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

[Michael Fox Fan]

I realized something last night. In the discussion about how this turns Arizona into a police state, references to Nazis, etc. the reply has been along the lines (not necessarily just in this thread) that we need to trust and respect the professionalism of our law enforcement community to properly uphold the law. That it is a poor reflection on those with these concerns that they have such little faith in those that work so hard to protect us. More or less.

Yet, here we are discussing a law that basically strips these trusted and respected professionals in law enforcement from using their discretion, their best judgement in performing their jobs.

So which is it? Can we put our faith in these guys or not?

Can you explain the bolded portion? Don't they still have to use judgment?The vast majority of cops are good people doing a tough job. Unfortunately, because they have SO much power/control over people (or at least the potential for power and control), we've seen repeated instances of blatantly inappropriate police behavior. Further, just talk to any friends who are african-american (for example) and they'll tell you that racial profiling is alive and kicking. [i had a buddy who lived near San Fran - and his GF lived in Marin County. He got stopped at least once a month while visiting his GF. I'm not a fan of anecdotal evidence....but there are countless stories like this....]

The bolded part is this-

:

:

The bill makes it a state offense to lack proper immigration paperwork - and 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. The bill also allows citizens to compel police to comply with the law, preventing police from avoiding the issue in order to retain the trust of immigrants. However police can refrain from making immigration inquiries if they are impractical or if they would hinder another investigation.

:

:

I guess the last sentence give a little leeway for an officer's discretion, but mandating and compelling seem rather absolute if we are placing our trust in those on the "front lines".

The words "if they suspect a violation" leave considerable room for discretion on the part of an officer.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I haven't waded through this whole mess, BFS. Could you please give me a post number or a link to the ACLU claim of Constitutional inconsistency?

Sure

What's the legal basis for ACLU's beef?

Might as well answer this myself, dug this up:http://www.acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%20...d%204-14-10.pdf

Will for later.

ETA: initial skim shows a few 'this is unnecessary because there's already a federal law for it' things, but some of their items of dispute are interesting angles.

The Constitution grants the federal government exclusive power to regulate our borders and, with very few exceptions, states are not free to create their own laws regulating immigration. Page 3. I've heard this in the past with other local laws, but am not certain if this has been used strike any of them down.

Noticed how I qualified this just about the same way I qualified my reply to you. That is because I'm unsure of how successful this argument is going to be, or has been in the recent past.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Last time my mom and I had dinner the couple next to us asked us if we could please speak in English. When we continued speaking in our native language, we were asked to please go back to our own country. I bet that couple supports this bill, and I know they don't

WTF?You were at a restaurant and some random strangers told you to speak English?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Found this little gem in the Constitution:

Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This certainly seems applicable in regard to the Federal government failing to obey its Constitutional obligation to protect the citizens of Arizona against domestic violence.

It might, but you are using this provision backwards. Article IV is a deliniation of Supremacy of the federal government. Section 4 is a clarification of the supremacy in that no state shall govern themselves in opposition to the federal union, and no state shall be able to nullify federal military action when taken in advance of the defense of the nation - or even the state themselves. This Article doesn't grant the states power to step in and act like the supreme soveriegn if necessary. It mandates that the supreme sovereign is just that. And the 10th Amendment wouldn't kick in either because there is a specific power enumerated to the federal government here. The states as entities do not control federal immigration policy. Then can work within the system designed by and operating through the federal government, but that's all.

It's better to simply categorize this law as a continuation of private property rights and law enforcement policy then an actual immigration law.

 

[Sammy3469]

But as always, it's easier to point at people who don't look like us and blame them for our problems.

And one of our biggest problems is that despite being a nation of laws, our representatives in Washington are deciding which laws are convenient to enforce and which they'll choose not to enforce. But by not enforcing the laws that protect our borders, innocent people are suffering greatly - ranchers killed, people kidnapped for ransom in Phoenix, the violence along the border created by Mexico refusing to police its own people. That doesn't even go into the economic drain that illegal immigrants put on an already fragile and strained US economy.So the people of Arizona finally said "enough" and created a set of state laws very similar - in fact, almost exactly parallel - to the Federal immigration laws, and intend to protect their citizens by actually enforcing them.

What a novel concept. That's not so difficult for people to understand, is it? Even someone like you.

lol

 

[jon_mx]

Last time my mom and I had dinner the couple next to us asked us if we could please speak in English. When we continued speaking in our native language, we were asked to please go back to our own country. I bet that couple supports this bill, and I know they don't

WTF?You were at a restaurant and some random strangers told you to speak English?

