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

[secondplaceisfirstloser]

the man said non-citizens not tourists, i brought tourists up. and at the end of the day it is the same thing. do you ever wonder why when someone is deported, during that process they have legal representation? free if they cant afford it. Ever wonder why we cant just go into a trailer park on the border and search everyones homes and kick them out? Do you think there are not municipalities that would do that if they could legally?

Sure citizens are expressly granted some things non-citizens are not, such as the right to vote, but the protections offered by the constitution are for anyone on American soil, sorry bro, just the way it is. To those saying they already broke the law being here illegally, yep they did but its a misdemeanor. I hope you dont want to lose all your constitutional protections the moment you get a misdemeanor.

People in deoportation (removal) proceedings are not entitled to free legal representation becuase it is considered a civil matter. Aliens have "a right to counsel at no expense to the government." Something like 85% of detained aliens in removal proceedings are unrepresented. Of course aliens do have constitutional rights, however those rights do not extend to free representation during the removal process.

 

[secondplaceisfirstloser]

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?

Are they trespassing or committing some other crime?

Irrelevant to the way the law is written, as the article states, immigration status can be investigated if the person is suspected of another crime already."Being illegal" is a crime in and of itself, and the police would seem to need probable cause/"reasonable suspicion" to investigate it.That said, I'd have to say, in otello's example, probable cause doesn't exist in that case and I'd think (hope) that the police would need stronger evidence than that.Which is why I'm asking if anyone knows what the law states.I mean, come on people. Can't we discuss this rationally? I think "Police State!" was worth 100 points on the "Jump to Conclusions" mat.

Its not true that "'being illegal' is a crime in and of itself." Falling out of status by overstaying or working without authorization is not a crime. Enforcing the Arizona law will be tricky because determining if an alien is "legal" or not can be very complex and Arizona law enforcement presumably has no expertise.

 

[timschochet]

For those who agree with the clause about penalizing employers who hire illegals, please explain why such restrictions are:

1. cost-saving for the American people

2. Desirable or important

3. Consistent with fiscal conservative philosophy

4. In the spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market.

Because I don't get it. You guys call Obama a socialist, but telling employers who they should and should not hire comes much closer to statism than anything Obama is doing.

 

[videoguy505]

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.

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.

Thanks Y23. Obviously "reasonable suspicion" isn't enough to make an arrest, so it seems that if there's only suspicion that the person can't be detained. The dicey part for me is in section E:

37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON

38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED

39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

This is the only edit using the word "arrest", and obviously the standard has now changed to "probable cause". I'm guessing that "any public offense" that could result in deportation includes 'being an illegal alien'. Now, I get that police already have the power to make a warrantless arrest if they have probable cause you've committed a crime, so it looks like they're compelling LEOs to consider alien status as a possible crime. Am I reading that correctly?And about Section B you quoted above, what constitutes "lawful contact"? Does that mean there must already exist a situation in which a LEO is interacting with a person (traffic stop, investigating a complaint, etc.)? Or can police initiate contact (see a brown guy walking by, question him)? And am I correct in that the police don't have power to detain?

And if the LEOs make up out of whole cloth the reason to go from 'reasonable suspicion' to 'probable cause', i.e. say something like "when the person got near me, I believed I detected the smell of marijuana" which can sometimes pass for 'probable cause' for a search, once that issue is dealt with (person searched/drug sniffing dog/etc), can the person continue to be detained until alien status is determined, even though such status was unrelated to the original probable cause?

 

[BassNBrew]

For those who agree with the clause about penalizing employers who hire illegals, please explain why such restrictions are:1. cost-saving for the American people2. Desirable or important3. Consistent with fiscal conservative philosophy4. In the spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market.Because I don't get it. You guys call Obama a socialist, but telling employers who they should and should not hire comes much closer to statism than anything Obama is doing.

1. They're not.2. Provides the workers protections and provides job for legal workers3. It's not.4. Those ideals do not include illegal activity unless you want to defend the mob, kick backs, crack dealers, polluters, etc. The spirit is that you compete within the allowable guidelines.Basically we need to enforce the existing laws and then open up a program that would flood the market with legal guest workers. I would go as far as to say to greatly reduced minimun wages for these folks and see if you could get back some of the jobs that have migrated south of the border. Regardless, as long as there's a help wanted sign hanging up somewhere these folks should be allowed to work.

 

[freakinback]

two wrongs make a right?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632

 

[RCon]

For those who agree with the clause about penalizing employers who hire illegals, please explain why such restrictions are:1. cost-saving for the American people2. Desirable or important3. Consistent with fiscal conservative philosophy4. In the spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market.Because I don't get it. You guys call Obama a socialist, but telling employers who they should and should not hire comes much closer to statism than anything Obama is doing.

