into your house in the middle of the night and tries to kill your family, do you wait for the police to magically show up and take care of business...or do you handle it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bu villain

2. Probable cause for being an "illegal immigrant" is too vague and thus too easy to abuse.

Yes, you could be right. But illegal immigrants abuse our system every single day. So are we to suffer the abuse, or are we to cause them to suffer the abuse? Us or them? Once again, do you suffer abuse at the hands of the criminals that break into your house....or do you abuse them? In a Me or them situation, i'll choose me thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bu villain

I believe most proponents of this law have a valid desire to acheive better enforcement of immigration policy. I have no problem putting more agents on the border, using technology to help stop illegal crossing, or employment checks. I say go for it! As someone who spent more than a year and thousands of dollars getting someone through the process of legal immigration, I stand behind the importance of using a legal process. But I also know first hand we need comprehensive immigration reform.

So you have no problem spending MORE money to put more people in harms way, patrolling our borders, stopping illegal crossing and doing employment checks...but you are opposed to tackling the problem of those that are already here? I'm not sure your line of reasoning there. Illigal immigration is a plague, it costs an enormous amount to our citizens already...and you support spending MORE money to stop them from coming over but you can't get behind a policeman asking someone he suspects as an illegal immigrant for their identification?
But you would be all about a policeman asking a seedy character standing outside your apartment or home for their identification. How are the 2 any different? They are both possible criminals. illigal immigration is a crime contrary to beliefe and illegal immigratns are criminals. Any legal citizen doing what they are doing would be arrested, tried and either fined or convicted. How do people continue to rationalize this as some sort of crusader's fight?

It's mind boggling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bu villain

This law is nothing but a bandaid to a gaping wound and it comes with too steep a price by disregarding the appropriate division of authority and opening up avenues for abuse. Call me a liberal, anti-borders security, PC or any other names you want but this is my honest assessment. If you can't respect that at least, then how can you expect to have a meaningful debate.

I respect your opinion on this matter, but I have to disagree with you on your points. Whether it's a band-aid on a gaping wound, it's a start. And to not even start is to never even have tried.
That's how I see it. The funniest thing I saw in this whole debate was when Sherriff Joe Arpaio was at the rally yesterday and all the opponents of that law were telling him to "Go Home". He just laughed and asked how someone who was in his country illegally could yell at him to go home, he was home.

Classic.
08-12-2010, 03:11 PM
Browning151

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glides

So, I want to make sure I get this straight, you say it should be the Fed gov's choice to enlist states to help....so should states just sit around and wait for the call? Or should they decide to police themselves and their legislature because the fed's aren't doing it? I'll make it easier for you. It's the police departments job to protect you. So when a person breaks into your house in the middle of the night and tries to kill your family, do you wait for the police to magically show up and take care of business...or do you handle it?

Yes, you could be right. But illegal immigrants abuse our system every single day. So are we to suffer the abuse, or are we to cause them to suffer the abuse? Us or them? Once again, do you suffer abuse at the hands of the criminals that break into your house....or do you abuse them? In a Me or them situation, i'll choose me thank you.

So you have no problem spending MORE money to put more people in harms way, patrolling our borders, stopping illegal crossing and doing employment checks...but you are opposed to tackling the problem of those that are already here? I'm not sure your line of reasoning there. Illigal immigration is a plague, it costs an enormous amount to our citizens already...and you support spending MORE money to stop them from coming over but you can't get behind a policeman asking someone he suspects as an illegal immigrant for their identification?
But you would be all about a policeman asking a seedy character standing outside your apartment or home for their identification. How are the 2 any different? They are both possible criminals. illigal immigration is a crime contrary to beliefe and illegal immigratns are criminals. Any legal citizen doing what they are doing would be arrested, tried and either fined or convicted. How do people continue to rationalize this as some sort of crusader's fight?

It's mind boggling.

I respect your opinion on this matter, but I have to disagree with you on your points. Whether it's a band-aid on a gaping wound, it's a start. And to not even start is to never even have tried.
That's how I see it.

Agreed on every point. If you ask a seedy character outside of an apartment building for ID though, you're liable to get into the same stupid mess because someone will scream discrimination because you picked him out because his clothes weren't as nice as yours or his hair wasn't neatly cut blah blah blah or some other stupid reason. Political correctness is killing this country, I don't give a damn if I hurt your feelings by asking you to obey the law, get over it or gtfo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glides

The funniest thing I saw in this whole debate was when Sherriff Joe Arpaio was at the rally yesterday and all the opponents of that law were telling him to "Go Home". He just laughed and asked how someone who was in his country illegally could yell at him to go home, he was home.

Classic.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?
08-12-2010, 03:44 PM
bu villain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glides

So, I want to make sure I get this straight, you say it should be the Fed gov's choice to enlist states to help....so should states just sit around and wait for the call? Or should they decide to police themselves and their legislature because the fed's aren't doing it? I'll make it easier for you. It's the police departments job to protect you. So when a person breaks into your house in the middle of the night and tries to kill your family, do you wait for the police to magically show up and take care of business...or do you handle it?

