Arizona immigration law....

[MachNU]

I am amazed that no one has brought up a thread talking about Arizona's laws about enforcing the Federal Laws on illegal immigration. Now I now it pushes the envolope on probable cause on determining wether someone is illegal or not...but at the same time its needed.

Obama Administration - "The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."

So basically when a State Court starts upholding a FEDERAL law they are sued and have injunctions placed on there attempts at upholding the law.

Yet San Francisco can claim they are a "Sanctuary City" and no Judical or Federal Action is brought against them?

Whats your whole take on the situation that is going on in Arizona? Do you agree with the State trying to take it upon itself to control and halt its rising immigration problem? Do you think its right for the Federal Court Judge to say that a Federal Law being upheld by a state is unconstitutional?

[BanginJimmy]

We have and we beat it to death. So far, nothing is happening that everyone didnt expect. In 2 or 3 years it will be in the Supreme Court where it will win because it is basicly local enforcement of federal law.



http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/...ses-SB1070-law.....

[MachNU]

We have and we beat it to death. So far, nothing is happening that everyone didnt expect. In 2 or 3 years it will be in the Supreme Court where it will win because it is basicly local enforcement of federal law.



http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/...ses-SB1070-law.....

Yeah I saw the thread about the governor passing the bill, but I was referring to the ruling by the Federal Courts.

[BanginJimmy]

Yeah I saw the thread about the governor passing the bill, but I was referring to the ruling by the Federal Courts.

I got you. Again, this is not a surprise by any means. The 9th circuit will soon uphold the Federal Court's ruling then it will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

[MachNU]

I got you. Again, this is not a surprise by any means. The 9th circuit will soon uphold the Federal Court's ruling then it will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

I also agree there ruling will get appealed. But its amazing that a Federal Court judge would deam a state not able to uphold a Federal law and then proceed to sue that state for wrong doing. Yet as I state eariler places like San Fransisco can deam themselves a "Sanctuary City!"

[gerardojdm]

I think that the governor of Arizona is a piece if shit along with rest of the people who support this unequal act. There's just so many things that i have no word to express myself. It's clear that Racism still exist and will never end.

[BanginJimmy]

I think that the governor of Arizona is a piece if shit along with rest of the people who support this unequal act. There's just so many things that i have no word to express myself. It's clear that Racism still exist and will never end.

And as your post proves, ignorance is also quite prevalent.

Lets humor you for a moment though.

Name a single portion of the law that is racist.


Its clear from your single, simple minded post that you have no clue what the law entails.

Why is it every time a liberal doesnt like something they claim its racist to try to make it go away?

[MachNU]

I think that the governor of Arizona is a piece if shit along with rest of the people who support this unequal act. There's just so many things that i have no word to express myself. It's clear that Racism still exist and will never end.

Have to agree with Jimmy...what is wrong with a Law that is passed to uphold a FEDERAL law? Is it racism when the INS comes and arrest someone for being illegal? Also for someone who hates racism you were the first person to draw the card. Racism never dies in this day and age because no one will let it die...everyone is always wanting to draw that card and be the first to call the other a racist!

[bu villain]

Have to agree with Jimmy...what is wrong with a Law that is passed to uphold a FEDERAL law?

Actually there is nothing wrong theoretically however case law has addressed this before. Basically, if the federal gov thinks that state enforcement is adversly affecting the overall ability of the federal government to implement the law effectively, then that's a problem.

For example, ICE has only a limited capability of dealing with illegal immigrants. If all of a sudden AZ sends them one hundred thousand illegals whose crimes are say speeding and being an illegal immigrant, that takes their focus away from going after the most harmful illegals (gang members, robbers, murderers, etc). It's simply not the best use of resources.

[BanginJimmy]

Actually there is nothing wrong theoretically however case law has addressed this before. Basically, if the federal gov thinks that state enforcement is adversly affecting the overall ability of the federal government to implement the law effectively, then that's a problem.

Feds case had nothing to do with this. The feds case is that the AZ impedes the feds enforcement of immigration law.

[bu villain]

Feds case had nothing to do with this. The feds case is that the AZ impedes the feds enforcement of immigration law.