Why bother? As far as costs, we'll have to agree to disagree on whether illegal immigrants are a net positive or negative for our economy and government expenditures. As far as the other three, they all amount to the same thing; basically, if you believe there should be unfettered immigration, you'll believe the current laws are undesirable, inconsistent with fiscal conservatism, and against the "American ideals". If you're in favor of strict controls, you'll believe the current laws (and stricter ones as well) are desirable, consistent with fiscal conservatism, and in line with American ideals.

 

[Mello]

For those who agree with the clause about penalizing employers who hire illegals, please explain why such restrictions are:1. cost-saving for the American people2. Desirable or important3. Consistent with fiscal conservative philosophy4. In the spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market.Because I don't get it. You guys call Obama a socialist, but telling employers who they should and should not hire comes much closer to statism than anything Obama is doing.

1. They aren't necessarily cost saving. There are other motivations. I'm pretty sure the cost for services provided by illegals would rise with true reform.2. Because these illegals are taking jobs that should be filled by Americans. We have plenty of unemployeed that need jobs.3. By itself, it has nothing to do with fiscal policy. I believe the tie in to fiscal policy should be through a modifcation of our unemployeement requirements. I'm generalizing because states have different requirements, but simply requiring people to look for a job is not enough. The government should take a more active role in finding employeement for those that want it. Then people should be required to take jobs, even if it's not what they want, requires odd hours, etc. If they refuse or can't hold the job due to performance issues, they should not be allowed to collect unemployeement. Many jobs illegals take are unskilled, meaning anyone that is not disabled can perform them with a limited amount of training.4. Illegals are artificially effecting the "free" market by providing a cheap source of labor that should not be available. This lowers wages that Americans can make performing similar jobs. I'd also argue that the "spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market" is hogwash. Everyone has different views on what those ideals really mean.

 

[videoguy505]

For those who agree with the clause about penalizing employers who hire illegals, please explain why such restrictions are:1. cost-saving for the American people2. Desirable or important3. Consistent with fiscal conservative philosophy4. In the spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market.Because I don't get it. You guys call Obama a socialist, but telling employers who they should and should not hire comes much closer to statism than anything Obama is doing.

Why have a minimum wage?

 

[BassNBrew]

For those who agree with the clause about penalizing employers who hire illegals, please explain why such restrictions are:1. cost-saving for the American people2. Desirable or important3. Consistent with fiscal conservative philosophy4. In the spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market.Because I don't get it. You guys call Obama a socialist, but telling employers who they should and should not hire comes much closer to statism than anything Obama is doing.

1. They aren't necessarily cost saving. There are other motivations. I'm pretty sure the cost for services provided by illegals would rise with true reform.2. Because these illegals are taking jobs that should be filled by Americans. We have plenty of unemployeed that need jobs.3. By itself, it has nothing to do with fiscal policy. I believe the tie in to fiscal policy should be through a modifcation of our unemployeement requirements. I'm generalizing because states have different requirements, but simply requiring people to look for a job is not enough. The government should take a more active role in finding employeement for those that want it. Then people should be required to take jobs, even if it's not what they want, requires odd hours, etc. If they refuse or can't hold the job due to performance issues, they should not be allowed to collect unemployeement. Many jobs illegals take are unskilled, meaning anyone that is not disabled can perform them with a limited amount of training.4. Illegals are artificially effecting the "free" market by providing a cheap source of labor that should not be available. This lowers wages that Americans can make performing similar jobs. I'd also argue that the "spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market" is hogwash. Everyone has different views on what those ideals really mean.

Americans for the most part do not want the jobs these folks are filling. Your free source of cheap labor that should not be available is available south of the border. It's the minimum wage here that makes these jobs here more desirable for the aliens.

 

[Mello]

For those who agree with the clause about penalizing employers who hire illegals, please explain why such restrictions are:1. cost-saving for the American people2. Desirable or important3. Consistent with fiscal conservative philosophy4. In the spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market.Because I don't get it. You guys call Obama a socialist, but telling employers who they should and should not hire comes much closer to statism than anything Obama is doing.