They shouldn't sit around. They should bring a lawsuit against the government. Illegal immigration is not some new issue, it's been an issue for decades. It's Arizona's fault if it sat on its hands for decades while the problem grew. Now it wants to side step the proper process because of its own inaction. I don't see how illegal immigration compares to attempted murder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glides

Yes, you could be right. But illegal immigrants abuse our system every single day. So are we to suffer the abuse, or are we to cause them to suffer the abuse? Us or them? Once again, do you suffer abuse at the hands of the criminals that break into your house....or do you abuse them? In a Me or them situation, i'll choose me thank you.

Except its not that clear cut. Its more like cause us and them to both suffer. Personally I believe there are better ways to fight back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glides

So you have no problem spending MORE money to put more people in harms way, patrolling our borders, stopping illegal crossing and doing employment checks...but you are opposed to tackling the problem of those that are already here? I'm not sure your line of reasoning there. Illigal immigration is a plague, it costs an enormous amount to our citizens already...and you support spending MORE money to stop them from coming over but you can't get behind a policeman asking someone he suspects as an illegal immigrant for their identification?

For some, priniciples are more valuable than money. You are misconstruing the issue because policemen already can ask anyone they pull over to see their driver's license. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is police being able to detain/question people because they are under suspicion of being "illegal". Being "illegal" is a crime of paperwork so "reasonable suspicion of being illegal" is basically saying that someone looks like they haven't filled out the right paperwork. Perhaps we should start questioning/detaining people who look like they don't fill out their taxes correctly, or people who look like they lied on their apartment leases. C'mon we all know who they are!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glides

But you would be all about a policeman asking a seedy character standing outside your apartment or home for their identification. How are the 2 any different? They are both possible criminals. illigal immigration is a crime contrary to beliefe and illegal immigratns are criminals. Any legal citizen doing what they are doing would be arrested, tried and either fined or convicted. How do people continue to rationalize this as some sort of crusader's fight?

First of all, what is a "possible criminal"? And, NO I don't think a policeman should be able to force me to show him identification for standing outside my house or apartment when no crime has been committed. Would I mind if he asked me what I was doing? Of course not, but if he wouldn't let me go back inside until he verified I am the person on the deed to my house I would be pretty pissed. You wouldn't?

Illegal immigrants are criminals but that doesn't mean you get to investigate whoever you want until you find one. Just try to imagine if you took the same approach to all crimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glides

I respect your opinion on this matter, but I have to disagree with you on your points. Whether it's a band-aid on a gaping wound, it's a start. And to not even start is to never even have tried.

We both agree that something needs to be done but I see this as a step backward rather than a step forward. In my view it's the sacrificing liberty for security issue.
08-12-2010, 03:50 PM
bu villain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Browning151

Agreed on every point. If you ask a seedy character outside of an apartment building for ID though, you're liable to get into the same stupid mess because someone will scream discrimination because you picked him out because his clothes weren't as nice as yours or his hair wasn't neatly cut blah blah blah or some other stupid reason. Political correctness is killing this country, I don't give a damn if I hurt your feelings by asking you to obey the law, get over it or gtfo.

Perhaps we should create a "seedy character" ghetto so it would be easier to keep our eyes on them.
08-12-2010, 04:41 PM
Browning151

Quote:

Originally Posted by bu villain

Perhaps we should create a "seedy character" ghetto so it would be easier to keep our eyes on them.

What? The point was, there's no possible way to identify anyone as criminal or not without there being a chance that someone will scream discrimination, racism or profiling. It doesn't matter how you write the law, someone will find a way that it "hurts their feelings" and then it will get thrown out because its not fair and equal to everyone.
08-12-2010, 04:47 PM
DynamicSound

Quote:

Originally Posted by bu villain

Perhaps we should create a "seedy character" ghetto so it would be easier to keep our eyes on them.

We already have one, it is called Clayton County. lol
08-12-2010, 06:40 PM
BanginJimmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Total_Blender

It still does nothing to actually stop the illegals from coming in. You can send them out all you want but as long as there are jobs for them waiting in AZ and conditions remain bad in Mex. and Central America they are going to keep coming in.

I agree with you completely. The only way to secure the border will be with people working on the border. If AZ could afford it, I would be suggesting they put another 5k national guard on the border to actually secure it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Total_Blender

Its just a play for votes in an election year. If they were serious about using state authority to handle an immigration problem they would go after the employers that hire illegals. They are just trying to make the federal gov't look like the bad guy.

I agree that a lot of this, from both sides, is election year BS. They do have a law that goes after the illegals and by the little bit of reading I did on it it is working well, but the investigative work is very difficult unless you get tips about it. That is where the law is really falling short.
08-16-2010, 05:09 PM
bu villain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Browning151

What? The point was, there's no possible way to identify anyone as criminal or not without there being a chance that someone will scream discrimination, racism or profiling. It doesn't matter how you write the law, someone will find a way that it "hurts their feelings" and then it will get thrown out because its not fair and equal to everyone.

You're right that someone may always scream discrimination. However, sometimes there actually is discrimination even though most times there isn't. That's why we must be careful. The hunt for criminals is and should continue to be a process that balances the rights of the presumed innocent with the ability to catch criminals.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page