I actually wasn't specifically speaking to the argument that the government is making right now, I was simply answering his question about what could be wrong with enforcing a federal law at the state level.

I'm not convinced yet the law is unconstitutional on the grounds of usurping government authority, but I do think its a bad idea and gives law enforcement too much discretion. Maybe you trust the government (cops) more than I do.

[Total_Blender]

1.) Only the feds can determine who is/isn't a citizen of the UNION.

2.) Violates the 4th amendment because it makes being dark skinned probable cause for LEO's to assume one in involved in criminal activity.

3.) 30% of AZ's population are legal latino immigrants. A lot of law enforcement's time and $$ will be wasted on verifying citizenship for every single latino who get pulled over for something stupid like a seat belt violation.

4.) People should not be required to have their citizenship "papers" on them at all times where they can be stolen etc. That stuff (not driver's license, but birth certificate/green card/work visa/passport/etc) belongs in a safe, not on one's person where it can be stolen. Also, the information sharing provisions in the bill are going to enable identity theft and fraud.

5.) Latino owned businesses are already starting to pull out of AZ and relocate to other states. Schools and municipal governments that see major portions of their revenue from the sales and property taxes paid by these citizens are going to lose that revenue.

6.) Proponents of this law say that there is a clause specifically forbidding racial profiling. But that clause says "except to the extent permitted by the Unites States or Arizona constitution". At first glance that seems OK, but the US Constitution doesn't specifically grant any protections against racial profiling.

7.) The law also has "birther provisions". Just another cheap appeal to the "lowest common denominator" voters the GOP loves so much.

8.) If the leaders in AZ were serious about the immigration problem they would go after the businesses that hire illegals and provide the jobs that bring them here. The Tyson chicken plants and other big agribusinesses advertise in Mexico that they have jobs available for illegals in the US. These companies know that they are hiring illegals.

AZ could also sue the federal gov't for not enforcing the law. But thats not going to generate as much publicity to voters as drafting legislation would. Whereas a lawsuit would put the spotlight only on the Gov. and State's Attorney, legislation becomes a platform for every Republican up for any election in the state.

[BanginJimmy]

1.) Only the feds can determine who is/isn't a citizen of the UNION.

Wrong. Law enforcement all over the country is able to check citizenship. This law only allows cops to do it for any lawful contact.

2.) Violates the 4th amendment because it makes being dark skinned probable cause for LEO's to assume one in involved in criminal activity.

Wrong again. The law specifically says cops cannot question anyone without probable cause. Probable cause is more than skin color.

3.) 30% of AZ's population are legal latino immigrants. A lot of law enforcement's time and $$ will be wasted on verifying citizenship for every single latino who get pulled over for something stupid like a seat belt violation.

Wrong once again. Cops are only going to check the people they think might be illegal. Latinos that dont have a drivers license and dont speak english are going to attract attention, not someone that speaks prefect english and has a license.

4.) People should not be required to have their citizenship "papers" on them at all times where they can be stolen etc. That stuff (not driver's license, but birth certificate/green card/work visa/passport/etc) belongs in a safe, not on one's person where it can be stolen. Also, the information sharing provisions in the bill are going to enable identity theft and fraud.

Dont you ever get tired of being wrong?

• Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all
times.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf

page 8 under rights and responsibilities

5.) Latino owned businesses are already starting to pull out of AZ and relocate to other states. Schools and municipal governments that see major portions of their revenue from the sales and property taxes paid by these citizens are going to lose that revenue.

The loss will be marginal as others move in to take their places. A successful business that is not easily replaced would not move because of this law if they were operating within the law to start with.

6.) Proponents of this law say that there is a clause specifically forbidding racial profiling. But that clause says "except to the extent permitted by the Unites States or Arizona constitution". At first glance that seems OK, but the US Constitution doesn't specifically grant any protections against racial profiling.

thats the same language that is written in any and every law written in this country.

7.) The law also has "birther provisions". Just another cheap appeal to the "lowest common denominator" voters the GOP loves so much.

Wrong again. If you are talking about removing automatic citizenship for anchor babies that is being discussed in DC, not AZ.