1. They aren't necessarily cost saving. There are other motivations. I'm pretty sure the cost for services provided by illegals would rise with true reform.2. Because these illegals are taking jobs that should be filled by Americans. We have plenty of unemployeed that need jobs.3. By itself, it has nothing to do with fiscal policy. I believe the tie in to fiscal policy should be through a modifcation of our unemployeement requirements. I'm generalizing because states have different requirements, but simply requiring people to look for a job is not enough. The government should take a more active role in finding employeement for those that want it. Then people should be required to take jobs, even if it's not what they want, requires odd hours, etc. If they refuse or can't hold the job due to performance issues, they should not be allowed to collect unemployeement. Many jobs illegals take are unskilled, meaning anyone that is not disabled can perform them with a limited amount of training.4. Illegals are artificially effecting the "free" market by providing a cheap source of labor that should not be available. This lowers wages that Americans can make performing similar jobs. I'd also argue that the "spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market" is hogwash. Everyone has different views on what those ideals really mean.

Americans for the most part do not want the jobs these folks are filling. Your free source of cheap labor that should not be available is available south of the border. It's the minimum wage here that makes these jobs here more desirable for the aliens.

I don't really care what they want to do. In general, if they want money, they need to work.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

For those who agree with the clause about penalizing employers who hire illegals, please explain why such restrictions are:1. cost-saving for the American people2. Desirable or important3. Consistent with fiscal conservative philosophy4. In the spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market.Because I don't get it. You guys call Obama a socialist, but telling employers who they should and should not hire comes much closer to statism than anything Obama is doing.

Tim - what would you propose instead? Take #1: IF the govt truly wants to discourage illegal immigration, the current approach obviously is not working. People still flock to the US illegally, and they have little trouble finding work. The only way to effectively discourage the illegal immigration that exists today is to make the penalties for hiring an illegal immigrant so severe that few companies will take the risk.Take #2: That said, I'm not on board with our current view toward immigration. Back in the late 1800s/early 1900s, we were very accomodating toward immigrants and let in a much higher # (as a % of total population) than we do today. The real solution to this supposed "crisis" we face today is to allow a much higher level of legal immigration paired with reductions in social services. The nanny state didn't exist for immigrants in the early 1900s, and we should be willing to scale it back today, if that's what it takes to make higher immigration cost-effective.Take #3: everybody is panicked about 1) the housing market, 2) the economy and 3) China's eventual ascent to dominant world power (displacing the US). Allowing greater levels of legal immigration would help every single one of these issues: 1) more people in the US = natural rise in demand for housing, 2) provided we don't blow too much money on social services for immigrants, higher immigration = economic boost, 3) more people in the US = higher population = we can further hold off China becoming the world's superpower.More immigration seems like a no-brainer.

 

[videoguy505]

Tim - what would you propose instead?

I don't think you'll like Tim's answer, IIRC, he believes the borders should be completely open and immigration unregulated. If that's accurate, I wish he'd stop clogging up the thread trying to argue in that direction, and instead come up with something practical and reasonable.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Tim - what would you propose instead?

I don't think you'll like Tim's answer, IIRC, he believes the borders should be completely open and immigration unregulated.

If that's accurate, I wish he'd stop clogging up the thread trying to argue in that direction, and instead come up with something practical and reasonable.

vg - you've been in tim threads before i'm sure. so you know that possibility is unlikely.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

For those who agree with the clause about penalizing employers who hire illegals, please explain why such restrictions are:1. cost-saving for the American people2. Desirable or important3. Consistent with fiscal conservative philosophy4. In the spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market.Because I don't get it. You guys call Obama a socialist, but telling employers who they should and should not hire comes much closer to statism than anything Obama is doing.

1. They aren't necessarily cost saving. There are other motivations. I'm pretty sure the cost for services provided by illegals would rise with true reform.2. Because these illegals are taking jobs that should be filled by Americans. We have plenty of unemployeed that need jobs.3. By itself, it has nothing to do with fiscal policy. I believe the tie in to fiscal policy should be through a modifcation of our unemployeement requirements. I'm generalizing because states have different requirements, but simply requiring people to look for a job is not enough. The government should take a more active role in finding employeement for those that want it. Then people should be required to take jobs, even if it's not what they want, requires odd hours, etc. If they refuse or can't hold the job due to performance issues, they should not be allowed to collect unemployeement. Many jobs illegals take are unskilled, meaning anyone that is not disabled can perform them with a limited amount of training.4. Illegals are artificially effecting the "free" market by providing a cheap source of labor that should not be available. This lowers wages that Americans can make performing similar jobs. I'd also argue that the "spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market" is hogwash. Everyone has different views on what those ideals really mean.

Americans for the most part do not want the jobs these folks are filling. Your free source of cheap labor that should not be available is available south of the border. It's the minimum wage here that makes these jobs here more desirable for the aliens.

I don't really care what they want to do. In general, if they want money, they need to work.

