What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (1 Viewer)

Found it after I posted, and am working through it.

To otello's earlier question, I'd note that the day-laborers must now be careful to not enter a vehicle that is blocking the normal flow of traffic, as that is now a misdemeanor for both the driver and those entering the vehicle.

"Reasonable suspicion" isn't defined. I'm guessing the language comes from cases like Terry and Hiibel:

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place.
It appears this law's intent is to compel the police to view illegal alien status as a kind of criminal activity on its own. But I'm no law-guy. This proposed AZ law goes beyond the Hiibel standard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly, I wish Christo, YankeeFan, or one of the other real lawyers (not you, Woz) would weigh in here. I hope the VG's view is correct, but I fear that it's not.

 
Sorry, I don't feel bad, I just can't... Just like I don't really feel bad for a 25 year old black man with $10,000 rims on his $2,500 car bouncing down the street with 3 gold/diamond teeth playing rap music as loud as his $10,000 system can play it "simply for being black"... There is something to be said for creating and perpetrating stereotypes, they caused them to exist, now if they want to live in that stereotype, than that's their problem and they need to deal with the consequences of the fact that it is a deservedly negative stereotype...
Well this thread has clearly taken a turn for the better.
 
Sorry, I don't feel bad, I just can't... Just like I don't really feel bad for a 25 year old black man with $10,000 rims on his $2,500 car bouncing down the street with 3 gold/diamond teeth playing rap music as loud as his $10,000 system can play it "simply for being black"... There is something to be said for creating and perpetrating stereotypes, they caused them to exist, now if they want to live in that stereotype, than that's their problem and they need to deal with the consequences of the fact that it is a deservedly negative stereotype...
Well this thread has clearly taken a turn for the better.
Yes, don't skim this thread. There's some good nuggets of fun buried within.
 
So people know, in AZ we are currently cutting teachers, firefighters and policemen.

We simply don't have the resources.
That's not an excuse for the inevitable violations of civil liberties. Enforce the existing laws, continue to punish employers, secure the border, and deport illegals who are caught committing other crimes. But the random usurpation of the 4th amendment that this law makes inevitable is completely unacceptable. No way this thing survives the legal challenges.
here's the issue, and I'm not sure this is as obvious to you as it should be...Illegal's don't have a 4th ammendment, and if they do, it doesn't apply in the United States of America...

Does it suck that this would cause annoyance to people who are legally here? Yes. Do I feel sorry for them since most people in their "community" fight tooth and nail to cause us all to ignore illegal immigration laws to the detriment of us all? Not one bit.

Sorry, I don't feel bad, I just can't... Just like I don't really feel bad for a 25 year old black man with $10,000 rims on his $2,500 car bouncing down the street with 3 gold/diamond teeth playing rap music as loud as his $10,000 system can play it "simply for being black"... There is something to be said for creating and perpetrating stereotypes, they caused them to exist, now if they want to live in that stereotype, than that's their problem and they need to deal with the consequences of the fact that it is a deservedly negative stereotype...
The 4th amendment absolutely does apply to illegals. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any need for this law.
Speaking of laws, if they are illegally on American soil, they are breaking the law.Thus, nothing unreasonable about a search / seizure taking place.
How would you determine something illegal was currently taking place?
 
Straight from FOXNews.com:

The measure has several provisions. It would:-- Create a new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document. -- Allow officers to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they're legally in the country.-- Ban so-called soft immigration policies at local police agencies and allow people to sue if they feel a government agency has adopted a policy that hinders the enforcement of illegal immigration laws.-- Prohibit people from blocking traffic when they seek or offer day-labor services on street corners.-- Make it illegal for people to transport illegal immigrants if the drivers of vehicles know their passengers are in the country illegally and if the transportation furthers their illegal presence in the country.
I'm curious how the police will be able to differentiate people in the country legally from illegal immigrants in sections 1,2, 4 & 5 above.
No one has yet discussed the highlighted, which is (1) a boon for trial lawyers (2) a nightmare for the government (3) going to cost much more in the long run than any illegals cost the govt. now. Can you imagine the govt. trying to defend itself against the charge of "hindering the enforcement of illegal immigration laws"? I mean this is complete insanity.
 