8.) If the leaders in AZ were serious about the immigration problem they would go after the businesses that hire illegals and provide the jobs that bring them here. The Tyson chicken plants and other big agribusinesses advertise in Mexico that they have jobs available for illegals in the US. These companies know that they are hiring illegals.

Already on the books and doing quite well but its not slowing down the 10's of thousands of illegals that cross the border every year.

AZ could also sue the federal gov't for not enforcing the law. But thats not going to generate as much publicity to voters as drafting legislation would. Whereas a lawsuit would put the spotlight only on the Gov. and State's Attorney, legislation becomes a platform for every Republican up for any election in the state.

When talking politics, this is a bad thing why?

Also as we have seen, the minority party is ALWAYS against any kind of reforms to our immigration policy or closing the borders. Like the GOP is now with Obama's push for amnesty the dems were against immigration reform when Bush was in office.

[bafbrian]

Wrong again. The law specifically says cops cannot question anyone without probable cause. Probable cause is more than skin color.

Wrong once again. Cops are only going to check the people they think might be illegal. Latinos that dont have a drivers license and dont speak english are going to attract attention, not someone that speaks prefect english and has a license.

Your two points contradict one another. If cops are only going to check the people they think might be illegal, concurrent with your other statement regarding probable cause, that would equate to a cop determining probable cause based on opinion, not necessarily fact. Essentially, a cop could stop an individual if they think something, have a gut feeling, or a sign, that an individual is an illegal. How can you intertwine thought (one's opinion) and probable cause (fact)?

Just because someone doesn't have a license on them, doesn't mean they are illegal, neither does not speaking English. AZ, like many other states, offer Driver's License examines in a multitude of languages.

[BanginJimmy]

Your two points contradict one another. If cops are only going to check the people they think might be illegal, concurrent with your other statement regarding probable cause, that would equate to a cop determining probable cause based on opinion, not necessarily fact. Essentially, a cop could stop an individual if they think something, have a gut feeling, or a sign, that an individual is an illegal. How can you intertwine thought (one's opinion) and probable cause (fact)?

Just because someone doesn't have a license on them, doesn't mean they are illegal, neither does not speaking English. AZ, like many other states, offer Driver's License examines in a multitude of languages.

I'm going to play semantics games. Probable cause is used as a guide for a multitude of laws and in most cases probable cause is a judgment call. No drivers license and not speaking english are just examples, not the only criteria.

[bafbrian]

I know, wanted to see if you try to justify opinion as probable cause. That is one of the major problems with the AZ law, probable cause was not clearly defined, leaving it to the officer could lead to racial profiling.

The law itself is controversial not because of its implementation, but rather the additions that it made to current law. Those additions are viewed as discriminatory to the point to which opponents of the law states that the provision permit racial profiling. I can agree with that deduction, but I understand the counterpoint of AZ enforcing law already on the federal books. It all seems to be a clusterfuck situation that will eventually move to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court were to uphold the AZ law, it would set a precedent and would create a "Domino Effect" of other states following suit. Imagine what would happen then.

[tstaubly]

everyone throws the idea of profiling around as a bad thing. should you stop someone solely based on the color of their skin? of course not. but think about it. as an officer if you see certain crimes, being committed by a certain kind of suspect that look, act speak, the same way. you will begin to start looking for other people based on those characteristics due to your past experiences.

lets move away from the border for a second and think about here in Atlanta.

how many chargers or impalas on 24's with a loud ass system and a thugged out black guy driving do you have to find large quantities of dope on before you start stopping every black dude in a donked out charger you see.

if you consistently see a certain type of person (profile) committing a certain type of crime. idc who you are, you will start looking for those ppl.

and when it come to checking citizenship. the officer cant check their status unless they have probable cause to believe they are here illegally or they are being questioned for another crime. the most common person deported was arrest for driving without a license. not like the officer was harassing them. they were breaking the law.

profiling is an effective tool to catch criminals if used appropriately. the "hes a Mexican, hes here illegally" mentality is wrong, but they should be able to check your citizenship if you are an immigrant. legal or not.