When you ease drop on people, don't you want to understand what they are saying?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

:

So the people of Arizona finally said "enough" and created a set of state laws very similar - in fact, almost exactly parallel - to the Federal immigration laws, and intend to protect their citizens by actually enforcing them.

What a novel concept. That's not so difficult for people to understand, is it? Even someone like you.

lol

That must be a "talking point" as a republican state senator in Maryland wants to introduce the same bill in Maryland used the same phrasing yesterday.

 

[Thorn]

Last time my mom and I had dinner the couple next to us asked us if we could please speak in English. When we continued speaking in our native language, we were asked to please go back to our own country. I bet that couple supports this bill, and I know they don't

WTF?You were at a restaurant and some random strangers told you to speak English?

When you ease drop on people, don't you want to understand what they are saying?

When I do what now?

 

[timschochet]

Found this little gem in the Constitution:

Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This certainly seems applicable in regard to the Federal government failing to obey its Constitutional obligation to protect the citizens of Arizona against domestic violence.

What does this law have to do with domestic violence? For that matter, what do illegal immigrants and violence have to do with each other? Based on every statistical study, they are less likely to commit violent crimes than legal citizens of the United States. Therefore, if you wanted to reduce violent crime, it seems to me you would want more illegal immigrants...and less of us.

 

[jon_mx]

Last time my mom and I had dinner the couple next to us asked us if we could please speak in English. When we continued speaking in our native language, we were asked to please go back to our own country. I bet that couple supports this bill, and I know they don't

WTF?You were at a restaurant and some random strangers told you to speak English?

When you ease drop on people, don't you want to understand what they are saying?

When I do what now?

Yutes? what is a yute? ....sorry, eavesdrop

 

[Bronco Billy]

The Constitution grants the federal government exclusive power to regulate our borders and, with very few exceptions, states are not free to create their own laws regulating immigration. Page 3. I've heard this in the past with other local laws, but am not certain if this has been used strike any of them down.

Thanks.I've checked the Constitution and don't see any language about the Federal government being granted exclusive power to regulate the borders. Perhaps you or someone else here could help me out on that.

Here's a link to the Constitution with Amendments attached:

link

There's also this:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the exclusive right to regulate the borders of the country, and it also does not specifically prohibit States from regulating the borders, the power of regulation is then left to each State.

 

[timschochet]

From Michael Bloomberg:

A new Arizona law requiring local police officers to stop anyone they might reasonably suspect of being here illegally may produce unintended consequences that could hurt not only Arizona, but all of America.

The law is so vaguely written that it may force officers to stop people who look or dress differently - or who speak a foreign language, or English with an accent.

Already, stories are appearing about foreign travelers crossing Arizona off their vacation lists. Who wants to visit the Grand Canyon if you could end up getting hassled by the police - or arrested - if you leave your passport at the hotel? Foreign business leaders may also think twice about visiting or investing in Arizona.

While Arizona may suffer, as long as those visitors and investors still come to America, the country will be fine. In fact, we hope more of them come to New York, where we would welcome them with open arms.

But if some of them stop visiting and investing in America, and if other states follow Arizona's lead - as some are now discussing - the economic consequences will be felt in middle-class communities across the country.

American citizens would lose jobs as businesses downsize, and governments with lower tax revenues would lay off teachers, firefighters and police officers. As a result, our country would have a harder time climbing out of the national recession.

Requiring local police to stop anyone they suspect of being here illegally may also hurt public health and safety. In New York City, we protect the confidentiality of all residents when they interact with government, because whenever someone is afraid to report a crime, for any reason, it makes all of us less safe. Whenever someone is afraid to go to the hospital to get treated for sickness or disease, it puts all of us at risk. Whenever someone is afraid to report exploitation in the workforce, it hurts all of us.

Since our earliest Colonial days, people have come here from around the world - with few restrictions - to better their lives. Today, we continue to rely on people from every continent to lay the foundation for our future economic growth, both through their innovative new ideas and their manual labor. But the simple fact is that our policies are too restrictive given American companies' demand for workers and American consumers' demand for products and services.

Basic free market economics tells us we need more legal immigrants - immigrants who will start new businesses and help build the foundation for future economic growth. Laws that have the potential to hassle them could prove devastating to our economy.

