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)

This is the section the whole thing turns on, in my mind:

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
What does "for any lawful contact" mean? Initiated by whom? Under what circumstances?

 
I want to mention something here which I suspect some of my opponents in this thread may agree with me on. The President of Mexico, Mr. Calderon, has come out against this new law, condemning it as racist. It is extremely hypocritical for the president of Mexico to condemn any action taken by the United States with regard to illegal immigrants. The government of Mexico is extremely corrupt, and they have done nothing over the years to alleviate the economic problems there that cause so many of its citizens to want to come here. Furthermore, we don't come close to treating our immigrants, legal or illegal, to the way Mexico treats its immigrants, and we never will (hopefully.) Though I am very much against this new law, I have only one response to President Calderon:Shut up.
Additionally, El Presidente may want to look up the word "racism"....there is no way you can read this law and determine it racist in a vacuum.
 
Yeah, yeah. I know the our resident lefty wingnuts are going to immediately jump on this guy's credentials. But if you take off the blinders for a minute he makes some solid arguments.
If a guy makes solid arguments, then his credentials are meaningless, IMO. Good arguments are good, no matter who makes them. Unfortunately, IMO, this guy just repeats the same flawed arguments I keep reading over and over. Just like every other defender of this law, he argues that the state is simply attempting to enforce what is already federal law. But this is specious . . .
I stopped reading here.
Well good for you. Nice to know you're willing to listen to arguments that oppose your POV.
Should I also keep reading if you claim Paris is the capital of Australia?
 
I don't see the authority of the government to detain a citizen until they can prove they are not an alien in that federal statute. Nor do I see that this requires law enforcement officers to request this information any time during "'lawful contact' that the officer develops 'reasonable suspicion'".
I've asked this before too... the power to detain requires "probable cause", and, in this law, only those under arrest must be checked with ICE/INS. Those who aren't under arrest may be briefly stopped to answer questions, but, I don't read anywhere that they can be detained "until" they provide ID. It's one of the gray areas in this law... say a cop smells pot on a suspect and has probable cause for a search... then decides to run the person's name through ICE based on a reasonable suspicion. Before the reply comes back, though, the drug dog sniffs nothing and the search ends without any drugs. Not clear whether or not the suspect is free to go or must wait for the ICE reply.
 
Just like every other defender of this law, he argues that the state is simply attempting to enforce what is already federal law. But this is specious, because we all know the federal govt. does not attempt to enforce this law outside of the border. If they did, that would be unconstitutional.
Really? You're actually arguing that a federal law is perfectly constitutional, but it would be unconstitutional to enforce it?
 
I don't see the authority of the government to detain a citizen until they can prove they are not an alien in that federal statute. Nor do I see that this requires law enforcement officers to request this information any time during "'lawful contact' that the officer develops 'reasonable suspicion'".
I've asked this before too... the power to detain requires "probable cause", and, in this law, only those under arrest must be checked with ICE/INS. Those who aren't under arrest may be briefly stopped to answer questions, but, I don't read anywhere that they can be detained "until" they provide ID. It's one of the gray areas in this law... say a cop smells pot on a suspect and has probable cause for a search... then decides to run the person's name through ICE based on a reasonable suspicion. Before the reply comes back, though, the drug dog sniffs nothing and the search ends without any drugs. Not clear whether or not the suspect is free to go or must wait for the ICE reply.
For Arizona's law I keep going back and forth between it being just grandstanding as the law itself does absolutely nothing and it being a great infringement on the rights of citizens, yet alone legal aliens. I'm sure the truth is in the middle, but the debate seems to be staying at these extremes.
 
Yeah, yeah. I know the our resident lefty wingnuts are going to immediately jump on this guy's credentials. But if you take off the blinders for a minute he makes some solid arguments.
If a guy makes solid arguments, then his credentials are meaningless, IMO. Good arguments are good, no matter who makes them. Unfortunately, IMO, this guy just repeats the same flawed arguments I keep reading over and over. Just like every other defender of this law, he argues that the state is simply attempting to enforce what is already federal law. But this is specious . . .
I stopped reading here.
You should read more.
 
we all know the federal govt. does not attempt to enforce this law outside of the border. If they did, that would be unconstitutional. We do not and never have had a society where we demand to see proof of one's citizenship not in connection with some other crime.
I guess those work place raids I've heard about over the last 5 years didn't happen.......
 