[Total_Blender]

and when it come to checking citizenship. the officer cant check their status unless they have probable cause to believe they are here illegally or they are being questioned for another crime.
.

This law makes skin color the "probable cause" you speak of.

[quote=Baggin Jimmy]Wrong. Law enforcement all over the country is able to check citizenship. This law only allows cops to do it for any lawful contact. [//quote]

Its true that they are able to check but once they checked they have to turn them over to INS. This law makes it to where AZ is prosecuting them too.

[bu villain]

lets move away from the border for a second and think about here in Atlanta.

how many chargers or impalas on 24's with a loud ass system and a thugged out black guy driving do you have to find large quantities of dope on before you start stopping every black dude in a donked out charger you see.

if you consistently see a certain type of person (profile) committing a certain type of crime. idc who you are, you will start looking for those ppl.

This is exactly why people are against such profiling. Your whole justification is that someone looks like a criminal which can be completely arbitrary. In my opinion as an IRS agent, rich white guys who wear suits cheat on their taxes quite a bit, lets only audit them. Being effective is not an excuse for being unjust.

Just answer this one question:

If there is even one racist cop in AZ, what is to stop him from harassing every latino person he pulls over for speeding about their legal status?

[BanginJimmy]

If there is even one racist cop in AZ, what is to stop him from harassing every latino person he pulls over for speeding about their legal status?

Right now, what is there to stop the exact cop from stopping every latino he sees with a minor infraction and either ticketing or arresting them? Answer, absolutely nothing.


Laws cannot be simply thrown out because what might happen without even a shred of proof that anything unconstitutional actually did happen.

[bu villain]

Right now, what is there to stop the exact cop from stopping every latino he sees with a minor infraction and either ticketing or arresting them? Answer, absolutely nothing.

Why should something stop them? If someone breaks the law, they should be ticketed/arrested. However, if a department receives complaints about the cop unfairly treating only latinos, he can be reprimanded or fired for discrimination but with this law he can't because this law legitimizes that very same discrimination (according you some of you as long as the racial discrimination occurs near a home depot).

Laws cannot be simply thrown out because what might happen without even a shred of proof that anything unconstitutional actually did happen.

But it's not clearly constitutional. Section 8 of the constitution gives congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" In 1942, the US Supreme court case Wickard v Filburn concluded that any activity (even if only going on within a single state) can affect interstate economics, falls under the regulation of the federal government under the commerce clause. There are many more cases that deal with the federal government's ability to stop states from enforcing federal laws. You can probably find some with a quick google search. I'm not saying it is unconstitutional for sure but don't act like this is a clear cut case.

[BanginJimmy]

Why should something stop them? If someone breaks the law, they should be ticketed/arrested. However, if a department receives complaints about the cop unfairly treating only latinos, he can be reprimanded or fired for discrimination but with this law he can't because this law legitimizes that very same discrimination (according you some of you as long as the racial discrimination occurs near a home depot).

So you are saying that absolutely nothing changes with this law, but you are still against it. Is this just because Obama says its bad? None of your arguments even come close to justification for your hate.

But it's not clearly constitutional. Section 8 of the constitution gives congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" In 1942, the US Supreme court case Wickard v Filburn concluded that any activity (even if only going on within a single state) can affect interstate economics, falls under the regulation of the federal government under the commerce clause. There are many more cases that deal with the federal government's ability to stop states from enforcing federal laws. You can probably find some with a quick google search. I'm not saying it is unconstitutional for sure but don't act like this is a clear cut case.

How does this law have anything to do with commerce? This is an law to kick illegals out of the state/country. If anything, AZ's previous law that allows the state to go after businesses that hire illegals would fall into this category, yet I havent heard a single word about that law.

And yes, this law IS constitutional. There is nothing that impedes the feds from enforcing immigration law. The law specificly rules out profiling (to appease the PC crowd). This law doesnt even add anything to federal law, it simply requires state police to check immigration status. Anyone that is against this law is clearly stating they are in favor of criminal activity and just as clearly stating that they are against securing our southern border.