From a practical point of view, police officers have no rational way of knowing in advance who is a citizen, or a tourist, or a business traveler, or a legal permanent resident, or a foreign student, or a temporary worker - and who is not. And this could lead immigrants who own businesses to pack up and leave and take their companies' jobs with them.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon understands the harmful impact that this law could have on his city, and he is weighing a legal challenge. Certainly, a very strong case could be made that the law is unconstitutional. But Gordon also understands that the real solution lies in Washington.

We need Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform - and fast. In the weeks and months ahead, I will do everything possible to join with Gordon and others to advance reform that strengthens our economy, secures our borders and honors our history.



What's at stake here is nothing less than America's international reputation as the most open and attractive marketplace in the world, and our standing as the world's strongest economic superpower. Immigrants have always been at the heart of American culture and capitalism, and casting suspicious eyes on legal immigrants will only harm both.

 

[jon_mx]

From Michael Bloomberg:A new Arizona law requiring local police officers to stop anyone they might reasonably suspect of being here illegally may produce unintended consequences that could hurt not only Arizona, but all of America.The law is so vaguely written that it may force officers to stop people who look or dress differently - or who speak a foreign language, or English with an accent.

Seems like the article is a hyperbole. The law is so vaguely written, let's take the most absurd interpretation so we can rip it apart.

 

[Thorn]

You're welcome. I should add that if my mom was unable to come/stay here documented, there isn't a single shred of doubt in my mind that she would have come/stayed undocumented. Why wouldn't she? More importantly, would you really want someone like that to stay away?

The problem isn't immigrants like your mom.

I'm glad you posted this. I typically enjoy your fishing, but this works on another level. This exemplifies, in a nutshell, why the law is problematic. Shirtless's mom is not the problem. Yet, under this law, if she were to wait outside a Home Depot or 7-11 for a cab, or do any number of things you and I take for granted, she would be subject to being detained and investigated, and if she didn't have her papers, to being arrested. The law is overinclusive with respect to the problem it purports to solve.PS your sheriff's quote is that he arrests very few "non-hispanics", not "non-illegals", so I'm not sure how that helps your point.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Found this little gem in the Constitution:

Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This certainly seems applicable in regard to the Federal government failing to obey its Constitutional obligation to protect the citizens of Arizona against domestic violence.

What does this law have to do with domestic violence? For that matter, what do illegal immigrants and violence have to do with each other? Based on every statistical study, they are less likely to commit violent crimes than legal citizens of the United States. Therefore, if you wanted to reduce violent crime, it seems to me you would want more illegal immigrants...and less of us.

Timmy, you do understand that when the Constitution addresses domestic violence, it isn't speaking to a husband hitting his wife, right? So unless your position is that illegals do not commit violent acts against citizens in AZ - something I'd think you'd be hard pressed to do even in the universe you live in - Article IV, Section 4 applies.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Last time my mom and I had dinner the couple next to us asked us if we could please speak in English. When we continued speaking in our native language, we were asked to please go back to our own country. I bet that couple supports this bill, and I know they don't

WTF?You were at a restaurant and some random strangers told you to speak English?

When you ease drop on people, don't you want to understand what they are saying?

When I do what now?

Pretty sure that was a joke.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Shirtless mom is not the problem.

Pretty sure there's a joke in here somewhere.

 

[nelsondogg]

Found this little gem in the Constitution:

Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This certainly seems applicable in regard to the Federal government failing to obey its Constitutional obligation to protect the citizens of Arizona against domestic violence.

What does this law have to do with domestic violence? For that matter, what do illegal immigrants and violence have to do with each other? Based on every statistical study, they are less likely to commit violent crimes than legal citizens of the United States. Therefore, if you wanted to reduce violent crime, it seems to me you would want more illegal immigrants...and less of us.

But they kill ranchers... And rape their wives and then sell their kids drugs. Won't you please think of the ranchers!

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

From Michael Bloomberg:A new Arizona law requiring local police officers to stop anyone they might reasonably suspect of being here illegally may produce unintended consequences that could hurt not only Arizona, but all of America.The law is so vaguely written that it may force officers to stop people who look or dress differently - or who speak a foreign language, or English with an accent.

Seems like the article is a hyperbole. The law is so vaguely written, let's take the most absurd interpretation so we can rip it apart.