She and other defenders of the law can deny racial profiling all they want. But, IMO, there is no way that a law enforcement officer can have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's why I am pretty confident this law will get challenged in court, and thrown out.
Here's a question that I'm not sure I've seen you answer. Let's assume for the sake of argument that A) there is an illegal immigration problem that needs to be solved, and B) completely open borders isn't going to happen. How would you solve the problem?
A fine question. Personally, I would agree to a compromise along the lines that was proposed in 2007: tighten restrictions at the borders, created a guest worker program, and provide a path to citizenship for those already here.
Let's assume for the moment that many of those who want tighter controls on illegal immigration would be fine with the above. Do you believe that group has a legitimate argument that the "tighter restrictions", whatever that might mean, should be enacted first and proven to work reliably, before any other portions of the solution are put into affect?
 
we all know the federal govt. does not attempt to enforce this law outside of the border. If they did, that would be unconstitutional. We do not and never have had a society where we demand to see proof of one's citizenship not in connection with some other crime.
I guess those work place raids I've heard about over the last 5 years didn't happen.......
I bolded for you special. Slave labor (which is what most work place raids are about) is a crime.
 
Yeah, yeah. I know the our resident lefty wingnuts are going to immediately jump on this guy's credentials. But if you take off the blinders for a minute he makes some solid arguments.
If a guy makes solid arguments, then his credentials are meaningless, IMO. Good arguments are good, no matter who makes them. Unfortunately, IMO, this guy just repeats the same flawed arguments I keep reading over and over. Just like every other defender of this law, he argues that the state is simply attempting to enforce what is already federal law. But this is specious, because we all know the federal govt. does not attempt to enforce this law outside of the border. If they did, that would be unconstitutional.
You keep saying this yet I have no idea what you mean. The federal government enforcing federal law within the territory of the United States is not an unconstitutional act unless the law attempting be to be enforced has already been found unconstitutional. Many immigration regulations have been part of the federal code for 50 years. Many were changed a decade ago. Where do you get this stuff?
It's pretty simple. If the ICE started going to Home Depots around the country and arresting people lingering there based on the "reasonable susoicion" that they were illegal immigrants, that would be challenged as unconstitutional. Now, the ICE could argue that they have the right to do this based on federal law. But I believe the courts would ultimately find that either this application of the law is unconstitutional, or that the law itself is unconstituitional. Which is one reason the ICE doesn't do this. My point is that, even though you are correct that these federal laws are on the books, they have never been applied in the manner that Arizona now wants to apply them- meaning stopping people already here based on the reasonable suspicion that they are illegal immigrants.
Your point is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of what exactly law is. Both this current law and current standing law outside of this particluar bill.
 
we all know the federal govt. does not attempt to enforce this law outside of the border. If they did, that would be unconstitutional. We do not and never have had a society where we demand to see proof of one's citizenship not in connection with some other crime.
I guess those work place raids I've heard about over the last 5 years didn't happen.......
I bolded for you special. Slave labor (which is what most work place raids are about) is a crime.
I was going to say... doesn't his argument make a stronger case for enforcing penalties upon businesses? I wasn't aware you might be against that argument.
 
She and other defenders of the law can deny racial profiling all they want. But, IMO, there is no way that a law enforcement officer can have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's why I am pretty confident this law will get challenged in court, and thrown out.
Here's a question that I'm not sure I've seen you answer. Let's assume for the sake of argument that A) there is an illegal immigration problem that needs to be solved, and B) completely open borders isn't going to happen. How would you solve the problem?
A fine question. Personally, I would agree to a compromise along the lines that was proposed in 2007: tighten restrictions at the borders, created a guest worker program, and provide a path to citizenship for those already here.
Let's assume for the moment that many of those who want tighter controls on illegal immigration would be fine with the above. Do you believe that group has a legitimate argument that the "tighter restrictions", whatever that might mean, should be enacted first and proven to work reliably, before any other portions of the solution are put into affect?
It's a legitimate argument, but not one that I agree with. Most of the people who make this argument will never accept the path to citizenship, IMO. Besides, if I'm to agree to this compromise, then I need to have a means to amnesty. Otherwise, why would I agree to it? Simply tightening the borders gives me nothing that I personally want.
 
we all know the federal govt. does not attempt to enforce this law outside of the border. If they did, that would be unconstitutional. We do not and never have had a society where we demand to see proof of one's citizenship not in connection with some other crime.
I guess those work place raids I've heard about over the last 5 years didn't happen.......
I bolded for you special. Slave labor (which is what most work place raids are about) is a crime.
I was going to say... doesn't his argument make a stronger case for enforcing penalties upon businesses? I wasn't aware you might be against that argument.
I don't want to see penalties placed on any company which employs illegals. I am against such restrictions. That is a far cry from what I was referring to. Slave labor is when the illegals are working for nothing but food, and terrorized and locked up at night so that they can't leave. That sort of thing does happen, and it ought to be stopped.
 