The answer is to lower the minimum wage (a federal issue over which Arizona has little control), so unemployed Americans can at least compete on price. Then, the main issue for Arizona businesses is finding Americans who work as hard as Mexican immigrants, which I understand is not easy in many cases. At least they won't have to pay more for less work. I assume most businesses want to hire legal employees and not break the law.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I don't like illegal immigrants in the country, but this law + Joe Arpaio = a pretty frightening situation IMO. Can a real lawyer explain this to me? Does this give police more carte blanche to search anyone/everyone?

 

[whoknew]

For those who agree with the clause about penalizing employers who hire illegals, please explain why such restrictions are:

1. cost-saving for the American people

2. Desirable or important

3. Consistent with fiscal conservative philosophy

4. In the spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market.

Because I don't get it. You guys call Obama a socialist, but telling employers who they should and should not hire comes much closer to statism than anything Obama is doing.

1. They aren't necessarily cost saving. There are other motivations. I'm pretty sure the cost for services provided by illegals would rise with true reform.2. Because these illegals are taking jobs that should be filled by Americans. We have plenty of unemployeed that need jobs.

3. By itself, it has nothing to do with fiscal policy. I believe the tie in to fiscal policy should be through a modifcation of our unemployeement requirements. I'm generalizing because states have different requirements, but simply requiring people to look for a job is not enough. The government should take a more active role in finding employeement for those that want it. Then people should be required to take jobs, even if it's not what they want, requires odd hours, etc. If they refuse or can't hold the job due to performance issues, they should not be allowed to collect unemployeement. Many jobs illegals take are unskilled, meaning anyone that is not disabled can perform them with a limited amount of training.

4. Illegals are artificially effecting the "free" market by providing a cheap source of labor that should not be available. This lowers wages that Americans can make performing similar jobs. I'd also argue that the "spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market" is hogwash. Everyone has different views on what those ideals really mean.

They took our jobs!!

 

[Mello]

For those who agree with the clause about penalizing employers who hire illegals, please explain why such restrictions are:1. cost-saving for the American people2. Desirable or important3. Consistent with fiscal conservative philosophy4. In the spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market.Because I don't get it. You guys call Obama a socialist, but telling employers who they should and should not hire comes much closer to statism than anything Obama is doing.

1. They aren't necessarily cost saving. There are other motivations. I'm pretty sure the cost for services provided by illegals would rise with true reform.2. Because these illegals are taking jobs that should be filled by Americans. We have plenty of unemployeed that need jobs.3. By itself, it has nothing to do with fiscal policy. I believe the tie in to fiscal policy should be through a modifcation of our unemployeement requirements. I'm generalizing because states have different requirements, but simply requiring people to look for a job is not enough. The government should take a more active role in finding employeement for those that want it. Then people should be required to take jobs, even if it's not what they want, requires odd hours, etc. If they refuse or can't hold the job due to performance issues, they should not be allowed to collect unemployeement. Many jobs illegals take are unskilled, meaning anyone that is not disabled can perform them with a limited amount of training.4. Illegals are artificially effecting the "free" market by providing a cheap source of labor that should not be available. This lowers wages that Americans can make performing similar jobs. I'd also argue that the "spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market" is hogwash. Everyone has different views on what those ideals really mean.

Americans for the most part do not want the jobs these folks are filling. Your free source of cheap labor that should not be available is available south of the border. It's the minimum wage here that makes these jobs here more desirable for the aliens.

I don't really care what they want to do. In general, if they want money, they need to work.

The answer is to lower the minimum wage (a federal issue over which Arizona has little control), so unemployed Americans can at least compete on price. Then, the main issue for Arizona businesses is finding Americans who work as hard as Mexican immigrants, which I understand is not easy in many cases. At least they won't have to pay more for less work. I assume most businesses want to hire legal employees and not break the law.

I disagree. The minimum wage should stay where it is and businessmen should have to manage with the American workforce that's available. If that means they have to increase wages and pass the increase on to consumers, so be it. If they can't compete with foreign sources, then they need to move, find a new business, or find a way to compete. (This could go into a whole different argument about trade reform) These are the same pressures faced by many other businesses that don't rely on an illegal workforce. On the flip side, if the American workers cannot perform up to the standard required by the company, they should be let go. The government has a place here to help them find a new job. If this person has previously collected unemployeement due to prevous performance related issues, they should not be eligible for unemployeement. Unless a worker is disabled, I have no sympathy for the attitude that a job is too hard.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Barry Goldwater would be so proud of his legacy in Arizona - attack businesses, restrict free trade, erode civil rights and threaten the constitution.

 

[Tecumseh]

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.

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

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.