Vague laws are easier to interpret absurdly.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The Constitution grants the federal government exclusive power to regulate our borders and, with very few exceptions, states are not free to create their own laws regulating immigration. Page 3. I've heard this in the past with other local laws, but am not certain if this has been used strike any of them down.

Thanks.I've checked the Constitution and don't see any language about the Federal government being granted exclusive power to regulate the borders. Perhaps you or someone else here could help me out on that.

Here's a link to the Constitution with Amendments attached:

link

There's also this:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the exclusive right to regulate the borders of the country, and it also does not specifically prohibit States from regulating the borders, the power of regulation is then left to each State.

I just quoted the ACLU and stated I had heard the argument before, I'll leave it to others to argue the merits of the argument.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The Constitution grants the federal government exclusive power to regulate our borders and, with very few exceptions, states are not free to create their own laws regulating immigration. Page 3. I've heard this in the past with other local laws, but am not certain if this has been used strike any of them down.

Thanks.I've checked the Constitution and don't see any language about the Federal government being granted exclusive power to regulate the borders. Perhaps you or someone else here could help me out on that.

Here's a link to the Constitution with Amendments attached:

link

There's also this:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the exclusive right to regulate the borders of the country, and it also does not specifically prohibit States from regulating the borders, the power of regulation is then left to each State.

I really really don't want to get into this little subset of the argument, but the federal government does have control over the national borders and immigration policy. Whether you find that power in the body of the original Constitution (and the Supremacy clause and Article IV that you already mentioned would fit there) or you find it in the Amendments (the 14th being the main one) this ia national federal issue.The 10th Amendment comes into play because the states do have police powers within their borders. That is why there is state law and federal law. Each is a sovereign. That isn't the argument. In this particular policy sphere, however, the supreme sovereign is just that. Further, there is no need to couch this law as something that goes against fedearl immigration policy because in practice it really doesn't. It was already a fedearl crime to be here illegally, now it is a state crime in Arizona. It doesn't add any new requirement to carry papers because federal law already requires certain identificiation to be on you for immigration and status purposes, but there are also specific pieces of ID, like a driver's license, that counts and no further inquiry into a passport or visa is necessary. And it doesn't add any racial profiling problems because the law is only effective within the confines of the Arizona Constitution and its ancillary laws and profiling is illegal - and the body of the actual law mimics that language.

States and localities can and do have policy that enters the immigration policy sphere. But the supreme sovereign is just that.

 

[jon_mx]

From Michael Bloomberg:A new Arizona law requiring local police officers to stop anyone they might reasonably suspect of being here illegally may produce unintended consequences that could hurt not only Arizona, but all of America.The law is so vaguely written that it may force officers to stop people who look or dress differently - or who speak a foreign language, or English with an accent.

Seems like the article is a hyperbole. The law is so vaguely written, let's take the most absurd interpretation so we can rip it apart.

Vague laws are easier to interpret absurdly.

True, but I am not sure the law is that vague, I was just using their line of reasoning.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I just quoted the ACLU and stated I had heard the argument before, I'll leave it to others to argue the merits of the argument.

I wasn't aiming that at you, GB. It was in a general context of trying to see where the ACLU is supporting its position. I'm not seeing it, and I was hoping someone else could provide some enlightenment.Also curious how the ACLU has standing in this case. The determination of standing seems to be an awfully arbitray thing when suits are filed.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

From Michael Bloomberg:

A new Arizona law requiring local police officers to stop anyone they might reasonably suspect of being here illegally may produce unintended consequences that could hurt not only Arizona, but all of America.

The law is so vaguely written that it may force officers to stop people who look or dress differently - or who speak a foreign language, or English with an accent.

Already, stories are appearing about foreign travelers crossing Arizona off their vacation lists. Who wants to visit the Grand Canyon if you could end up getting hassled by the police - or arrested - if you leave your passport at the hotel? Foreign business leaders may also think twice about visiting or investing in Arizona.

While Arizona may suffer, as long as those visitors and investors still come to America, the country will be fine. In fact, we hope more of them come to New York, where we would welcome them with open arms.

But if some of them stop visiting and investing in America, and if other states follow Arizona's lead - as some are now discussing - the economic consequences will be felt in middle-class communities across the country.

American citizens would lose jobs as businesses downsize, and governments with lower tax revenues would lay off teachers, firefighters and police officers. As a result, our country would have a harder time climbing out of the national recession.