Does the federal statute contain the exact same wording as the AZ statute?Has the federal statute ever been challenged on equal protection grounds for cases outside of a border crossing?
For about 50 years it's been illegal for immigrants to not have ID as per federal law:
I don't see the authority of the government to detain a citizen until they can prove they are not an alien in that federal statute. Nor do I see that this requires law enforcement officers to request this information any time during "'lawful contact' that the officer develops 'reasonable suspicion'".
I only posted the having to carry ID federal code. It's rather obvious that the fedearl government has enforcement and detention powers when it comes to enforcing federal crime.
 
I'm not a lawyer and I've only skimmed most of this thread, so I apologize if this is a dumb/previously answered question, but is "reasonable suspicion" one of those phrases that has a more precise legal definition than a layperson would understand? What exactly constitutes a "reasonable suspicion" from a legal perspective (either in general, or specifically in this case where it refers to a reasonable suspicion of being here illegally). Or is it as vague as it sounds to someone like me?
Yes, no and yes. There can be statutory reasons that it is hit, and there can be officer experience that it is hit.
Thanks, and now I've read the wikipedia article videoguy posted and the article Christo posted, but it still seems problematically vague. People keep saying "reasonable suspicion" has been defined by the courts, but the definition is still a bit tenuous to me. For example, Christo's article says:
A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.
I think most reaasonable people would agree with that. But where exactly is the line? That example is stacked with reasons for suspicion. What if's only two passengers, instead of a dozen "crammed in"? What if it's in a suburb and not a "known alien-smuggling corridor"? What if the driver isn't acting evasively, but just driving normally? Additionally, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I thought this law allowed for police to act on their reasonable suspicion even if another crime (such as speeding) is not taking place. Wasn't that one of the points earlier in the thread? Previously they could only attempt to confirm your legal citizen status if they had already stopped you for some other crime; now they can do it without having already suspected you of a separate crime. So, again, the example in Christo's article may be a little misleading. Sure, if you've already pulled over a van for speeding, and it's crammed with evasive and ID-less hispanics in a known alien-smuggling corridor, you can reasonably suspect that they are here illegally. But what if they aren't speeding? What if they're just driving legally on the highway? Or parked outside a Home Depot? Etc.It may sound like hyperbole but I don't think anyone has answered these types of questions, not to my satisfaction at least. Where exactly is the line that separates reasonable from unreasonable? Is six people in a van enough suspicion? Is driving on a particular highway enough suspicion? I understand that these things are left to the officers' discretion but I think it would sit a lot easier with people if they were more clearly defined. On the one hand, an officer's experience might tell him that most illegal aliens are Mexican. Does that mean "being Mexican" is one of the things an officer can use to justify his reasonable suspicion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, yeah. I know the our resident lefty wingnuts are going to immediately jump on this guy's credentials. But if you take off the blinders for a minute he makes some solid arguments.
If a guy makes solid arguments, then his credentials are meaningless, IMO. Good arguments are good, no matter who makes them. Unfortunately, IMO, this guy just repeats the same flawed arguments I keep reading over and over. Just like every other defender of this law, he argues that the state is simply attempting to enforce what is already federal law. But this is specious, because we all know the federal govt. does not attempt to enforce this law outside of the border. If they did, that would be unconstitutional.
You keep saying this yet I have no idea what you mean. The federal government enforcing federal law within the territory of the United States is not an unconstitutional act unless the law attempting be to be enforced has already been found unconstitutional. Many immigration regulations have been part of the federal code for 50 years. Many were changed a decade ago. Where do you get this stuff?
It's pretty simple. If the ICE started going to Home Depots around the country and arresting people lingering there based on the "reasonable susoicion" that they were illegal immigrants, that would be challenged as unconstitutional. Now, the ICE could argue that they have the right to do this based on federal law. But I believe the courts would ultimately find that either this application of the law is unconstitutional, or that the law itself is unconstituitional. Which is one reason the ICE doesn't do this. My point is that, even though you are correct that these federal laws are on the books, they have never been applied in the manner that Arizona now wants to apply them- meaning stopping people already here based on the reasonable suspicion that they are illegal immigrants.
Your point is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of what exactly law is. Both this current law and current standing law outside of this particluar bill.
We'll find out if you're right when this law gets challenged.
 
