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)

Health care law passed and we deal with it even though people were not happy.

Arizona passes immigration reform and we have to deal with it as well.

Respect our government. They know what is right for us.
I waded through six pages for this one...and I was hoping that it would send the thread careening off the edge. Funny how many are polarized on different sides of the "Make me purchase healthcare" vs "Make me show proof of citizenship" argument.A couple thoughts:

1) The leap in comparing Arizona to Nazi Germany is not only a slippery slope, it's also intellectually arrogant.

2) While I agree that the problem with illegals needs to be dealt with, this law is going to cause more problems than it helps...mainly because of the red tape and protests it will cause. Going after the employers is the best way.

3) Seriously? You're getting all high and mighty because nobody here can speak with as much authority as you about the state of illegal immigrants in WESTERN IDAHO?

4) If half of you spent as much time running for office and actually trying to make a difference in your communities as you do debating and trying to "out-sarcasm" each other on a message board, you might replace some of the morons we have in office. This is only partially sarcastic...many of you are distressingly intelligent and have a good grasp of what the real issues are in this country.

 
As an aside, I'd like to find out how Latinos who have immigrated here legally and Latin Americans in Arizona feel about this law.

 
So what does it take to have standing to sue a police officer for failing to enforce the immigration law?
Pretty sure you'd get hung up in what does and does not constitute "reasonable suspicion."
Well, my question has less to do with what you have to prove, and more to do with who has standing to sue. Say a cop stops a woman on the street and asks for her documentation. She responds that she does not have it, and he lets her go without arresting her. This exchange is witnessed by 25 people on the street. Can someone who witnessed the incident sue? Can all 25 who witnessed the incident sue?
 
I'm late to the party on this one, but it sure is a doozy. Highly entertaining. I'm particularly enjoying the Republicans shooting themselves in the foot politically. The Democrats handed them a clear path to the end zone by f-ing up the health care legislation, and they immediately alienate Hispanics and then align themselves with Wall Street. Genius.

Anyway, does anyone know a good read on the Constitutional issues associated with this? Obviously there's a ton, but I would be curious to read a good analysis of the potential problems, as well as the possible liability for Arizona under 1983 if law enforcement is actually stupid enough to try to act on this.

 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?

 
Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the tea party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the tea party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the tea partiers into apoplexy.