Requiring local police to stop anyone they suspect of being here illegally may also hurt public health and safety. In New York City, we protect the confidentiality of all residents when they interact with government, because whenever someone is afraid to report a crime, for any reason, it makes all of us less safe. Whenever someone is afraid to go to the hospital to get treated for sickness or disease, it puts all of us at risk. Whenever someone is afraid to report exploitation in the workforce, it hurts all of us.

Since our earliest Colonial days, people have come here from around the world - with few restrictions - to better their lives. Today, we continue to rely on people from every continent to lay the foundation for our future economic growth, both through their innovative new ideas and their manual labor. But the simple fact is that our policies are too restrictive given American companies' demand for workers and American consumers' demand for products and services.

Basic free market economics tells us we need more legal immigrants - immigrants who will start new businesses and help build the foundation for future economic growth. Laws that have the potential to hassle them could prove devastating to our economy.

From a practical point of view, police officers have no rational way of knowing in advance who is a citizen, or a tourist, or a business traveler, or a legal permanent resident, or a foreign student, or a temporary worker - and who is not. And this could lead immigrants who own businesses to pack up and leave and take their companies' jobs with them.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon understands the harmful impact that this law could have on his city, and he is weighing a legal challenge. Certainly, a very strong case could be made that the law is unconstitutional. But Gordon also understands that the real solution lies in Washington.

We need Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform - and fast. In the weeks and months ahead, I will do everything possible to join with Gordon and others to advance reform that strengthens our economy, secures our borders and honors our history.



What's at stake here is nothing less than America's international reputation as the most open and attractive marketplace in the world, and our standing as the world's strongest economic superpower. Immigrants have always been at the heart of American culture and capitalism, and casting suspicious eyes on legal immigrants will only harm both.

Rhetorical nonsense lacking fact and reality. You know, the people attacking this thing without actually working within the language and actual law are really coming off as less then moronic here. There is ample legal and legitimate reasons to question this law without need to devolve into this type of puffery for political talking points.

 

[timschochet]

Found this little gem in the Constitution:

Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This certainly seems applicable in regard to the Federal government failing to obey its Constitutional obligation to protect the citizens of Arizona against domestic violence.

What does this law have to do with domestic violence? For that matter, what do illegal immigrants and violence have to do with each other? Based on every statistical study, they are less likely to commit violent crimes than legal citizens of the United States. Therefore, if you wanted to reduce violent crime, it seems to me you would want more illegal immigrants...and less of us.

Timmy, you do understand that when the Constitution addresses domestic violence, it isn't speaking to a husband hitting his wife, right? So unless your position is that illegals do not commit violent acts against citizens in AZ - something I'd think you'd be hard pressed to do even in the universe you live in - Article IV, Section 4 applies.

What I am saying is that the numbers suggest that if citizens of Arizona are concerned about violence of ANY kind, they ought not to focus on illegal immigrants, who tend to be less violent than legal citizens. There have been dozens of national studies examining immigration and crime, and they all come to the same conclusion: immigrants are more law-abiding than citizens. A 2007 study by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) found that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are substantially less likely to commit crimes or to be incarcerated than U.S. citizens.

Ruben G. Rumbaut, coauthor of "The Myth of Immigrant Criminality" study, said: "The misperception that immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are responsible for higher crime rates is deeply rooted in American public opinion and is sustained by media anecdotes and popular myth." According to Rumbaut, a sociology professor at the University of California at Irvine, "This perception is not supported empirically. In fact, it is refuted by the preponderance of scientific evidence."

The Immigration Policy Center study found that:

At the same time that immigration—especially undocumented immigration—has reached or surpassed historic highs, crime rates have declined, notably in cities with large numbers of undocumented immigrants, including border cities like El Paso and San Diego.

Incarceration rate for native-born men in the 18-39 age group was five times higher than for foreign-born men in the same age group.

Data from the census and other sources show that for every ethnic group, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are least educated and least acculturated.

As the study noted, the fact that many immigrants enter the country illegally is framed by anti-immigration forces as an assault on the "rule of law," thereby reinforcing the false impression that immigration and criminality are linked.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You're welcome. I should add that if my mom was unable to come/stay here documented, there isn't a single shred of doubt in my mind that she would have come/stayed undocumented. Why wouldn't she? More importantly, would you really want someone like that to stay away?

The problem isn't immigrants like your mom.