[blaknoize]

This law will, in effect, will have every non-American born, non-English speaking person feel very uncomfortable. Looking over their shoulders for no reason other than them being a different type of person with a different set of lifestyles or languages.

This law was created to rid the state of "MEXICANS" and other non-English speakers from the state. It like no one can live in peace. Fuk even if they did get here illegally, the business who hired them should of said something, but no, they give the business to much profit and do not have to report them on their fiscal statement since its all under the table.

I agree with a previously mentioned post about preventing the businesses from hiring illegals.

You drive a green F-150 with blackout tailights and duals with flames on the hood. Get followed because they 'KNOW" your probably a mexican or other. Wait till u roll a stop sign or other. Pull u over and the fun begins.

[green91]

Honestly this is a democratic ploy in order to garner latino votes (those who are lawful citizens of course.) This is necessary since they have pushed so many bills through that Americans in general do not want and know they must stoop to new lows to attempt to even get a percentage of votes.

IF i were a naturalized latino american, id be outraged that i'd had to go through the difficult citizenship process and done things the lawful way when the federal government doesn't even care to enforce its own laws, and infact apparently promotes people to break the law.

As a lawful citizen myself, i'll gladly show my US identification, my drivers license indicating Ive earned my PRIVILEGE to drive, my lawfully REQUIRED insurance card, and welcome anyone to check my SPOTLESS criminal record. nothing to hide, nothing to worry about.

the arizona immigration law doesn't give any LEO the ability to pull someone over based on their color of skin. just requires that officers that pull anyone over with PROBABLE CAUSE to check legal status of said persons.

http://www.bordersheriffs.com/

[Total_Blender]

the arizona immigration law doesn't give any LEO the ability to pull someone over based on their color of skin. just requires that officers that pull anyone over with PROBABLE CAUSE to check legal status of said persons.
l]

Again, the AZ law makes being brown skinned enough "probable cause" for the authorities to question you, pull you over etc. Suppose you are latino and you go out for a run around the neighborhood and leave your wallet, phone, etc at home. Then you get questioned by a cop. You don't have ID on you or any way to get in touch with anyone. Under the AZ law they could hassle you quite a bit.

Again, Republicans are all for a police state, as long as they are the ones who determine who gets "policed".

[green91]

Again, the AZ law makes being brown skinned enough "probable cause" for the authorities to question you, pull you over etc. Suppose you are latino and you go out for a run around the neighborhood and leave your wallet, phone, etc at home. Then you get questioned by a cop. You don't have ID on you or any way to get in touch with anyone. Under the AZ law they could hassle you quite a bit.

Again, Republicans are all for a police state, as long as they are the ones who determine who gets "policed".

No, this law DOES NOT give them the ability to pull somebody over without probably cause. You clearly don't understand probably cause. Furthermore, anybody of any color that gets pulled over without any identification is subject to hassle, in ANY state currently in the USA.

I support the laws of the country and state being enforced.

[blaknoize]

Those who are also citizens have NOTHING to hide, with or without violations. But knowing you can be checked just for PROBABLE CAUSE as its listed, is unfair.

MAYBE cops should just stop by your house and knock on your door and question you because u live near someone who sells drugs or have been seen on their lot. Or better yet, they should just get an auto-search warrant and check your home. Not because they have a need to, but because there happens to be a PROBABLE CAUSE as you've been spotted on that persons property who happens to sell in your neighborhood.

[BanginJimmy]

Those who are also citizens have NOTHING to hide, with or without violations. But knowing you can be checked just for PROBABLE CAUSE as its listed, is unfair.

MAYBE cops should just stop by your house and knock on your door and question you because u live near someone who sells drugs or have been seen on their lot. Or better yet, they should just get an auto-search warrant and check your home. Not because they have a need to, but because there happens to be a PROBABLE CAUSE as you've been spotted on that persons property who happens to sell in your neighborhood.

You do know that your example isnt even legitimate. Since you obviously dont know what probable cause is let me try to explain in very simple terms.

Probable cause is a set of circumstances that gives an officer reason to believe that you are in violation of a law or statute. In the context of the AZ law probable cause would consist of things like no understanding of the english language, no drivers license, congregating in areas known for illegals, such as the home depot with day laborers, and any number of other specifics that local police would know. No single one of these criteria is would be probable cause, but if a cop comes in contact with someone that fits several of these, then it does constitute probable cause.