Honestly, I wish Christo, YankeeFan, or one of the other real lawyers (not you, Woz) would weigh in here. I hope the VG's view is correct, but I fear that it's not.
:wall:My understanding of Law is admittedly weak. After doing some reading I do have concerns about the bill, but, I'm unable to articulate them in the right framework.
 
So people know, in AZ we are currently cutting teachers, firefighters and policemen.We simply don't have the resources.
Same here in the south but we're not advocating rounding up the black looking people and sending them to Africa.
Wait, the blacks in the south are there illegally? When did this happen?
Logic has never been Bass' strong suit.
Used to be...must have spent to much time reading your posts.I just happen to feel that this goes beyond resources. I find it ironic that the desert people find southerners racist when those people actually live around/near people of color while the black population in the desert is nearly non-existant. Of course the desert folk have a few Mexican folk show up in their neighborhood and the first solution is to arrest them. I'll just say that in the future you would probably be better off shutting your yapper than putting your LAC of education on display.We do have the resources, we just need to fixed the problem to allow both residents and aliens to benfit from each others resources. You want to turn this into the war on drugs part duex.
 
Under the Terry stop exception, a police officer acts reasonably, and therefore does not violate the Fourth Amendment, when he or she "briefly stops or detains an individual . . . to investigate when the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot."The standard for "reasonable suspicion" is "whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate." State v. Lanear, 805 S.W.2d 713, 716 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991). This standard requires less certainty than that sufficient to establish "probable cause"; however, a justified Terry stop must still be supported by "`some minimal level of objective justification.'" Id. (quoting Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217 (1984)). In determining whether the standard for "reasonable suspicion" has been met, the court must evaluate all of the relevant circumstances and must consider them together, not in isolation. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). In evaluating whether the "reasonable suspicion" standard has been met, we are mindful that police officers are permitted to make use of all of the information available to them, and they may make inferences from that information that would not be made by members of the public, who lack access to the officer's knowledge, information, and training. Id.
Courts have ruled that a stop for a reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime and appears agitated, when a person matches a description of a suspect, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers. However, a reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is good for the entire country because Arizona is the preferred 'break in' state for the illegals. Major props to Arizona as they ignore the political correctness hacks and put forth a law that makes absolute sense.

 
This is good for the entire country because Arizona is the preferred 'break in' state for the illegals. Major props to Arizona as they ignore the political correctness hacks and put forth a law that makes absolute sense.
I'm absolutely SHOCKED that you support this bill.
 
There is another thread that discusses why true libertarians can no longer support the Republican party. If you want to know a good reason why, it's laws like this one.

People also wonder why the vast majority of Hispanics favor Democrats, and why that number seems to be increasing. Again, laws like this one are a good answer.

Conservatives claim they are against big government. They talk about how mandating healthcare is a supreme violation of individual rights. They view the current administration as threatening, and some of them talk about militia groups and/or secession as a means to fight "tyranny". And of course, they use the imagery of the Boston Tea Party to invoke the fight against an overarching government. And yet so many of these same people seem to have no problem whatsoever with a law like this one which increases police power exponentially. Go figure.

 
I understand the case against illegal immigration but this is not the way to go about it. We are turning into a police state...now they can officially just pull you over for no reason.

 
timschochet said:
Legislators in Arizona have passed what is being described as the toughest immigration law in the country, directing local police to determine the immigration status of non-criminals if there is reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally, the Arizona Republic newspaper reported Wednesday.
So, it basically expands the Terry stop provision of searches to include anyone that looks like they could be an illegal? I don't htink that is gonna fly. This basically means that the police will have hte authority to stop every Mexican looking person simply because they are a Mexican looking person.
 
LHUCKS said:
Our economy simply can't support them...good law.
I need to learn more but I don't think it is.A better law (if you are going for the same kind of result) would be ubertough loitering laws that carry significant penalties. Once an officer needs to stop and/or question someone for loitering, they can then determine citizenship. At least you have an actual quasi-crime to start he process. Simply making it suspicious to be Mexican is a bad idea.
 
larry_boy_44 said:
here's the issue, and I'm not sure this is as obvious to you as it should be...

