So, your argument is that anyone in favor of any sort of immigration policy other than wide open borders is racist and fascist?
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 (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Thorn
Footballguy
Call me kooky but I think he was referring to the specific statute that this thread is about.
perry147
Footballguy
It is very obvious that is not what he is stating.
timschochet
Footballguy
I do not believe that any and all restrictions on immigration are racist in intent. But I do believe that there is no effective way to enforce most of them without racism occuring as a result. That is one reason I tend to be opposed to most of these laws. But I am an extremist with regard to this issue, an open borders guy, and I freely admit it. You don't have to agree with me on that to come to the conclusion that this particular law will clearly result in racism.
Last edited by a moderator:
videoguy505
Footballguy
I'll agree with this. Good thing it's not in the law.Which is why I keep asking questions about it. There's a lot said about the law but not much actual discussion about what's actually in it. "Show me your ID" requires reason, I'm not a lawyerguy so I'm not sure which standard of reason, but, from a skimming of the bill, it actually requires more than just a "reasonable suspicion", which is defined by law, but an even tougher standard of "probable cause".
videoguy505
Footballguy
Wow. I've skimmed the bill and didn't see any of this stuff in there. Don't know where this all came from.
Arch Stanton
Footballguy
Having it is fine, providing it when applying for social services is fine. Bring required to carty it at all times and provide it or face jail time and/or a fine because the po-po think someone's too brown or because a neighbor doesn't like ranchero music is foul, unconstitutional, and everything America is supposed to NOT be about.
videoguy505
Footballguy
I'll ask again, I didn't see anything in my skim that says aliens have to carry paperwork at all times. If I missed it, I'd like it pointed out, because that would definitely be something that could swing me against the bill.ETA: and your examples obviously don't add up to "probable cause", but I'll skip that for now. More interested in understanding what's actually in the law.
Last edited by a moderator:
perry147
Footballguy
When you have language like "reasonable suspicion" in the bill (SENATE BILL 1070) these things will happen.http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Look for article 8 particularly lines 20-26.
videoguy505
Footballguy
I've asked about that section before, and no one was able to answer my questions.
First off, "reasonable suspicion" is a legally defined standard which would have to be met. My question was:
If any lawyerguys can chime in with answers, it'd be much appreciated.ETA: That section also makes me question the assertion that it's the responsibility of the suspected alien to produce or carry immigration paperwork. It seems it's the job of the LEO to verify with the federal government the status [THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).], not just expect the suspect to have it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chargers86
Footballguy
I'm confused. Isn't this the type of "big government" the right warned us about?
No, this really has nothing to do with "big government" that fiscal conservatives are against. HTH
Last edited by a moderator:
Arch Stanton
Footballguy
It doesn't really though. What's reasonable suspicion as to a person's citizenship? Pull up to a work site and a handful of guys run, then sure that's fairly reasonable. Telling the remaining guys to line up and present IDs is not. How about following one of those "suspects" home after a day's work and snagging mom and kids? Of particular concern is the provision that police have to act on citizen complaints (presumably after establishing the complainants citizenship). The murky definition of reasonable gets completely tossed when the public sector has a say.
Chargers86
Footballguy
Are the same "fiscal conservatives" for or against this?
Arch Stanton
Footballguy
Just add "because you live or are in a neighborhood 'known' to be home to illegal aliens at the end of those examples.
Chargers86
Footballguy
Jeez. Imagine what the people who said Obama was going to turn the US into nazi Germany will have to say about THIS!
snowmonkey501
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
I believe people who are here legally can now be cited/charged for simply not having their immigration paperwork on them any time they come in contact with law enforcement.
Zow
Footballguy
IMO the Constitution puts the issue of immigration and policing in the hands of the federal government. After all, ICE, immigration law, etc. are all governed by federal statutes. Therefore, by my state legislating on an issue designated to the federal government, they are crossing the line between the federal government and the state government and punishing people for violating a federal law the state of Arizona has no jurisdiction to legislate on.videoguy505 said:
But the Federal Government is doing NOTHING about it. In the meantime, Arizona ranchers are being shot and killed. Maybe by doing this it will kick start the government into action.
Zow
Footballguy
Perhaps, but that doesn't make it any less unconstitutional. Also, "nothing" is a bit of a stretch.
Balance
Footballguy
It is really sad how willfully ignorant people are regarding immigration... in general (much less any of the specifics).
Darth Cheney
Footballguy
I'm not really opposed to this...although I do think that police might have a point in the idea that it will make immigrant or perceived targeted people less cooperative. I think it'd be nice if there was some sort of Amnesty Day tied into this thing.
Dude! Then get yourself educated! You can't keep yourself ignorant forever. Knowledge is power, my friend.
DevilsTrifecta
Footballguy
I'm against it.
videoguy505
Footballguy
The PDF of the bill is linked to on this page and other times in this thread. I didn't see this in there. Honestly, I'm (this close) to being against this bill, so I'm looking for any more reasons. See post #212. If any sees it in the PDF, please let me know.