She and other defenders of the law can deny racial profiling all they want. But, IMO, there is no way that a law enforcement officer can have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien without violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's why I am pretty confident this law will get challenged in court, and thrown out.
Here's a question that I'm not sure I've seen you answer. Let's assume for the sake of argument that A) there is an illegal immigration problem that needs to be solved, and B) completely open borders isn't going to happen. How would you solve the problem?
A fine question. Personally, I would agree to a compromise along the lines that was proposed in 2007: tighten restrictions at the borders, created a guest worker program, and provide a path to citizenship for those already here.
Let's assume for the moment that many of those who want tighter controls on illegal immigration would be fine with the above. Do you believe that group has a legitimate argument that the "tighter restrictions", whatever that might mean, should be enacted first and proven to work reliably, before any other portions of the solution are put into affect?
It's a legitimate argument, but not one that I agree with. Most of the people who make this argument will never accept the path to citizenship, IMO. Besides, if I'm to agree to this compromise, then I need to have a means to amnesty. Otherwise, why would I agree to it? Simply tightening the borders gives me nothing that I personally want.
Look at it from the other point of view for once. Those against amnesty have been promised increased enforcement and tighter borders for the past 25+ years. It was one of the compromises to get the last amnesty through. Yet, it's never happened. So if there's to be a new compromise that trades some form of amnesty for tighter borders and stricter enforcement going forward, why wouldn't those in favor of the tighter borders and stricter enforcement portion of the compromise demand some form of proof first?Or, to put it another way, if group A knows that group B won't live up to their end of a compromise, why should group A agree to compromise in the first place?
 
Yeah, yeah. I know the our resident lefty wingnuts are going to immediately jump on this guy's credentials. But if you take off the blinders for a minute he makes some solid arguments.
If a guy makes solid arguments, then his credentials are meaningless, IMO. Good arguments are good, no matter who makes them. Unfortunately, IMO, this guy just repeats the same flawed arguments I keep reading over and over. Just like every other defender of this law, he argues that the state is simply attempting to enforce what is already federal law. But this is specious, because we all know the federal govt. does not attempt to enforce this law outside of the border. If they did, that would be unconstitutional.
You keep saying this yet I have no idea what you mean. The federal government enforcing federal law within the territory of the United States is not an unconstitutional act unless the law attempting be to be enforced has already been found unconstitutional. Many immigration regulations have been part of the federal code for 50 years. Many were changed a decade ago. Where do you get this stuff?
It's pretty simple. If the ICE started going to Home Depots around the country and arresting people lingering there based on the "reasonable susoicion" that they were illegal immigrants, that would be challenged as unconstitutional. Now, the ICE could argue that they have the right to do this based on federal law. But I believe the courts would ultimately find that either this application of the law is unconstitutional, or that the law itself is unconstituitional. Which is one reason the ICE doesn't do this. My point is that, even though you are correct that these federal laws are on the books, they have never been applied in the manner that Arizona now wants to apply them- meaning stopping people already here based on the reasonable suspicion that they are illegal immigrants.
Your point is wrong and based on a misunderstanding of what exactly law is. Both this current law and current standing law outside of this particluar bill.
I think the lawyers in the thread need to step back from the law, which appears to be written fairly vaguely for a reason, and look at how said law might be interpreted. While we can argue what LEO's may or may not do, it is fairly clear that LEO's and law enforcement agencies do not want the burden of enforcing illegal immigration law in and of itself. The law, as written, doesn't work for them pragmatically. You are arguing the issue pedantically, which is fine and useful. Just not in everyday application of the law.

And this isn't even taking into account the provision to sue local government, which is as damning as any of it. Damned if they do and damned if the don't would certainly apply here.

 
I don't see the authority of the government to detain a citizen until they can prove they are not an alien in that federal statute. Nor do I see that this requires law enforcement officers to request this information any time during "'lawful contact' that the officer develops 'reasonable suspicion'".
I've asked this before too... the power to detain requires "probable cause", and, in this law, only those under arrest must be checked with ICE/INS. Those who aren't under arrest may be briefly stopped to answer questions, but, I don't read anywhere that they can be detained "until" they provide ID. It's one of the gray areas in this law... say a cop smells pot on a suspect and has probable cause for a search... then decides to run the person's name through ICE based on a reasonable suspicion. Before the reply comes back, though, the drug dog sniffs nothing and the search ends without any drugs. Not clear whether or not the suspect is free to go or must wait for the ICE reply.
For Arizona's law I keep going back and forth between it being just grandstanding as the law itself does absolutely nothing and it being a great infringement on the rights of citizens, yet alone legal aliens. I'm sure the truth is in the middle, but the debate seems to be staying at these extremes.
I think they tried to write a law that is effective and careful at the same time and I don't know if they succeeded. Taking the above example, I think the way the law will work is tied to the new tresspass language in it. Once someone is under arrest, the questioning is fine. I don't think anyone argues that. The "problem" comes in before the arrest, at the point where the cop initiates the contact.If a business owner complains about mexicans loitering on his property that gives rise to tresspassing violations and everything is kosher. If the cop stops someone from committing a crime, everything is kosher. If the cop sees one person standing on a street corenr doing nothing overtly wrong in any sense, the law doesn't give the cop the authority to demand identification any more then any other Arizona or federal law.