I'm glad you posted this. I typically enjoy your fishing, but this works on another level. This exemplifies, in a nutshell, why the law is problematic. Shirtless's mom is not the problem. Yet, under this law, if she were to wait outside a Home Depot or 7-11 for a cab, or do any number of things you and I take for granted, she would be subject to being detained and investigated, and if she didn't have her papers, to being arrested. The law is overinclusive with respect to the problem it purports to solve.

I can't find this in the law at all. Can you?

 

[littletank]

I've never been to Mexico, but what would happen if I just walked into Mexico or Canada without any passport or documents?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

From Michael Bloomberg:

We need Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform - and fast. In the weeks and months ahead, I will do everything possible to join with Gordon and others to advance reform that strengthens our economy, secures our borders and honors our history.



What's at stake here is nothing less than America's international reputation as the most open and attractive marketplace in the world, and our standing as the world's strongest economic superpower. Immigrants have always been at the heart of American culture and capitalism, and casting suspicious eyes on legal immigrants will only harm both.

Rhetorical nonsense lacking fact and reality. You know, the people attacking this thing without actually working within the language and actual law are really coming off as less then moronic here. There is ample legal and legitimate reasons to question this law without need to devolve into this type of puffery for political talking points.

I've always been of the opinion that immigrants wanting to come live here, even illegally, is a sign of how great this country is. Some people take offense to the notion that people are breaking the law (and become criminals in their eyes), but I take it as a compliment that they are willing to break the law to make a life here. The day immigrants stop choosing America as their destination is the day I don't want to live in America anymore.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Found this little gem in the Constitution:

Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This certainly seems applicable in regard to the Federal government failing to obey its Constitutional obligation to protect the citizens of Arizona against domestic violence.

What does this law have to do with domestic violence? For that matter, what do illegal immigrants and violence have to do with each other? Based on every statistical study, they are less likely to commit violent crimes than legal citizens of the United States. Therefore, if you wanted to reduce violent crime, it seems to me you would want more illegal immigrants...and less of us.

Timmy, you do understand that when the Constitution addresses domestic violence, it isn't speaking to a husband hitting his wife, right? So unless your position is that illegals do not commit violent acts against citizens in AZ - something I'd think you'd be hard pressed to do even in the universe you live in - Article IV, Section 4 applies.

It applies in the sense that the federal government can use military force in the area to protect the citizens, even in the face of the Posse Comitatis Act and other similar limitations on federal military action within our borders.

 

[littletank]

Found this little gem in the Constitution:

Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This certainly seems applicable in regard to the Federal government failing to obey its Constitutional obligation to protect the citizens of Arizona against domestic violence.

What does this law have to do with domestic violence? For that matter, what do illegal immigrants and violence have to do with each other? Based on every statistical study, they are less likely to commit violent crimes than legal citizens of the United States. Therefore, if you wanted to reduce violent crime, it seems to me you would want more illegal immigrants...and less of us.

Timmy, you do understand that when the Constitution addresses domestic violence, it isn't speaking to a husband hitting his wife, right? So unless your position is that illegals do not commit violent acts against citizens in AZ - something I'd think you'd be hard pressed to do even in the universe you live in - Article IV, Section 4 applies.

What I am saying is that the numbers suggest that if citizens of Arizona are concerned about violence of ANY kind, they ought not to focus on illegal immigrants, who tend to be less violent than legal citizens. There have been dozens of national studies examining immigration and crime, and they all come to the same conclusion: immigrants are more law-abiding than citizens. A 2007 study by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) found that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are substantially less likely to commit crimes or to be incarcerated than U.S. citizens.

Ruben G. Rumbaut, coauthor of "The Myth of Immigrant Criminality" study, said: "The misperception that immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are responsible for higher crime rates is deeply rooted in American public opinion and is sustained by media anecdotes and popular myth." According to Rumbaut, a sociology professor at the University of California at Irvine, "This perception is not supported empirically. In fact, it is refuted by the preponderance of scientific evidence."

The Immigration Policy Center study found that:

At the same time that immigration—especially undocumented immigration—has reached or surpassed historic highs, crime rates have declined, notably in cities with large numbers of undocumented immigrants, including border cities like El Paso and San Diego.

Incarceration rate for native-born men in the 18-39 age group was five times higher than for foreign-born men in the same age group.

Data from the census and other sources show that for every ethnic group, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are least educated and least acculturated.

As the study noted, the fact that many immigrants enter the country illegally is framed by anti-immigration forces as an assault on the "rule of law," thereby reinforcing the false impression that immigration and criminality are linked.