 
Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the tea party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the tea party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the tea partiers into apoplexy.
I wonder that myself.
 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?
You can thank my forebears for that. Once us dirty EYE-talians showed up, someone decided that would be a good time to put up the velvet rope.Edit: Can't blame them, really...just watch an episode of Jersey Shore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LHUCKS said:
timschochet said:
Probably the most absurd aspect of this law is the notion, as stated by LHUCKS and others here, that it must be done because the state of Arizona can no longer afford illegal immigrants. Its absurd because, given the extra duties required by policemen (most of whom, according to newspapers, are opposed to the law) the lawsuits from Latino citizens who feel their rights are being infringed, the lawsuits from anti-immigrant groups (provided for in the law) who feel the law is not being correctly enforced, and anyone can see how this bill will end up costing Arizona so much more money which it cannot afford.
Not really. The vast majority of the money will come from the Federal budget.And protecting Arizonans from drug cartels is worth every penny.
So the resouces of the collective should go to fighting the bottom feeding leeches who take more than they give?Because that's pretty much the scenario with pumping federal funds to az to fight this issue.
Um...AZ wouldn't be the ones pressing the legal battle...that would be the liberals.
I tried to post this last night but it didn't take I guess.I'm not referring to the legal battle, which is clearly a case of reaping what you sow, unless you would further like to challenge the constitution and ban things like court appeals and the ACLU, because we all know things would run much more efficiently. And you might also wake up tomorrow in a safer Arizona if you both eliminated the illegals, but then what is left over? What sort of actions would you take against the remaining criminals? It might just make sense to send them ALL back to Mexico, because safety is the name of the game here, can't have the odd rancher getting killed. Better to protect the hypothetical next rancher's rights than those of a population that had formerly been indigenous to the region until the lines of the map got redrawn. But yes, safety, safety at all costs, and lets manage costs while we are at it. You know, to that end you might do well to go to full police state in Arizona and put up a 11pm curfew statewide. I know, I know, this might be extreme, but RANCHERZ ARE DIEING!!!!!!!!1! SAVE THE RANCHERS!!!!!!!!! At almost any cost apparently. I know the focus is on these cartels, and thank god for the media and their levelheaded reporting on this, because, lord knows they aren't a business in the interest of selling what chicken little's like you will be buying. Because its just not good for repeat business to say "Drug Cartels: sad and unfortunate but a fringe end of a problem and not really pervasive" No, that doesn't keep you coming back, but the doom and gloom almost biologically makes you go back the next day to see just how far gone things are and how bad things have gotten.Well here is the real doom and gloom, you can now be searched and demanded to prove who you are at any point, at any time, for any reason, well excuse me, not for any reason, but an reason that our carefully trained Arizona Law Enforcement officers determine, and don't worry about what those reasons are, better us for know and you to find out. But basically, you now have to prove who you are at any point in time. I'm not defending migrants in that sense. They know the score and they roll the dice when they sneak across that border and a tap on the shoulder means homeward bound Jose at any moment. But laws do exist to protect the few. Majority rule in this country would feature:-slavery-child labor-white male votingAmongst other wishes of the majority. Sometimes though, you need to protect those that swim against the tide because of some biological roll of the dice. This law to me affronts directly naturalized and natural born citizens of the United States and Arizona of hispanic descent. I hope they tell these cops to get bent and go to hell when they ask them to prove their immigration status. I'm lucky, I'm a pale face, I won't run into this problem, but I support them when they do.When they run into Arizona's finest, who, are, literally and legitmately recruited from the bathroom wall of Yankee Stadium. Its true. Any mouthbreather at a Yankee game got promised fun in the sun and desert delights if they would go join the Arizona police force. So these "highly trained professionals" are the ones carrying out this law. This law is a greater affront to all of us, however. It's either the first or another, I can't quite tell yet, on a slippery slope to pedaling safety at the cost of your rights. You know Lhucks, we have a lot of money laundering and embezzlement in this country and really to sort it all out, it might make sense to look through everyone's bank accounts and financial records. Yeah, I know its an inconvience, but look, this laundering is really rough stuff, so do you mind, actually, we don't care if you mind, we are going to be looking through your financial records now, you're a great American!Its hard for me to believe this is both the state and the party of Goldwater behind this. The man was not perfect, but he was a man, and this is the law of a coward. Because its really as much about dealing with a supposed invaision and influx of latino culture as it is about any side issues that come with it, and those behind are reluctant with rare exception to admit it. Because if you were so worried about any given point of this problem, you might find much more effective results in :1. shutdown, blackout penalties for those that hire illegals2. shutdown, blackout penalties for those involved in the drug tradeI'll take you at your word Lhucks and assume your intentions are true in this "fight". However, it is really hard to look past your eschewing of the many alternatives and going right for the option that is both the most affronting to the constitution and, well, frankly, racist.
 
Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the tea party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the tea party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the tea partiers into apoplexy.
I wonder that myself.
It was a quote from an article. Actually, I really doubt you wonder this, and neither do I, because we both know the answer. When Tom Tancredo is one of the main speakers at a tea party convention, that should tell you all you really need to know about what they're really about.
 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?
You can thank my forebears for that. Once us dirty EYE-talians showed up, someone decided that would be a good time to put up the velvet rope.
I've got a visual of a velvet rope at NY Harbor, with the Statue of Liberty holding a clipboard at the front of a line of hundreds of Italians with Ed Hardy t-shirts and fake tans pumping their fists behind her.
 
Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the tea party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the tea party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the tea partiers into apoplexy.
Well its complicated, see, on the one hand, you're fighting against the brown guy running things, but at the same time, you have to fight against helping the other brown people. Its really a labyrinth of concepts to duck, dodge and dive through.
 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?
You can thank my forebears for that. Once us dirty EYE-talians showed up, someone decided that would be a good time to put up the velvet rope.Edit: Can't blame them, really...just watch an episode of Jersey Shore.
What does *** stand for again? "Without Papers?" Actually, you are incorrect about this. The impetus for immigration laws was more directed at MY ancestors, the Jews, even though we came in smaller numbers than the Italians. (The Chinese and Japanese were also heavily targeted.)
 
LHUCKS said:
timschochet said:
Probably the most absurd aspect of this law is the notion, as stated by LHUCKS and others here, that it must be done because the state of Arizona can no longer afford illegal immigrants. Its absurd because, given the extra duties required by policemen (most of whom, according to newspapers, are opposed to the law) the lawsuits from Latino citizens who feel their rights are being infringed, the lawsuits from anti-immigrant groups (provided for in the law) who feel the law is not being correctly enforced, and anyone can see how this bill will end up costing Arizona so much more money which it cannot afford.
Not really. The vast majority of the money will come from the Federal budget.And protecting Arizonans from drug cartels is worth every penny.
Please explain how this bill will protect Arizonans from the drug cartels. Wouldn't a better way involve decriminalizing drugs? Which, you know, would lead to dissipation of the drug cartels? (as an example see Prohibition)
 
Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the tea party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the tea party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the tea partiers into apoplexy.
I wonder that myself.
It was a quote from an article. Actually, I really doubt you wonder this, and neither do I, because we both know the answer. When Tom Tancredo is one of the main speakers at a tea party convention, that should tell you all you really need to know about what they're really about.
And when Tom Tancredo thinks the law goes too far, that should tell you all you really need to know.

Link (with subsequent back pedal)

*Edited for accuracy

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the tea party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the tea party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the tea partiers into apoplexy.
I wonder that myself.
It was a quote from an article. Actually, I really doubt you wonder this, and neither do I, because we both know the answer. When Tom Tancredo is one of the main speakers at a tea party convention, that should tell you all you really need to know about what they're really about.
And when Tom Tancredo opposes this anti-immigration law as going too far, that should tell you all you really need to know.
The first interview I watched with him, he was very much for it. Now he seems to have changed his mind according to reports, though I haven't heard him directly.
 
Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the tea party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the tea party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the tea partiers into apoplexy.
Well to be fair, this law isn't trying to help extend healthcare to poor people... That's tyranny.
 
Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the tea party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the tea party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the tea partiers into apoplexy.
I wonder that myself.
It was a quote from an article. Actually, I really doubt you wonder this, and neither do I, because we both know the answer. When Tom Tancredo is one of the main speakers at a tea party convention, that should tell you all you really need to know about what they're really about.
And when Tom Tancredo opposes this anti-immigration law as going too far, that should tell you all you really need to know.
The first interview I watched with him, he was very much for it. Now he seems to have changed his mind according to reports, though I haven't heard him directly.
To be fair, he supports the law, but voiced concerns about it going too far in certain respects.
 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?
You can thank my forebears for that. Once us dirty EYE-talians showed up, someone decided that would be a good time to put up the velvet rope.Edit: Can't blame them, really...just watch an episode of Jersey Shore.
What does *** stand for again? "Without Papers?" Actually, you are incorrect about this. The impetus for immigration laws was more directed at MY ancestors, the Jews, even though we came in smaller numbers than the Italians. (The Chinese and Japanese were also heavily targeted.)
You know, I've had it with the Jews stealing all the persecution stories throughout history. We get it! You were unpopular! Big deal. Is it that big a deal to let me have my little bit of historical persecution?
 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?
You can thank my forebears for that. Once us dirty EYE-talians showed up, someone decided that would be a good time to put up the velvet rope.Edit: Can't blame them, really...just watch an episode of Jersey Shore.
What does *** stand for again? "Without Papers?" Actually, you are incorrect about this. The impetus for immigration laws was more directed at MY ancestors, the Jews, even though we came in smaller numbers than the Italians. (The Chinese and Japanese were also heavily targeted.)
Oh, and "***" doesn't stand for anything...*** is a U.S. pejorative slur for Italian people. It is derived from the Neapolitan word "guappo" (often pronounced simply as "guap'" in the regional dialect), meaning a person who flaunts an overbearingly cocky and swaggering attitude.