It's clear part of the effort here is make the federal government do its job. It's also clear that this law is going to create problems, but many of them are simply due to the overreacting leftist reaction to anything they think is racist.

 
I'm not a lawyer and I've only skimmed most of this thread, so I apologize if this is a dumb/previously answered question, but is "reasonable suspicion" one of those phrases that has a more precise legal definition than a layperson would understand? What exactly constitutes a "reasonable suspicion" from a legal perspective (either in general, or specifically in this case where it refers to a reasonable suspicion of being here illegally). Or is it as vague as it sounds to someone like me?
Yes, no and yes. There can be statutory reasons that it is hit, and there can be officer experience that it is hit.
Thanks, and now I've read the wikipedia article videoguy posted and the article Christo posted, but it still seems problematically vague. People keep saying "reasonable suspicion" has been defined by the courts, but the definition is still a bit tenuous to me. For example, Christo's article says:
A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.
I think most reaasonable people would agree with that. But where exactly is the line? That example is stacked with reasons for suspicion. What if's only two passengers, instead of a dozen "crammed in"? What if it's in a suburb and not a "known alien-smuggling corridor"? What if the driver isn't acting evasively, but just driving normally? Additionally, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I thought this law allowed for police to act on their reasonable suspicion even if another crime (such as speeding) is not taking place. Wasn't that one of the points earlier in the thread? Previously they could only attempt to confirm your legal citizen status if they had already stopped you for some other crime; now they can do it without having already suspected you of a separate crime. So, again, the example in Christo's article may be a little misleading. Sure, if you've already pulled over a van for speeding, and it's crammed with evasive and ID-less hispanics in a known alien-smuggling corridor, you can reasonably suspect that they are here illegally. But what if they aren't speeding? What if they're just driving legally on the highway? Or parked outside a Home Depot? Etc.It may sound like hyperbole but I don't think anyone has answered these types of questions, not to my satisfaction at least. Where exactly is the line that separates reasonable from unreasonable? Is six people in a van enough suspicion? Is driving on a particular highway enough suspicion? I understand that these things are left to the officers' discretion but I think it would sit a lot easier with people if they were more clearly defined. On the one hand, an officer's experience might tell him that most illegal aliens are Mexican. Does that mean "being Mexican" is one of the things an officer can use to justify his reasonable suspicion?
Valid questions. I don't know if there are specific answers to each of them as reasonable suspicion law is not a clear cut open and obvious thing in most cases. That's why evidence rules and other policies are so thoroughly written, litigated and rewritten.
 
we all know the federal govt. does not attempt to enforce this law outside of the border. If they did, that would be unconstitutional. We do not and never have had a society where we demand to see proof of one's citizenship not in connection with some other crime.
I guess those work place raids I've heard about over the last 5 years didn't happen.......
I bolded for you special. Slave labor (which is what most work place raids are about) is a crime.
Nearly 600 detained in Mississippi immigration raid

Updated 8/26/2008 7:41 PM

LAUREL, Miss. (AP) — The largest single-workplace immigration raid in U.S. history has caused panic among Hispanic families in this small southern Mississippi town, where federal agents rounded up nearly 600 plant workers suspected of being in the country illegally.

One worker caught in Monday's sweep at the Howard Industries transformer plant said fellow workers applauded as immigrants were taken into custody. Federal officials said a tip from a union member prompted them to start investigating several years ago.

Fabiola Pena, 21, cradled her 2-year-old daughter as she described a chaotic scene at the plant as the raid began, followed by clapping.

"I was crying the whole time. I didn't know what to do," Pena said. "We didn't know what was happening because everyone started running. Some people thought it was a bomb but then we figured out it was immigration."

About 100 of the 595 detained workers were released for humanitarian reasons, many of them mothers who were fitted with electronic monitoring bracelets and allowed to go home to their children, officials said.

About 475 other workers were transferred to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Jena, La. Nine who were under 18 were transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

John Foxworth, an attorney representing some of the immigrants, said eight appeared in federal court in Hattiesburg on Tuesday because they face criminal charges for allegedly using false Social Security and residency identification.

He said the raid was traumatic for families.

"There was no communication, an immediate loss of any kind of news and a lack of understanding of what's happening to their loved ones," he said. "A complete and utter feeling of helplessness."

The superintendent of the county school district said about half of approximately 160 Hispanic students were absent Tuesday.