Tell the people in Phoenix that their crime rate has declined.

 

[timschochet]

I've never been to Mexico, but what would happen if I just walked into Mexico or Canada without any passport or documents?

Who cares?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I've never been to Mexico, but what would happen if I just walked into Mexico or Canada without any passport or documents?

I don't particularly care.

 

[littletank]

I've never been to Mexico, but what would happen if I just walked into Mexico or Canada without any passport or documents?

Who cares?

The democrats answer to something they don't want to talk about.

 

[jon_mx]

From Michael Bloomberg:

We need Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform - and fast. In the weeks and months ahead, I will do everything possible to join with Gordon and others to advance reform that strengthens our economy, secures our borders and honors our history.



What's at stake here is nothing less than America's international reputation as the most open and attractive marketplace in the world, and our standing as the world's strongest economic superpower. Immigrants have always been at the heart of American culture and capitalism, and casting suspicious eyes on legal immigrants will only harm both.

Rhetorical nonsense lacking fact and reality. You know, the people attacking this thing without actually working within the language and actual law are really coming off as less then moronic here. There is ample legal and legitimate reasons to question this law without need to devolve into this type of puffery for political talking points.

I've always been of the opinion that immigrants wanting to come live here, even illegally, is a sign of how great this country is. Some people take offense to the notion that people are breaking the law (and become criminals in their eyes), but I take it as a compliment that they are willing to break the law to make a life here. The day immigrants stop choosing America as their destination is the day I don't want to live in America anymore.

True, but when the immigrants see the land of opportunity as an opportunity to commit crimes instead of working, it becomes a problem. I have no problem with people coming here wanting to work hard and live a dream. But right now, too many are involved in violent criminal behavior.

 

[Shirtless]

Last time my mom and I had dinner the couple next to us asked us if we could please speak in English. When we continued speaking in our native language, we were asked to please go back to our own country. I bet that couple supports this bill, and I know they don't

WTF?You were at a restaurant and some random strangers told you to speak English?

Yes. At least that couple had the decency to confront me about it. I have a lot more respect for them than the people who secretly feel that way but hide behind a guise of protesting undocumented immigrants.Like I've been saying all along, this has very little to do with the legality of undocumented immigrants, or the economics of restrictive immigration laws, or the practicality of removing undocumented immigrants.A lot of people would just rather have fewer immigrants in this country.

 

[littletank]

Hey, I'm all for the illegals being here. I love cheap slave labor. My yard looks beautiful.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I've never been to Mexico, but what would happen if I just walked into Mexico or Canada without any passport or documents?

Who cares?

The democrats answer to something they don't want to talk about.

What would happen if you got caught drinking in Iran?

 

[Shirtless]

From Michael Bloomberg:

We need Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform - and fast. In the weeks and months ahead, I will do everything possible to join with Gordon and others to advance reform that strengthens our economy, secures our borders and honors our history.



What's at stake here is nothing less than America's international reputation as the most open and attractive marketplace in the world, and our standing as the world's strongest economic superpower. Immigrants have always been at the heart of American culture and capitalism, and casting suspicious eyes on legal immigrants will only harm both.

Rhetorical nonsense lacking fact and reality. You know, the people attacking this thing without actually working within the language and actual law are really coming off as less then moronic here. There is ample legal and legitimate reasons to question this law without need to devolve into this type of puffery for political talking points.

I've always been of the opinion that immigrants wanting to come live here, even illegally, is a sign of how great this country is. Some people take offense to the notion that people are breaking the law (and become criminals in their eyes), but I take it as a compliment that they are willing to break the law to make a life here. The day immigrants stop choosing America as their destination is the day I don't want to live in America anymore.

This country could use more people who think like this.

 

[timschochet]

I've never been to Mexico, but what would happen if I just walked into Mexico or Canada without any passport or documents?

Who cares?

The democrats answer to something they don't want to talk about.

I wouldn't know.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

From Michael Bloomberg:

We need Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform - and fast. In the weeks and months ahead, I will do everything possible to join with Gordon and others to advance reform that strengthens our economy, secures our borders and honors our history.



What's at stake here is nothing less than America's international reputation as the most open and attractive marketplace in the world, and our standing as the world's strongest economic superpower. Immigrants have always been at the heart of American culture and capitalism, and casting suspicious eyes on legal immigrants will only harm both.