 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?
You can thank my forebears for that. Once us dirty EYE-talians showed up, someone decided that would be a good time to put up the velvet rope.Edit: Can't blame them, really...just watch an episode of Jersey Shore.
What does *** stand for again? "Without Papers?" Actually, you are incorrect about this. The impetus for immigration laws was more directed at MY ancestors, the Jews, even though we came in smaller numbers than the Italians. (The Chinese and Japanese were also heavily targeted.)
You know, I've had it with the Jews stealing all the persecution stories throughout history. We get it! You were unpopular! Big deal. Is it that big a deal to let me have my little bit of historical persecution?
Eyyy whasamatta you?
 
So what does it take to have standing to sue a police officer for failing to enforce the immigration law?
Pretty sure you'd get hung up in what does and does not constitute "reasonable suspicion."
Well, my question has less to do with what you have to prove, and more to do with who has standing to sue. Say a cop stops a woman on the street and asks for her documentation. She responds that she does not have it, and he lets her go without arresting her. This exchange is witnessed by 25 people on the street. Can someone who witnessed the incident sue? Can all 25 who witnessed the incident sue?
Seriously? No.
 
Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the tea party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the tea party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the tea partiers into apoplexy.
It certainly did. 70% of Arizonans support this law. Around the nation, 60% of Americans support it. I think (hope) this is because they don't really realize what the law entails. But I acknowledge that my own views about immigration are in the minority and likely always will be.
Tim, with the depressing lack of discussion in this thread on the real facts of what's actually in this law, and how you and others have turned it into an argument of policies that are either impractical, farcical, or just totally irrelevant, either the entire FFA has me on ignore, or, no one really realizes what's in this law. And I mean both the people arguing for it or against it. And, for that matter, the media too, which hasn't accurately or in any detailed way explained it. Some of you want absolutely no border restrictions at all. Others want to argue for giant concrete walls and armed guards on watchtowers. Whatever. It's irrelevant to this law, but to continue to bring it up when arguing the law makes no sense and doesn't further your point.
Bump
 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?
That was 90 years ago. Laws change with the times. The people who immigrated to this land did it by rule of the land. My mothers family was from Spain and they followed procedure to enter the USA in the 1930s. Why should anyone be allowed to illegally enter "any" country?I know many Canadians that now live in Michigan, all of them applied to be citizens and followed set procedure. They are now USA citizens.
 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?
That was 90 years ago. Laws change with the times. The people who immigrated to this land did it by rule of the land. My mothers family was from Spain and they followed procedure to enter the USA in the 1930s. Why should anyone be allowed to illegally enter "any" country?

I know many Canadians that now live in Michigan, all of them applied to be citizens and followed set procedure. They are now USA citizens.
Where are you seeing that they are? The fact that it's illegal means its not allowed. Your question is akin to asking why are people allowed to illegally smoke marijuana. Your rhetorical question is a fallacy.

 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?
That was 90 years ago. Laws change with the times. The people who immigrated to this land did it by rule of the land. My mothers family was from Spain and they followed procedure to enter the USA in the 1930s. Why should anyone be allowed to illegally enter "any" country?

I know many Canadians that now live in Michigan, all of them applied to be citizens and followed set procedure. They are now USA citizens.
Where are you seeing that they are? The fact that it's illegal means its not allowed. Your question is akin to asking why are people allowed to illegally smoke marijuana. Your rhetorical question is a fallacy.
Exactly. And if you get caught with weed the laws of the land will punish offenders.