Roberto Velez, pastor at Iglesia Cristiana Peniel, where an estimated 30 to 40% of the 200 parishioners were caught up in the raid, said parents were afraid immigration officials would take them.

"They didn't send their kids to school today," he said. "How scared is that?"

Those detained were from Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Peru, said Barbara Gonzalez, an ICE spokeswoman.

Elizabeth Alegria, 26, a Mexican immigrant, was working at the plant Monday when ICE agents stormed in. When they found out she has two sons, ages 4 and 9, she was fitted with a bracelet and told to appear in federal court next month. Her husband, Andres, was not so lucky.

"I'm very traumatized because I don't know if they are going to let my husband go and when I will see him," Elizabeth Alegria said through a translator Tuesday as she returned to the Howard Industries parking lot to retrieve her sport-utility vehicle.

"We have kids without dads and pregnant mothers who got their husbands taken away," said Velez's son, Robert, youth pastor at the church. "It was like a horror story. They got handled like they were criminals."

Howard Industries is in Mississippi's Pine Belt region, known for commercial timber growth and chicken processing plants. The tech company produces dozens of products ranging from electrical transformers to medical supplies, according to its website.

Gonzalez said agents had executed search warrants at both the plant and the company headquarters in nearby Ellisville. She said no company executives had been detained, but this is an "ongoing investigation and yesterday's action was just the first part."

A woman at the Ellisville headquarters told The Associated Press on Tuesday that no one was available to answer questions.

In a statement to the Laurel Leader-Call newspaper, Howard Industries said the company "runs every check allowed to ascertain the immigration status of all applicants for its jobs."

"It is company policy that it hires only U.S. citizens and legal immigrants," the statement said.

Gov. Haley Barbour recently signed a law requiring Mississippi employers to use a U.S. Homeland Security system to check new workers' immigration status.

The law took effect July 1 for businesses with state contracts and takes effect Jan. 1 for other businesses. Mississippi lawmakers once used laptops made by Howard Industries, but it's not clear whether the company has current state contracts.

Under the law, a company found guilty of employing illegal immigrants could lose public contracts for three years and the right to do business in Mississippi for one year.

The law also makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to accept a job in Mississippi. A message was left with the district attorney's office after hours seeking comment on whether he would use the law to bring state charges against Howard Industries or the workers.

The Mississippi raid is one of several nationwide in recent years.