What?? I don't support the bill. Have you even read the thread? I asked for Christo and YF because they were the first 2 that sprang to mind.

 

[Bogeys]

For those who agree with the clause about penalizing employers who hire illegals, please explain why such restrictions are:

1. cost-saving for the American people

2. Desirable or important

3. Consistent with fiscal conservative philosophy

4. In the spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market.

Because I don't get it. You guys call Obama a socialist, but telling employers who they should and should not hire comes much closer to statism than anything Obama is doing.

1. They aren't necessarily cost saving. There are other motivations. I'm pretty sure the cost for services provided by illegals would rise with true reform.2. Because these illegals are taking jobs that should be filled by Americans. We have plenty of unemployeed that need jobs.

3. By itself, it has nothing to do with fiscal policy. I believe the tie in to fiscal policy should be through a modifcation of our unemployeement requirements. I'm generalizing because states have different requirements, but simply requiring people to look for a job is not enough. The government should take a more active role in finding employeement for those that want it. Then people should be required to take jobs, even if it's not what they want, requires odd hours, etc. If they refuse or can't hold the job due to performance issues, they should not be allowed to collect unemployeement. Many jobs illegals take are unskilled, meaning anyone that is not disabled can perform them with a limited amount of training.

4. Illegals are artificially effecting the "free" market by providing a cheap source of labor that should not be available. This lowers wages that Americans can make performing similar jobs. I'd also argue that the "spirit of American ideals of freedom, capitalism, and the free market" is hogwash. Everyone has different views on what those ideals really mean.

Americans for the most part do not want the jobs these folks are filling at the wages currently paid. Your free source of cheap labor that should not be available is available south of the border. It's the minimum wage here that makes these jobs here more desirable for the aliens.

Fixed.Now you can argue that drives up prices for everyone and I would tend to agree, but if you are actually discussing free markets than having labor that is illegally cheap would be the distortion in the market. The wages for jobs would be what people are willing to do the job for under current labor laws. The argument for illegals would be an argument against minimum wage laws, mandated healthcare, unemployment coverage, etc. also.

 

[timschochet]

Tim - what would you propose instead?

I don't think you'll like Tim's answer, IIRC, he believes the borders should be completely open and immigration unregulated.

If that's accurate, I wish he'd stop clogging up the thread trying to argue in that direction, and instead come up with something practical and reasonable.

vg - you've been in tim threads before i'm sure. so you know that possibility is unlikely.

Good point. In most cases, however, I would try. In this issue, this is no practical and reasonable solution, so far as I can see it. My own solution I admit to impractical and it will never happen. But what other solutions are there? Personally, I percieve illegal immigration as a net benefit to the United States. But if you're really of a mind to stop it, you have to look at the two main causes, one good and one bad:

1. The good cause: the USA back in the 1940s reached a point in labor relations in which the national unions for the first time reached a level of equal status with the employers. This led to a terrific rise in status of living among the lower middle class, and basically we have never looked back. Thanks to minimum wage laws, technology, and high expectations, Americans don't seek out manual labor jobs unless they are very high paying. We expect more for ourselves and our children. However there has remained a need for low-paying manual labor jobs, which we don't want to fill. Illegals fill that vacuum. Their presence, most economists understand, actually improve our standard of living.

2. The bad cause: While Mexico is a growing economy, the control of it still belongs to a small oligarchy. New business is not encouraged, corruption is everywhere, and is extremely difficult for individuals to rise economically and improve themselves. The Mexican government responds to these problems not by trying to fix them but instead by encourage the "useless moutns" to emigrate.

 

[Nugget]

I've been out of town this week and haven't followed closely - couple of quick questions.

- US Border patrol has checkpoints that I pass through a couple times a month - one between Nogales and Green Valley and another between Yuma and Gila Bend. They stop your car, ask questions, and search some. How is this different that what is currently proposed?

- I've seen people refer to just supporting the existing laws - but some of these laws were just passed in 2007-2008. How long should a law be on the books before it is considered existing legislation? What if the current laws are not working?

 

[timschochet]

What?? I don't support the bill. Have you even read the thread? I asked for Christo and YF because they were the first 2 that sprang to mind.

Sorry. I thought it was Videoguy who had asked for opinions. My bad.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

- US Border patrol has checkpoints that I pass through a couple times a month - one between Nogales and Green Valley and another between Yuma and Gila Bend. They stop your car, ask questions, and search some. How is this different that what is currently proposed?

How is it different when I enter & exit the country, and am required to show a passport, vs. when I walk to the store to buy a gallon of milk and get hassled by cops for an ID? Is that a serious question?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

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!

Just playing to my base, GB.