Illegal's don't have a 4th ammendment, and if they do, it doesn't apply in the United States of America...

Does it suck that this would cause annoyance to people who are legally here? Yes. Do I feel sorry for them since most people in their "community" fight tooth and nail to cause us all to ignore illegal immigration laws to the detriment of us all? Not one bit.

Sorry, I don't feel bad, I just can't... Just like I don't really feel bad for a 25 year old black man with $10,000 rims on his $2,500 car bouncing down the street with 3 gold/diamond teeth playing rap music as loud as his $10,000 system can play it "simply for being black"... There is something to be said for creating and perpetrating stereotypes, they caused them to exist, now if they want to live in that stereotype, than that's their problem and they need to deal with the consequences of the fact that it is a deservedly negative stereotype...
You have several facts wrong here.
 
larry_boy_44 said:
here's the issue, and I'm not sure this is as obvious to you as it should be...

Illegal's don't have a 4th ammendment, and if they do, it doesn't apply in the United States of America...

Does it suck that this would cause annoyance to people who are legally here? Yes. Do I feel sorry for them since most people in their "community" fight tooth and nail to cause us all to ignore illegal immigration laws to the detriment of us all? Not one bit.

Sorry, I don't feel bad, I just can't... Just like I don't really feel bad for a 25 year old black man with $10,000 rims on his $2,500 car bouncing down the street with 3 gold/diamond teeth playing rap music as loud as his $10,000 system can play it "simply for being black"... There is something to be said for creating and perpetrating stereotypes, they caused them to exist, now if they want to live in that stereotype, than that's their problem and they need to deal with the consequences of the fact that it is a deservedly negative stereotype...
You have several facts wrong here.
Extremely wrong
 
larry_boy_44 said:
:goodposting:the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens...(note: illegal non-citizens... I'm assuming it applies to legal visitors/travellers/etc., but someone who is not legally here is not a citizen, and thus no rights/privileges granted a citizen apply)
Yes, it does.
 
otello said:
Here's a typical situation: a group of men hanging at a 7-11 waiting to get jobs for the day from contractors. Arguably loitering. Round 'em up?
Depends on the loitering statue in effect in the area. If it requires the property owner to make a complaint, then you need that complaint. If it is self enforcing, or public property where the law covers, then sure. If there is a first crime or quasi crime you can get to the end game you want here without the problems that the law seems to create.
 
Fennis said:
LHUCKS said:
Fennis said:
LHUCKS said:
Our economy simply can't support them...good law.
I thought you like to pitch yourself as some kind of fiscal conservative? :confused:
And?
There may be a lot of reasons, some good, some bad for tighter controls for illegal immigration. The economic cost isnt one of them. The net benefit of illegal immigrations from a cost perspective is rather large.
Not with high unemployment.
 
DevilsTrifecta said:
videoguy505 said:
Tecumseh said:
Honestly, I wish Christo, YankeeFan, or one of the other real lawyers (not you, Woz) would weigh in here. I hope the VG's view is correct, but I fear that it's not.
:confused:My understanding of Law is admittedly weak. After doing some reading I do have concerns about the bill, but, I'm unable to articulate them in the right framework.
Add Scoobygang
:goodposting:scoobygang and bigbottom are two of the best IMO.
 
Fennis said:
LHUCKS said:
Fennis said:
LHUCKS said:
Our economy simply can't support them...good law.
I thought you like to pitch yourself as some kind of fiscal conservative? :confused:
And?
There may be a lot of reasons, some good, some bad for tighter controls for illegal immigration. The economic cost isnt one of them. The net benefit of illegal immigrations from a cost perspective is rather large.
Not with high unemployment.
If there's high unemployment, you won't need to find ways to deport illegals, they'll leave by themselves.
 
larry_boy_44 said:
here's the issue, and I'm not sure this is as obvious to you as it should be...