On May 12, federal immigration officials swept into Agriprocessors, the nation's largest kosher meatpacking plant, in Iowa. Nearly 400 workers were detained and dozens of fraudulent permanent resident alien cards were seized from the plant's human resources department, according to court records. In December 2006, 1,297 were arrested at Swift meatpacking plants in Nebraska and five other states.
So this was a slave labor raid? :goodposting:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nearly 600 detained in Mississippi immigration raidUpdated 8/26/2008 7:41 PM LAUREL, Miss. (AP) — The largest single-workplace immigration raid in U.S. history has caused panic among Hispanic families in this small southern Mississippi town, where federal agents rounded up nearly 600 plant workers suspected of being in the country illegally.One worker caught in Monday's sweep at the Howard Industries transformer plant said fellow workers applauded as immigrants were taken into custody. Federal officials said a tip from a union member prompted them to start investigating several years ago.Fabiola Pena, 21, cradled her 2-year-old daughter as she described a chaotic scene at the plant as the raid began, followed by clapping."I was crying the whole time. I didn't know what to do," Pena said. "We didn't know what was happening because everyone started running. Some people thought it was a bomb but then we figured out it was immigration."About 100 of the 595 detained workers were released for humanitarian reasons, many of them mothers who were fitted with electronic monitoring bracelets and allowed to go home to their children, officials said.About 475 other workers were transferred to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Jena, La. Nine who were under 18 were transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.John Foxworth, an attorney representing some of the immigrants, said eight appeared in federal court in Hattiesburg on Tuesday because they face criminal charges for allegedly using false Social Security and residency identification.He said the raid was traumatic for families."There was no communication, an immediate loss of any kind of news and a lack of understanding of what's happening to their loved ones," he said. "A complete and utter feeling of helplessness."The superintendent of the county school district said about half of approximately 160 Hispanic students were absent Tuesday.Roberto Velez, pastor at Iglesia Cristiana Peniel, where an estimated 30 to 40% of the 200 parishioners were caught up in the raid, said parents were afraid immigration officials would take them."They didn't send their kids to school today," he said. "How scared is that?"Those detained were from Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Peru, said Barbara Gonzalez, an ICE spokeswoman.Elizabeth Alegria, 26, a Mexican immigrant, was working at the plant Monday when ICE agents stormed in. When they found out she has two sons, ages 4 and 9, she was fitted with a bracelet and told to appear in federal court next month. Her husband, Andres, was not so lucky."I'm very traumatized because I don't know if they are going to let my husband go and when I will see him," Elizabeth Alegria said through a translator Tuesday as she returned to the Howard Industries parking lot to retrieve her sport-utility vehicle."We have kids without dads and pregnant mothers who got their husbands taken away," said Velez's son, Robert, youth pastor at the church. "It was like a horror story. They got handled like they were criminals."Howard Industries is in Mississippi's Pine Belt region, known for commercial timber growth and chicken processing plants. The tech company produces dozens of products ranging from electrical transformers to medical supplies, according to its website.Gonzalez said agents had executed search warrants at both the plant and the company headquarters in nearby Ellisville. She said no company executives had been detained, but this is an "ongoing investigation and yesterday's action was just the first part."A woman at the Ellisville headquarters told The Associated Press on Tuesday that no one was available to answer questions.In a statement to the Laurel Leader-Call newspaper, Howard Industries said the company "runs every check allowed to ascertain the immigration status of all applicants for its jobs.""It is company policy that it hires only U.S. citizens and legal immigrants," the statement said.Gov. Haley Barbour recently signed a law requiring Mississippi employers to use a U.S. Homeland Security system to check new workers' immigration status.The law took effect July 1 for businesses with state contracts and takes effect Jan. 1 for other businesses. Mississippi lawmakers once used laptops made by Howard Industries, but it's not clear whether the company has current state contracts.Under the law, a company found guilty of employing illegal immigrants could lose public contracts for three years and the right to do business in Mississippi for one year.The law also makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to accept a job in Mississippi. A message was left with the district attorney's office after hours seeking comment on whether he would use the law to bring state charges against Howard Industries or the workers.The Mississippi raid is one of several nationwide in recent years.On May 12, federal immigration officials swept into Agriprocessors, the nation's largest kosher meatpacking plant, in Iowa. Nearly 400 workers were detained and dozens of fraudulent permanent resident alien cards were seized from the plant's human resources department, according to court records. In December 2006, 1,297 were arrested at Swift meatpacking plants in Nebraska and five other states.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but how many of those 600 were actually here illegally? All of them? Or did they just round up all 600 Hispanics and then figure out which ones are illegal aliens after the fact?
 
I think the lawyers in the thread need to step back from the law, which appears to be written fairly vaguely for a reason, and look at how said law might be interpreted. While we can argue what LEO's may or may not do, it is fairly clear that LEO's and law enforcement agencies do not want the burden of enforcing illegal immigration law in and of itself.

The law, as written, doesn't work for them pragmatically. You are arguing the issue pedantically, which is fine and useful. Just not in everyday application of the law.

And this isn't even taking into account the provision to sue local government, which is as damning as any of it. Damned if they do and damned if the don't would certainly apply here.
No, I'm fine with the particular subset of arguments I'm having with tim because he's missing even a shred of a point. His argument from what I agather is that if the government enforced itw own law it would be unconstitutional. Yet there has not been a ruling of unconstitutionality to give him that impression. So he's arguing for nothing. That isn't pedantic, its common sense. One of the many laws - the carrying ID - has been federal law for over 50 years and still is. Had it been unconstitutional I'm guessing it would have been struck down before now. I think the non-lawyers need to take a step back and understand that legal wrods and terms have legal meanings that sometimes don't gell with on the street every day understandings. While we can argue the future unknown interpretation of the law, that doesn't necessarily mean anything in a legal sense at this point. The law was written by the duly elected legislature. It was signed into law by the governor. A further clarifying Exceutive Order was signed into the Arizona regulations as well. What we have now is a vaild Arizona state law. If you actually read the law, it does (contrary to the lefties here who snicker because Maddow told them to) mimic federal immigration law as it should be enforced by the federal government. Arizona hasn't stepped over the sovereignty lines here it seems, although a federal challenge could clarify that.

As for the pragmatic enforcement of the law, not my concern. To me, if a state passes a law they better have the ability to enforce it or what is the point. Hopefully, this particular state operates that way. Although, within that there is an understanding that they simply cannot and will not target each and every person of Mexican description. Law enofrcement doesn't have those kind of resources - the DUI check point argument all over again. The enforcement will be targeted, most likely, in areas with high illegal immigration traffic in areas where illegal immigrants act a certain way known to law enforcment. In that, it will be no different then just about every other law.