Last edited by a moderator:
videoguy505
Footballguy
I can see that argument. However, one interpretation of the bill was simply that 1) being here illegally is a crime, and 2) if an LEO has reasonable suspicion of a crime, he's now compelled to investigate it. In other words, the bill eliminates the LEO's discretion to "look the other way" if he suspects/knows of illegal alien status. I don't see requiring LEOs to enforce the laws as written as being unconstitutional. They're not fully policing immigration in the law, it states that if a person is determined to be an illegal alien (upon checking with INS pursuant to the cited US Code), that law enforcement must deliver the person to the INS for completion of processing. Unless I read it wrong.
I'm all for a bill that says LEOs have to enforce the laws and investigate anything they have reasonable suspicion to believe is a crime, and probable cause to detain a person. I've been trying to find the parts of this bill that go past that, and haven't been able to get the answers I'm looking for regarding some of the accusations.
Last edited by a moderator:
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
Let me see your papers.
What kind of dogs do you people want to be, HAVING to show your ID to any guy with a badge?
This from the party of "You're a great American".
What kind of dogs do you people want to be, HAVING to show your ID to any guy with a badge?
This from the party of "You're a great American".
Arch Stanton
Footballguy
Pretty sure I was talking about this particular bill. You can tell that I'm talking about this bill by the way that I talk about things in this bill and also because this is a thread about this bill. What a ridiculous, inane and ignorant assumption.
otello
Footballguy
Imagine what Mexico would say if we had/enforced an immigration policy similar to theirs. This is how Mexico treats illegals, mainly coming from its south:
Mexico's Glass House
Center for Security Policy | Jan 13, 2009
By J. Michael Waller
Every country has the right to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.
Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico's constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.
By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution's protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy.
In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:
* Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
* Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
* Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
* Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
* Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
* Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
* Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
* Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country's political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country." Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."
The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states,
"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereunto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country." (Emphasis added)
The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."
The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:
"In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."
An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.
Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).
The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president's parents also be
Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.
The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, "To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth."
The Mexican constitution singles out "undesirable aliens." Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."
The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen's arrests. flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.
The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."
Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another's laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States.
Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.-Mexican relations:
1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or
2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.
These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government's current immigration demands on the United States - as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.
Mexico certainly has every right to control who enters its borders, and to expel foreigners who break its laws. The Mexican constitution is designed to give the strongest protections possible to the country's national security. Mexico's internal immigration policy is Mexico's business.
However, since Mexican political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have been demanding that the United States ignore, alter or abolish its own immigration laws, they have opened their own internal affairs to American scrutiny. The time has come to examine Mexico's own glass house.
Mexico's Glass House
Center for Security Policy | Jan 13, 2009
By J. Michael Waller
Every country has the right to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.
Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico's constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.
By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution's protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy.
In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:
* Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
* Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
* Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
* Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
* Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
* Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
* Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
* Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country's political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country." Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."
The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states,
"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereunto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country." (Emphasis added)
The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."
The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:
"In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."
An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.
Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).
The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president's parents also be
Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.
The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, "To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth."
The Mexican constitution singles out "undesirable aliens." Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."
The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen's arrests. flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.
The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."
Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another's laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States.
Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.-Mexican relations:
1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or
2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.
These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government's current immigration demands on the United States - as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.
Mexico certainly has every right to control who enters its borders, and to expel foreigners who break its laws. The Mexican constitution is designed to give the strongest protections possible to the country's national security. Mexico's internal immigration policy is Mexico's business.
However, since Mexican political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have been demanding that the United States ignore, alter or abolish its own immigration laws, they have opened their own internal affairs to American scrutiny. The time has come to examine Mexico's own glass house.
videoguy505
Footballguy
...only thing is it's not in this law. It's already the law. US Code Title 8 Section 1304.
So it's existing law already, not part of this bill, unless there's something else I missed.
ETA: The bill's change to Article II Section 8 F (4) says "except as provided by federal law," a LEO "may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information", "or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:" "4. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the Federal registration laws prescribed by Title II, Chapter 7 of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act.
Sec. 264 of the FINA is copied from the 8 USC 1304 I linked to above. So that's what they must mean. So it's not quite accurate to say the law forces aliens to carry their paperwork at all times, that's the law already.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Regarding the Mexican laws restricting immigrants: there is a reason we are one of the greatest places to live, and Mexico, despite having great natural resources, wonderful people and a growing economy, has so much destitution, corruption, and misery. I am very thankful that we are not Mexico, and I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would want to imitate that government.
Fennis
Footballguy
Imitating a single policy is imitating their government? I hope they don't charge taxes, or we better get rid of those pronto as well. Are you going to use this same lithmus test for every policy on their books similar to one on ours?
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh my God. He hates people with faces?I wonder if even a facist #### like Scalia supports this law.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
If the ACLU is opposed to something, that usually means there is good reason NOT to like it.
Fixed.
the moops
Footballguy
How welcoming is it to legal immigrants when they are subject to random searches because they look Mexican?
timschochet
Footballguy
I have never understood this argument. What difference does it make?
SofaKings
Footballguy
Sadly no. Not much use for them, just like the unions.If the ACLU is opposed to something, that usually means there is good reason NOT to like it.
the moops
Footballguy
You dont think there is any use for an organization thats mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."Sadly no. Not much use for them, just like the unions.If the ACLU is opposed to something, that usually means there is good reason NOT to like it.