 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?
That was 90 years ago. Laws change with the times. The people who immigrated to this land did it by rule of the land. My mothers family was from Spain and they followed procedure to enter the USA in the 1930s. Why should anyone be allowed to illegally enter "any" country?

I know many Canadians that now live in Michigan, all of them applied to be citizens and followed set procedure. They are now USA citizens.
Where are you seeing that they are? The fact that it's illegal means its not allowed. Your question is akin to asking why are people allowed to illegally smoke marijuana. Your rhetorical question is a fallacy.
Exactly. And if you get caught with weed the laws of the land will punish offenders.
And if you get caught sneaking across the border you will be dealt with in accordance with the law of the land.

What exactly is your point?

 
Do people really have a problem with weeding out people who are in this country illegally? How is that possible?

 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?
That was 90 years ago. Laws change with the times. The people who immigrated to this land did it by rule of the land. My mothers family was from Spain and they followed procedure to enter the USA in the 1930s. Why should anyone be allowed to illegally enter "any" country?I know many Canadians that now live in Michigan, all of them applied to be citizens and followed set procedure. They are now USA citizens.
:goodposting: This shouldnt even be debatable.
 
Where are you seeing that they are? The fact that it's illegal means its not allowed. Your question is akin to asking why are people allowed to illegally smoke marijuana. Your rhetorical question is a fallacy.
Exactly. And if you get caught with weed the laws of the land will punish offenders.
And if you get caught sneaking across the border you will be dealt with in accordance with the law of the land.

What exactly is your point?
But if you get caught the next day, your'e not dealt with in accordance with the law of the land. The issue in AZ was if the police knew for sure someone had snuck across the border, they were powerless to do anything about it unless they could also prove he had committed a separate felony.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do people really have a problem with weeding out people who are in this country illegally? How is that possible?
It's the method they have a problem with. You're cool with people being required to defend their citizenship at the whim of a law enforcement representative just because they have brown skin? Because that's what the law permits.There's also the fact that its never been a state crime, and there's all sorts of practical problems with making it one.People who think opposition to this law equates to thinking people should be allowed to immigrate illegally, or that this law is nothing more than the enforcement of existing law, are totally missing the point.
 
Do people really have a problem with weeding out people who are in this country illegally? How is that possible?
It's the method they have a problem with. You're cool with people being required to defend their citizenship at the whim of a law enforcement representative just because they have brown skin? Because that's what the law permits.There's also the fact that its never been a state crime, and there's all sorts of practical problems with making it one.People who think opposition to this law equates to thinking people should be allowed to immigrate illegally, or that this law is nothing more than the enforcement of existing law, are totally missing the point.
Then put me down for missing your point. If you could explain it with references to the parts of the actual law you have problems with, that'd be a help.
You're cool with people being required to defend their citizenship at the whim of a law enforcement representative just because they have brown skin? Because that's what the law permits.
But this part isn't in the law.
 
Where are you seeing that they are? The fact that it's illegal means its not allowed. Your question is akin to asking why are people allowed to illegally smoke marijuana. Your rhetorical question is a fallacy.
Exactly. And if you get caught with weed the laws of the land will punish offenders.
And if you get caught sneaking across the border you will be dealt with in accordance with the law of the land.

What exactly is your point?
But if you get caught the next day, your'e not dealt with in accordance with the law of the land. The issue in AZ was if the police knew for sure someone had snuck across the border, they were powerless to do anything about it unless they could also proved he had committed a separate felony.
:goodposting:

Of course you were. If the authority enforcing the existing law finds you in violation, you were dealt with by those authorities in accordance with the law.

If someone who doesn't enforce the law catches you, they shouldn't be empowered to enforce it. Just like if my neighbor catches me smoking weed, he can't arrest and detain me. That's how it works.

 
Hey, Arizona. If you really wanted to end illegal immigration, you should fine anyone who hired an undocumented worker. But that isn't the point, is it?