 

[Nugget]

- US Border patrol has checkpoints that I pass through a couple times a month - one between Nogales and Green Valley and another between Yuma and Gila Bend. They stop your car, ask questions, and search some. How is this different that what is currently proposed?

How is it different when I enter & exit the country, and am required to show a passport, vs. when I walk to the store to buy a gallon of milk and get hassled by cops for an ID? Is that a serious question?

I've never left the country being the different part.

 

[timschochet]

I disagree. The minimum wage should stay where it is and businessmen should have to manage with the American workforce that's available. If that means they have to increase wages and pass the increase on to consumers, so be it. If they can't compete with foreign sources, then they need to move, find a new business, or find a way to compete. (This could go into a whole different argument about trade reform) These are the same pressures faced by many other businesses that don't rely on an illegal workforce.

On the flip side, if the American workers cannot perform up to the standard required by the company, they should be let go. The government has a place here to help them find a new job. If this person has previously collected unemployeement due to prevous performance related issues, they should not be eligible for unemployeement. Unless a worker is disabled, I have no sympathy for the attitude that a job is too hard.

If a businessman is forced to use minimum wage and passes that increase to consumers, that means that minimum wage is nothing more than a form of taxation. Furthermore, it becomes useless. What good is minimum wage if your purchasing power decreases every time its increased? This is something that liberals, socialists, and all those who want the government to regulate wages have never understood: you cannot regulate purchasing power. Only the free market can increase purchasing power. Any impediment to the free market actually decreases purchasing power.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

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.

What if Home Depot doesn't consider them loitering?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Tim - what would you propose instead?

I don't think you'll like Tim's answer, IIRC, he believes the borders should be completely open and immigration unregulated.

If that's accurate, I wish he'd stop clogging up the thread trying to argue in that direction, and instead come up with something practical and reasonable.

vg - you've been in tim threads before i'm sure. so you know that possibility is unlikely.

Good point. In most cases, however, I would try. In this issue, this is no practical and reasonable solution, so far as I can see it. My own solution I admit to impractical and it will never happen. But what other solutions are there? Personally, I percieve illegal immigration as a net benefit to the United States. But if you're really of a mind to stop it, you have to look at the two main causes, one good and one bad:

Immigration is probably a net benefit. Illegal immigration has problems. There is no reason why we can't come up with a system that allows us to "know" who is in the country. Further, the problem beyond simple immigration policy is the basic war going on right now on our border. The states of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico are routinely invaded by foreign police and military, there are crimes up the wazoo and the people in those states that are citizens demand and require protection from this government yet many times find themselves without a voice in their own system.There are root causes that need to be dealt with as well. The drug policy in this country needs to change. Taxation policy as well. The immigration issue isn't simply a border issue - that's just where the battles are being fought.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

4. Illegals are artificially effecting the "free" market by providing a cheap source of labor that should not be available. Th

That's certainly a novel argument.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

What if Home Depot doesn't consider them loitering?

I could read into the law that the police officer can still suspect as such and have reasonable suspicion.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

- US Border patrol has checkpoints that I pass through a couple times a month - one between Nogales and Green Valley and another between Yuma and Gila Bend. They stop your car, ask questions, and search some. How is this different that what is currently proposed?

How is it different when I enter & exit the country, and am required to show a passport, vs. when I walk to the store to buy a gallon of milk and get hassled by cops for an ID? Is that a serious question?

I've never left the country being the different part.

My bad. Didn't realize that the locations you refer to are all in US. I wouldn't be a fan of the checkpoints you've referred to.

 

[Mello]

I disagree. The minimum wage should stay where it is and businessmen should have to manage with the American workforce that's available. If that means they have to increase wages and pass the increase on to consumers, so be it. If they can't compete with foreign sources, then they need to move, find a new business, or find a way to compete. (This could go into a whole different argument about trade reform) These are the same pressures faced by many other businesses that don't rely on an illegal workforce.

On the flip side, if the American workers cannot perform up to the standard required by the company, they should be let go. The government has a place here to help them find a new job. If this person has previously collected unemployeement due to prevous performance related issues, they should not be eligible for unemployeement. Unless a worker is disabled, I have no sympathy for the attitude that a job is too hard.

If a businessman is forced to use minimum wage and passes that increase to consumers, that means that minimum wage is nothing more than a form of taxation. Furthermore, it becomes useless. What good is minimum wage if your purchasing power decreases every time its increased? This is something that liberals, socialists, and all those who want the government to regulate wages have never understood: you cannot regulate purchasing power. Only the free market can increase purchasing power. Any impediment to the free market actually decreases purchasing power.