Illegal's don't have a 4th ammendment, and if they do, it doesn't apply in the United States of America...

Does it suck that this would cause annoyance to people who are legally here? Yes. Do I feel sorry for them since most people in their "community" fight tooth and nail to cause us all to ignore illegal immigration laws to the detriment of us all? Not one bit.

Sorry, I don't feel bad, I just can't... Just like I don't really feel bad for a 25 year old black man with $10,000 rims on his $2,500 car bouncing down the street with 3 gold/diamond teeth playing rap music as loud as his $10,000 system can play it "simply for being black"... There is something to be said for creating and perpetrating stereotypes, they caused them to exist, now if they want to live in that stereotype, than that's their problem and they need to deal with the consequences of the fact that it is a deservedly negative stereotype...
You have several facts wrong here.
Say it ain't so!
 
DevilsTrifecta said:
videoguy505 said:
Tecumseh said:
Honestly, I wish Christo, YankeeFan, or one of the other real lawyers (not you, Woz) would weigh in here. I hope the VG's view is correct, but I fear that it's not.
:confused:My understanding of Law is admittedly weak. After doing some reading I do have concerns about the bill, but, I'm unable to articulate them in the right framework.
Add Scoobygang
:goodposting:scoobygang and bigbottom are two of the best IMO.
He specifically asked for lawyers with a politically conservative viewpoint, hoping they would defend his support of the bill. Yankee did not.
 
I'm conflicted about this law. No problem with the ACLU fighting it. That's what they are around for. This law give cops more leeway than I would like but AZ has a big problem they are trying to fix. I still think a better way of controlling illegal immigration is to make the punishment for businesses that hire illegals so costly that they can't risk it and ensure that illegals cannot use public services such as attending schools or getting drivers licenses by requiring everyone prove their citizenship or legal status.

 
If there's high unemployment, you won't need to find ways to deport illegals, they'll leave by themselves.
Way back in 2008, before most people thought the economy was going into the tank, there were stories of illegals leaving to go back to Mexico. Of course, with our entitlements, I'm sure there's lots of incentive for them to stay and wait it out as well.
 
timschochet said:
Legislators in Arizona have passed what is being described as the toughest immigration law in the country, directing local police to determine the immigration status of non-criminals if there is reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally, the Arizona Republic newspaper reported Wednesday.
So, it basically expands the Terry stop provision of searches to include anyone that looks like they could be an illegal? I don't htink that is gonna fly. This basically means that the police will have hte authority to stop every Mexican looking person simply because they are a Mexican looking person.
Frightening. How does an officer articulate a reasonable suspicion under this law that is constitutional?
 
The law looks relatively weak in its langauge, but who knows how it's implemented.

11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of

15 immigration laws; indemnification

16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR

17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR

18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL

19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

This is ok. There probably hunderds of state policies which result in state officers looking the other way for federal issues. I've seen it in municipal offices in New Jersey so I know it happens.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY

21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

The devil is what is "reasonable suspicion." Other then that it reads like a typical ordinance.

13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;

41 classification

42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF

43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:

44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.

45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

S.B. 1070

- 3 -

1 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN

2 ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:

3 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL

4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.

5 2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED

6 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER

7 PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©.

This is basically in line with what I was thinking. They are trying to toughen up loitering to make it a tresspass crime if you are illegal. By making this law, what they do in effect is make any action taken by an illegal in the state a crime worthy of removal from the state and obviously the country. Of course, we go back to the devil of the reasonabl esuspicion.

13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for

4 work; unlawful application, solicitation or

5 employment; classification; definitions

6 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED

7 ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP

8 PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR

9 IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

Going after the businesses a little here. There is also a strong anti-coyote smuggler provision but those are pretty standard these days.

23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition;

8 false and frivolous complaints; violation;

9 classification; license suspension and revocation;

10 affirmative defense

11 A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If,

12 in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other

13 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this

14 state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a

15 person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the

16 labor, the employer violates this subsection.

17 B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person

18 to allege a violation of subsection A of this section.

Here you go - knowingly employing an illegal is a crime. The punishments for the business are:

E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court

19 shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest

20 practicable date.