Fine them for hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars, make it financially a liability to hire illegal aliens so legal citizens and only legal immigrants with work visas get the job.

 
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?

That was 90 years ago. Laws change with the times. The people who immigrated to this land did it by rule of the land. My mothers family was from Spain and they followed procedure to enter the USA in the 1930s. Why should anyone be allowed to illegally enter "any" country?

I know many Canadians that now live in Michigan, all of them applied to be citizens and followed set procedure. They are now USA citizens.

Where are you seeing that they are? The fact that it's illegal means its not allowed. Your question is akin to asking why are people allowed to illegally smoke marijuana. Your rhetorical question is a fallacy.

Exactly. And if you get caught with weed the laws of the land will punish offenders.

And if you get caught sneaking across the border you will be dealt with in accordance with the law of the land.

What exactly is your point?

We are on the same page. :goodposting:

 
Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the tea party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the tea party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the tea partiers into apoplexy.
:goodposting:
 
Then put me down for missing your point. If you could explain it with references to the parts of the actual law you have problems with, that'd be a help.
Let me clarify- here's Wikipedia on "reasonable suspicion," which is in line with the law on this subject as I recall it (although I'd love to read a good Constitutional/1983 analysis of the Arizona law if anyone knows of one):
Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, 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.
All of this focuses on behaviors that make authorities suspicious that a crime has been committed. What behavior can make one suspicious that a person is an illegal immigrant? Honestly, I can't think of anything. How do you act like someone who is an illegal immigrant, other than illegally immigrating, in which case the authorities have probable cause and they don't need this law to detain you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do people really have a problem with weeding out people who are in this country illegally? How is that possible?
This law doesn't cover weeding out ALL people who are in the country illegally. It only covers weeding out Latinos who are here illegally.
 
But if you get caught the next day, your'e not dealt with in accordance with the law of the land. The issue in AZ was if the police knew for sure someone had snuck across the border, they were powerless to do anything about it unless they could also proved he had committed a separate felony.
:lol:

Of course you were. If the authority enforcing the existing law finds you in violation, you were dealt with by those authorities in accordance with the law.

If someone who doesn't enforce the law catches you, they shouldn't be empowered to enforce it. Just like if my neighbor catches me smoking weed, he can't arrest and detain me. That's how it works.
Local police are allowed to enforce federal law. If a local cop overhears you threaten the life of the President, or catches you counterfeiting money, both federal crimes, of course you could be arrested. The case that the ACLU mentions in their argument against this law, Gonzales vs. City of Peoria, had that as an issue and the courts held that local police are empowered to enforce it.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back604.html

The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have expressed this understanding in the immigration context specifically. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983). The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations," United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws." United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable. Rather, the inherent arrest authority extends generally to both categories of federal immigration law violations.
The difference in Arizona is that while the Tenth Circuit held that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations", as Tim's OP states, the law "mandates officers to determine a person's immigration status if they suspect a violation. Currently officers can only make such inquiries if the person is a suspect in another crime." That policy is being changed by this law.

 
Whatever happened to entering a country "legally?" And following the immigration laws of the country you are entering?
Whatever happened to America having no restrictions on immigration (which we basically did until the 1920s)?
That was 90 years ago. Laws change with the times. The people who immigrated to this land did it by rule of the land. My mothers family was from Spain and they followed procedure to enter the USA in the 1930s. Why should anyone be allowed to illegally enter "any" country?

I know many Canadians that now live in Michigan, all of them applied to be citizens and followed set procedure. They are now USA citizens.
That's a really simplistic argument. We basically used to let anyone into this country. Not surprisingly, there wasn't an illegal immigration problem then. Now we make it very difficult to enter the country (and stay) legally. We severely limit the number of folks allowed to do this annually. Not surprisingly, there is now an "illegal" immigration problem.

The solution is pretty clear: improve our foolish approach to immigration.

The solutions that make zero sense: 1) pass stupid laws that violate the constitution, 2) demonize illegal immigrants and rise up in righteous indignation against them.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top