It decreases total spending power. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be in place. It could be viewed as an imposed fee on people that are paying for services provided by employees making minimum wage who would not if the law wasn't in place. I wouldn't call it a tax since the money is not going to the government to be distributed. I see the minimum wage as a worthwhile tool to motivate people to work who would simply choose not to if they couldn't make the current minimum wage. This is important with a welfare system in place. Also, the minimum wage helps ensure that a person that is working full time can (barely and in some parts of the country that's debatable) support a small family. I think there's a societal benefit to that beyond spending power.

 

[whoknew]

Obama Slams Arizona Immigration Law

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama criticized a controversial new immigration bill in Arizona on Friday, calling it "misguided."

"Our failure to act responsible at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," the president said at a naturalization ceremony for members of the military.

"In fact, I've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at the federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country."

He added, "As a nation, as a people, we can choose a different future, a future that keeps faith with our history, with our heritage, and with the hope that America has always inspired in the hearts of people all over the world."

The bill would require immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and require police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

Currently, officers can check someone's immigration status if the person is suspected in another crime.

Critics argue that the new law would foster racial profiling, saying most police officers don't have enough training to look past race while investigating a person's legal status.

The bill is considered to be among the toughest immigration measures in the nation. Supporters say the measure is needed to fill a void left by the federal government's failure to enforce its immigration laws.

---

Good for Obama for using the bully pulpit to criticize this bill and for keeping an eye on the constitutionality of the law. Good moves.

But I did find this line very interesting -

"Our failure to act responsible at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others."

Is that just a throwaway line used to bully republicans into an immigration bill? Or insight into Obama's beliefs on federalism? Or both?

 

[Zow]

Besides spitting on the idea of separation of powers and reasonable suspicion stops, and permitting cooky Arizonians to sue the state government, it's a wonderful bill

 

[Zow]

- US Border patrol has checkpoints that I pass through a couple times a month - one between Nogales and Green Valley and another between Yuma and Gila Bend. They stop your car, ask questions, and search some. How is this different that what is currently proposed?

How is it different when I enter & exit the country, and am required to show a passport, vs. when I walk to the store to buy a gallon of milk and get hassled by cops for an ID? Is that a serious question?

I've never left the country being the different part.

My bad. Didn't realize that the locations you refer to are all in US. I wouldn't be a fan of the checkpoints you've referred to.

But he is very close to the border. IIRC the Supreme Court has said there is a compelling state interest for invasive searches by the borders which override general 4th amendment privacy rights.

 

[videoguy505]

Besides spitting on the idea of separation of powers and reasonable suspicion stops

Can you explain this part?

Really still on the fence on this bill. If I was an AZ state legislator, I'd probably have felt like voting against it. But I still don't understand it fully, so I can still see how it might be interpreted to just compel LEOs to strictly enforce the laws already on the books.

ETA: Really interested in a legal argument against the bill. Especially the ACLU's angle, if there is one, on its legal merits.

 

[Mello]

- US Border patrol has checkpoints that I pass through a couple times a month - one between Nogales and Green Valley and another between Yuma and Gila Bend. They stop your car, ask questions, and search some. How is this different that what is currently proposed?

How is it different when I enter & exit the country, and am required to show a passport, vs. when I walk to the store to buy a gallon of milk and get hassled by cops for an ID? Is that a serious question?

I've never left the country being the different part.

My bad. Didn't realize that the locations you refer to are all in US. I wouldn't be a fan of the checkpoints you've referred to.

But he is very close to the border. IIRC the Supreme Court has said there is a compelling state interest for invasive searches by the borders which override general 4th amendment privacy rights.

Not sure about the SC ruling but I disagree with them. I have no problem with checkpoints at the borders. Once inside the US, citizens should not be subjected to random stops to show their proper papers. If the police have no reason to believe the people in the vehicle are in the states illegally (I do not have any problem with racial profiling being part of the reason for this determination), then they should not be subject to a search. Being near the border (how close is the legal limit?) isn't enough. My views don't matter though. It's the exact same argument for DUI checkpoints, and those continue with people happily being searched for no reason.

 

[timschochet]

It's the exact same argument for DUI checkpoints, and those continue with people happily being searched for no reason.

If people get searched at DUI checkpoints, it's a random thing with regard to race or ethnicity. The potential problem with this law is that it will inevitably target Latinos.

 

[whoknew]

It's the exact same argument for DUI checkpoints, and those continue with people happily being searched for no reason.

If people get searched at DUI checkpoints, it's a random thing with regard to race or ethnicity. The potential problem with this law is that it will inevitably target Latinos.