A good point was brought up earlier though about drivers license tests being available in multiple languages. This needs to stop. American english may not officially be the language of this country but reality says it is. If you want to live here, act like it and at least make an attempt to learn the language.

[Total_Blender]

Let me rephrase my argument. A Latino in such a situation as to be questioned by the police without ID will be assumed to be a non-citizen and will therefore be subject to more detainment/hassle than a non Latino.

Just how does this law not make race "probably cause (sic)"? It is right there in the text of the law that they can pull you over if they suspect you are illegal. What will the main factor be for them to have a suspicion as to who is/isn't illegal? Its race. This bill makes it legal for them to pull someone over for "driving while Latino." The part of the bill that claims "protection against racial profiling" is just bullshit, as it defers to the AZ and US constitutions, and I have said several times neither the AZ state constitution nor the US constitution offer any protection against racial profiling.

This bill is nothing more than a power play in election year politics for the Arizona GOP.

[Total_Blender]

I support the power of the Federal gov't to determine who is a citizen of the United States. I do NOT support the state of AZ in their attempt to usurp that power for themselves.

[BanginJimmy]

I support the power of the Federal gov't to determine who is a citizen of the United States. I do NOT support the state of AZ in their attempt to usurp that power for themselves.

I think you must try to be wrong as much as possible. The law is only about 20 pages and easily found online. Why dont you find the part of the law that says AZ is trying to determine who should be a citizen of the country.

[Total_Blender]

I think you must try to be wrong as much as possible. The law is only about 20 pages and easily found online. Why dont you find the part of the law that says AZ is trying to determine who should be a citizen of the country.

I read the law. Its not about them "trying to determine who should be a citizen of the country", its about them trying to determine who ISN'T a citizen of the country. again, the law does not rule out profiling. It references the profiling "protections" you speak of to two documents that contain no protections against profiling.

If the feds aren't enforcing the law, why not sue them? You talk about existing laws that "go after businesses" but are these existing laws even being enforced? It seems that if AZ would enforce their existing laws and pressure the feds to enforce theirs that AZ would not need new legislation.

I doubt politicians on either side are gonna put much pressure on the businesses that hire illegals, especially now that the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United has made it easier for big business to finance campaigns.

This whole SB1070 deal is just AZ playing the victim.

[bafbrian]

Again, the AZ law makes being brown skinned enough "probable cause" for the authorities to question you, pull you over etc. Suppose you are latino and you go out for a run around the neighborhood and leave your wallet, phone, etc at home. Then you get questioned by a cop. You don't have ID on you or any way to get in touch with anyone. Under the AZ law they could hassle you quite a bit.

Again, Republicans are all for a police state, as long as they are the ones who determine who gets "policed".

Let me rephrase my argument. A Latino in such a situation as to be questioned by the police without ID will be assumed to be a non-citizen and will therefore be subject to more detainment/hassle than a non Latino.

Just how does this law not make race "probably cause (sic)"? It is right there in the text of the law that they can pull you over if they suspect you are illegal. What will the main factor be for them to have a suspicion as to who is/isn't illegal? Its race. This bill makes it legal for them to pull someone over for "driving while Latino." The part of the bill that claims "protection against racial profiling" is just bullshit, as it defers to the AZ and US constitutions, and I have said several times neither the AZ state constitution nor the US constitution offer any protection against racial profiling.

This bill is nothing more than a power play in election year politics for the Arizona GOP.

The problem is not that skin color can used as probable cause, but more so towards the vague description of "probable cause" written into the law. With such a vague description of "probable cause", as stated above, anyone can be subjected to this. This law's notion of "probable cause" gives LEO's too much power. A belief that power corrupts and that LEO's will use their discretion to determine "probable cause" is what gives many people pause with the AZ law.

[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.

[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.

[BanginJimmy]

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?

[bu villain]

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.

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.

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.

[BanginJimmy]

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?

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.

[Glides]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Browning151]

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.

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?