21 F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:

22 1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this

23 subsection, the court:

24 (a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all

25 unauthorized aliens.

26 (b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year

27 probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien

28 performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file

29 quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county

30 attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business

31 location where the unauthorized alien performed work.

32 © Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the

33 county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The

34 affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all

35 unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not

36 intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The

37 court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to

38 this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file

39 a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days

40 after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this

41 subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn

42 affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing

43 of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by

44 the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses

45 that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that

S.B. 1070

- 8 -

1 are held by the employer specific to the business location where the

2 unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license

3 specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed

4 work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in

5 general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision

6 are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary

7 place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any

8 other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to

9 the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the

10 attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to

11 subsection G of this section.

So, not knowing Arizona law beyond this and what this modifies, it seems like most of it would be ok except the reasonable suspicion language in the second part given the possibility that a Mexican can be questioned simply for being a Mexicn. :coffee:

 
timschochet said:
Legislators in Arizona have passed what is being described as the toughest immigration law in the country, directing local police to determine the immigration status of non-criminals if there is reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally, the Arizona Republic newspaper reported Wednesday.
So, it basically expands the Terry stop provision of searches to include anyone that looks like they could be an illegal? I don't htink that is gonna fly. This basically means that the police will have hte authority to stop every Mexican looking person simply because they are a Mexican looking person.
Frightening. How does an officer articulate a reasonable suspicion under this law that is constitutional?
"Suspect was short with bronze skin and looked like he might be Mexicanned."
 
I'm conflicted about this law. No problem with the ACLU fighting it. That's what they are around for. This law give cops more leeway than I would like but AZ has a big problem they are trying to fix. I still think a better way of controlling illegal immigration is to make the punishment for businesses that hire illegals so costly that they can't risk it and ensure that illegals cannot use public services such as attending schools or getting drivers licenses by requiring everyone prove their citizenship or legal status.
The bill has a provision whereby a business that knowingly hires illegals can lose its licenses to operate. If we had something like that in NJ all hell would break lose because contractors need certain licenses to operate or their contracts automatically violate like 30 laws, mostly civil. Don't know what Arizona requires for business to operate though.
 
timschochet said:
Legislators in Arizona have passed what is being described as the toughest immigration law in the country, directing local police to determine the immigration status of non-criminals if there is reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally, the Arizona Republic newspaper reported Wednesday.
So, it basically expands the Terry stop provision of searches to include anyone that looks like they could be an illegal? I don't htink that is gonna fly. This basically means that the police will have hte authority to stop every Mexican looking person simply because they are a Mexican looking person.
Frightening. How does an officer articulate a reasonable suspicion under this law that is constitutional?
Here's the thing - the law has an interested loophole in itself. It makes loitering a tresspass crime if you are illegal. I'm guessing that someone thinks that by doing this the following will happen:Cop drives down road and sees group of Mexicans near Home Depot. LEt's be honest, we all know there is an extremely high probability (I would say reasonalbe to use the proper catch phrase) that at least one of them, if not all, are illegal. If that suspicion is reasonable given the knowledge that law enforcement has on the behavior of illegals, then the officer can stop and ask for ID in order to enforce the tresspass provisions of the law. It's convoluted and works backwards, but I'm guessing that is the hope here by the drafters of the law.The dire part of the law comes in where the same officer is driving down the street and sees a Mexican woman with her kid walking out of a store and decides to question their status. That opens the can of worms. I don't know how this provision of the bill stays valid, but it's an interesting method for the state on the front line of the problem to deal with it.
 
Fennis said:
LHUCKS said:
Fennis said:
LHUCKS said:
Our economy simply can't support them...good law.
I thought you like to pitch yourself as some kind of fiscal conservative? :coffee:
And?
There may be a lot of reasons, some good, some bad for tighter controls for illegal immigration. The economic cost isnt one of them. The net benefit of illegal immigrations from a cost perspective is rather large.
Not with high unemployment.
Not an issue for the type of jobs these folks would be doing. http://tucson.craigslist.org/fbh/

Our unemployment in Charlotte is 12%. I could have a job in a retail or fast food in two days. Americans don't want these jobs.