Not to mention Canadians. Not that anyone should care about those bastards.

 

[timschochet]

It's the exact same argument for DUI checkpoints, and those continue with people happily being searched for no reason.

If people get searched at DUI checkpoints, it's a random thing with regard to race or ethnicity. The potential problem with this law is that it will inevitably target Latinos.

Not to mention Canadians. Not that anyone should care about those bastards.

I wasn't aware that Arizona and Canada shared a border.

 

[whoknew]

It's the exact same argument for DUI checkpoints, and those continue with people happily being searched for no reason.

If people get searched at DUI checkpoints, it's a random thing with regard to race or ethnicity. The potential problem with this law is that it will inevitably target Latinos.

Not to mention Canadians. Not that anyone should care about those bastards.

I wasn't aware that Arizona and Canada shared a border.

Slippery slope. All the way to Montana.

 

[honky kong]

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...

My favorite thing about Larry Boy is that he doesn't let the fact that he has no idea what he's talking about affect the certainty of his positions.As a side note, when did the whole "the Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens" thing take off? It's kind of like when everyone forgot how to use an apostrophe - it just seems to happen overnight.

 

[videoguy505]

Arizona's bill orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times

I've only skimmed the bill (it's 17 pages and I'm not a lawyerguy), but I didn't see this in it. Little help?

 

[otello]

President Barack Obama called an Arizona immigration bill "misguided" Friday and said it could violate people's civil rights, intensifying pressure on the state's Republican governor to veto the nation's toughest legislation against illegal immigration.

Obama said he's instructed the Justice Department to examine the Arizona bill to see if it's legal, and said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," Obama said.

What a lame quote.

 

[Arch Stanton]

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...

This is gonna be an awesome thread where the hyocrite fascists will stand out clear and proud with a swazzy flying free behind them. I suppose Larry, that the Third generation legal Mexican out there perpetrating the stereotype in his jeans, flannel and work boots will get what he deserves! Because that'd what this law will do. You look like a laborer, show me your ID. You with the socks pulled high, ID. Hey you with the bald scalp and the backpack full of honors textbooks, show me some ID. You don't have it on you? $500 fine. It's a racist, fascist, entirely unconstitutional law and anyone that can't see it is a racist, fascist swine who doesn't deserve to live in our free country. Don't like being called a racist or fascist or unAmerican (even though you are), then listen to one of your own and font perpetuate the stereotype. Yet another in a long list of things that makes Arizona uninhabitable for reasonable humans. What an armpit of a state, getting out of there was the best thing that ever happened to me.

 

[Phurfur]

President Barack Obama called an Arizona immigration bill "misguided" Friday and said it could violate people's civil rights, intensifying pressure on the state's Republican governor to veto the nation's toughest legislation against illegal immigration.

Obama said he's instructed the Justice Department to examine the Arizona bill to see if it's legal, and said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," Obama said.

What a lame quote.

but we are looking for non americans. As an AZ resident I don't know why they just don't require everyone to have proof of citizenship. I would have no problem with that because I am a citizen.

 

[Arch Stanton]

No, I know they aren't...However, for one, i don't see how providing proof of identification is really an "unreasonable search and seizure" its a freaking id...and, for two, as I said, I find it hard to feel sorry for the people who might get stopped for this... But the 5 seconds of annoyance of pulling out an id is a much lesser "evil" than the strain on our society on the whole the number of illegals currently living here are putting on us all... (note: I don't consider pulling an id out to be any issue at all, so the amount of bad the illegals cause us all is not the point, since if there is any negative at all, its more negative than pulling out an id in my mind)

Seriously, this response is ####### scary.

Show me your ID, for no reason, is EXACTLY an illegal search and seizure. Every single time it happens is a violation of the Constitution.

 

[perry147]

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...

This is gonna be an awesome thread where the hyocrite fascists will stand out clear and proud with a swazzy flying free behind them. I suppose Larry, that the Third generation legal Mexican out there perpetrating the stereotype in his jeans, flannel and work boots will get what he deserves! Because that'd what this law will do. You look like a laborer, show me your ID. You with the socks pulled high, ID. Hey you with the bald scalp and the backpack full of honors textbooks, show me some ID. You don't have it on you? $500 fine. It's a racist, fascist, entirely unconstitutional law and anyone that can't see it is a racist, fascist swine who doesn't deserve to live in our free country. Don't like being called a racist or fascist or unAmerican (even though you are), then listen to one of your own and font perpetuate the stereotype. Yet another in a long list of things that makes Arizona uninhabitable for reasonable humans. What an armpit of a state, getting out of there was the best thing that ever happened to me.

Nicely said.