Rhetorical nonsense lacking fact and reality. You know, the people attacking this thing without actually working within the language and actual law are really coming off as less then moronic here. There is ample legal and legitimate reasons to question this law without need to devolve into this type of puffery for political talking points.

I've always been of the opinion that immigrants wanting to come live here, even illegally, is a sign of how great this country is. Some people take offense to the notion that people are breaking the law (and become criminals in their eyes), but I take it as a compliment that they are willing to break the law to make a life here. The day immigrants stop choosing America as their destination is the day I don't want to live in America anymore.

I agree with the concept although the practicality is wanting. I'm closer to an open borders guy then the other way, but in our current legal structure there needs to be legal entry and passage. The current system is untenable for a variety of reasons, and it simply doesn't need to be. This law and others like it that will follow are direct responses to the states having to deal with this issue with little assistance from the federal government going all the way back to Reagan. We need order and a moment of pause. If after that we make far far simpler and easier to enter this country, fine by me. I agree with you that a sure sign that we are doing something right is the ever growing influx of people into our country.

 

[Sammy3469]

From Michael Bloomberg:

We need Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform - and fast. In the weeks and months ahead, I will do everything possible to join with Gordon and others to advance reform that strengthens our economy, secures our borders and honors our history.



What's at stake here is nothing less than America's international reputation as the most open and attractive marketplace in the world, and our standing as the world's strongest economic superpower. Immigrants have always been at the heart of American culture and capitalism, and casting suspicious eyes on legal immigrants will only harm both.

Rhetorical nonsense lacking fact and reality. You know, the people attacking this thing without actually working within the language and actual law are really coming off as less then moronic here. There is ample legal and legitimate reasons to question this law without need to devolve into this type of puffery for political talking points.

I've always been of the opinion that immigrants wanting to come live here, even illegally, is a sign of how great this country is. Some people take offense to the notion that people are breaking the law (and become criminals in their eyes), but I take it as a compliment that they are willing to break the law to make a life here. The day immigrants stop choosing America as their destination is the day I don't want to live in America anymore.

True, but when the immigrants see the land of opportunity as an opportunity to commit crimes instead of working, it becomes a problem. I have no problem with people coming here wanting to work hard and live a dream. But right now, too many are involved in violent criminal behavior.

What percentage of illegal immigrants are involved with criminal behavior?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Hey, I'm all for the illegals being here. I love cheap slave labor. My yard looks beautiful.

I just wish they would speak english when they break for lunch.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I've never been to Mexico, but what would happen if I just walked into Mexico or Canada without any passport or documents?

Who cares?

The democrats answer to something they don't want to talk about.

What would happen if you got caught drinking in Iran?

What would happen if you owned a gun in England?

 

[littletank]

I've never been to Mexico, but what would happen if I just walked into Mexico or Canada without any passport or documents?

Who cares?

The democrats answer to something they don't want to talk about.

What would happen if you got caught drinking in Iran?

Can I be in Iran legally?

 

[littletank]

Hey, I'm all for the illegals being here. I love cheap slave labor. My yard looks beautiful.

I just wish they would speak english when they break for lunch.

Lunch, who gives them lunch breaks?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I've never been to Mexico, but what would happen if I just walked into Mexico or Canada without any passport or documents?

Who cares?

The democrats answer to something they don't want to talk about.

What would happen if you got caught drinking in Iran?

Can I be in Iran legally?

Who cares?

 

[Jackstraw]

From Michael Bloomberg:A new Arizona law requiring local police officers to stop anyone they might reasonably suspect of being here illegally may produce unintended consequences that could hurt not only Arizona, but all of America.The law is so vaguely written that it may force officers to stop people who look or dress differently - or who speak a foreign language, or English with an accent.

Seems like the article is a hyperbole. The law is so vaguely written, let's take the most absurd interpretation so we can rip it apart.

Vague laws are easier to interpret absurdly.

This state has Sheriff Joe in it right? I assure you he will use that law and bend it to the fullest extent he can and then some.

 

[urbanhack]

I've never been to Mexico, but what would happen if I just walked into Mexico or Canada without any passport or documents?

Who cares?

The democrats answer to something they don't want to talk about.

What would happen if you got caught drinking in Iran?

Can I be in Iran legally?

Do you have a passport?

 

[littletank]

Can I be in Iran legally?

Do you have a passport?

Who cares?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Can I be in Iran legally?

Do you have a passport?

Who cares?

The republicans answer to something they don't want to talk about.