 
I'm conflicted about this law. No problem with the ACLU fighting it. That's what they are around for. This law give cops more leeway than I would like but AZ has a big problem they are trying to fix. I still think a better way of controlling illegal immigration is to make the punishment for businesses that hire illegals so costly that they can't risk it and ensure that illegals cannot use public services such as attending schools or getting drivers licenses by requiring everyone prove their citizenship or legal status.
The bill has a provision whereby a business that knowingly hires illegals can lose its licenses to operate. If we had something like that in NJ all hell would break lose because contractors need certain licenses to operate or their contracts automatically violate like 30 laws, mostly civil. Don't know what Arizona requires for business to operate though.
Sounds good. I think the "knowingly" requirement should be dropped though. Sounds like a loophole where businesses can accept shoddy fake IDs and assume they are real. The details are a little outside of my knowledge, but the business should at least be required to demonstrate they took necessary steps to verify that the documentation provided was real.
 
timschochet said:
Legislators in Arizona have passed what is being described as the toughest immigration law in the country, directing local police to determine the immigration status of non-criminals if there is reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally, the Arizona Republic newspaper reported Wednesday.
So, it basically expands the Terry stop provision of searches to include anyone that looks like they could be an illegal? I don't htink that is gonna fly. This basically means that the police will have hte authority to stop every Mexican looking person simply because they are a Mexican looking person.
Frightening. How does an officer articulate a reasonable suspicion under this law that is constitutional?
Here's the thing - the law has an interested loophole in itself. It makes loitering a tresspass crime if you are illegal. I'm guessing that someone thinks that by doing this the following will happen:Cop drives down road and sees group of Mexicans near Home Depot. LEt's be honest, we all know there is an extremely high probability (I would say reasonalbe to use the proper catch phrase) that at least one of them, if not all, are illegal. If that suspicion is reasonable given the knowledge that law enforcement has on the behavior of illegals, then the officer can stop and ask for ID in order to enforce the tresspass provisions of the law. It's convoluted and works backwards, but I'm guessing that is the hope here by the drafters of the law.

The dire part of the law comes in where the same officer is driving down the street and sees a Mexican woman with her kid walking out of a store and decides to question their status. That opens the can of worms. I don't know how this provision of the bill stays valid, but it's an interesting method for the state on the front line of the problem to deal with it.
If by "interesting" you mean disturbing, then we're on the same page.
 
Homer J Simpson said:
Slinger said:
This is good for the entire country because Arizona is the preferred 'break in' state for the illegals. Major props to Arizona as they ignore the political correctness hacks and put forth a law that makes absolute sense.
I'm absolutely SHOCKED that you support this bill.
I'm absolutely shocked that you said "Do they have to be boys?" in the 'How many 12-year olds can you take on' thread. Didn't see that one coming! :blackdot:
 
I'm conflicted about this law. No problem with the ACLU fighting it. That's what they are around for. This law give cops more leeway than I would like but AZ has a big problem they are trying to fix. I still think a better way of controlling illegal immigration is to make the punishment for businesses that hire illegals so costly that they can't risk it and ensure that illegals cannot use public services such as attending schools or getting drivers licenses by requiring everyone prove their citizenship or legal status.
The bill has a provision whereby a business that knowingly hires illegals can lose its licenses to operate. If we had something like that in NJ all hell would break lose because contractors need certain licenses to operate or their contracts automatically violate like 30 laws, mostly civil. Don't know what Arizona requires for business to operate though.
Sounds good. I think the "knowingly" requirement should be dropped though. Sounds like a loophole where businesses can accept shoddy fake IDs and assume they are real. The details are a little outside of my knowledge, but the business should at least be required to demonstrate they took necessary steps to verify that the documentation provided was real.
The law references another law that requires employment status verification, so the knowingly is a little more strongly enforced it seems. Again, I don't know Arizona law that well so I don't know if that is a requirement that has any teeth or not.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top