 
Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America
Yikes, I make at least one trip to Arizona a year and wasn't aware of this.(also heard they are second in the WORLD when it comes to kidnappings)
 
Nearly 600 detained in Mississippi immigration raidUpdated 8/26/2008 7:41 PM LAUREL, Miss. (AP) — The largest single-workplace immigration raid in U.S. history has caused panic among Hispanic families in this small southern Mississippi town, where federal agents rounded up nearly 600 plant workers suspected of being in the country illegally.One worker caught in Monday's sweep at the Howard Industries transformer plant said fellow workers applauded as immigrants were taken into custody. Federal officials said a tip from a union member prompted them to start investigating several years ago.Fabiola Pena, 21, cradled her 2-year-old daughter as she described a chaotic scene at the plant as the raid began, followed by clapping."I was crying the whole time. I didn't know what to do," Pena said. "We didn't know what was happening because everyone started running. Some people thought it was a bomb but then we figured out it was immigration."About 100 of the 595 detained workers were released for humanitarian reasons, many of them mothers who were fitted with electronic monitoring bracelets and allowed to go home to their children, officials said.About 475 other workers were transferred to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Jena, La. Nine who were under 18 were transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.John Foxworth, an attorney representing some of the immigrants, said eight appeared in federal court in Hattiesburg on Tuesday because they face criminal charges for allegedly using false Social Security and residency identification.He said the raid was traumatic for families."There was no communication, an immediate loss of any kind of news and a lack of understanding of what's happening to their loved ones," he said. "A complete and utter feeling of helplessness."The superintendent of the county school district said about half of approximately 160 Hispanic students were absent Tuesday.Roberto Velez, pastor at Iglesia Cristiana Peniel, where an estimated 30 to 40% of the 200 parishioners were caught up in the raid, said parents were afraid immigration officials would take them."They didn't send their kids to school today," he said. "How scared is that?"Those detained were from Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Peru, said Barbara Gonzalez, an ICE spokeswoman.Elizabeth Alegria, 26, a Mexican immigrant, was working at the plant Monday when ICE agents stormed in. When they found out she has two sons, ages 4 and 9, she was fitted with a bracelet and told to appear in federal court next month. Her husband, Andres, was not so lucky."I'm very traumatized because I don't know if they are going to let my husband go and when I will see him," Elizabeth Alegria said through a translator Tuesday as she returned to the Howard Industries parking lot to retrieve her sport-utility vehicle."We have kids without dads and pregnant mothers who got their husbands taken away," said Velez's son, Robert, youth pastor at the church. "It was like a horror story. They got handled like they were criminals."Howard Industries is in Mississippi's Pine Belt region, known for commercial timber growth and chicken processing plants. The tech company produces dozens of products ranging from electrical transformers to medical supplies, according to its website.Gonzalez said agents had executed search warrants at both the plant and the company headquarters in nearby Ellisville. She said no company executives had been detained, but this is an "ongoing investigation and yesterday's action was just the first part."A woman at the Ellisville headquarters told The Associated Press on Tuesday that no one was available to answer questions.In a statement to the Laurel Leader-Call newspaper, Howard Industries said the company "runs every check allowed to ascertain the immigration status of all applicants for its jobs.""It is company policy that it hires only U.S. citizens and legal immigrants," the statement said.Gov. Haley Barbour recently signed a law requiring Mississippi employers to use a U.S. Homeland Security system to check new workers' immigration status.The law took effect July 1 for businesses with state contracts and takes effect Jan. 1 for other businesses. Mississippi lawmakers once used laptops made by Howard Industries, but it's not clear whether the company has current state contracts.Under the law, a company found guilty of employing illegal immigrants could lose public contracts for three years and the right to do business in Mississippi for one year.The law also makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to accept a job in Mississippi. A message was left with the district attorney's office after hours seeking comment on whether he would use the law to bring state charges against Howard Industries or the workers.The Mississippi raid is one of several nationwide in recent years.On May 12, federal immigration officials swept into Agriprocessors, the nation's largest kosher meatpacking plant, in Iowa. Nearly 400 workers were detained and dozens of fraudulent permanent resident alien cards were seized from the plant's human resources department, according to court records. In December 2006, 1,297 were arrested at Swift meatpacking plants in Nebraska and five other states.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but how many of those 600 were actually here illegally? All of them? Or did they just round up all 600 Hispanics and then figure out which ones are illegal aliens after the fact?
I think they just hauled them all in and then filtered the legal ones out.
 
By Mary Bauer, Southern Poverty Law Center Legal Director

Arizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path.

By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally, Arizona lawmakers have created a system that guarantees racial profiling. They also have usurped federal authority by attempting to enforce immigration law.

Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values. No one in our country should be required to produce their “papers” on demand to prove their innocence. What kind of country are we becoming?

When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was asked what an undocumented immigrant looks like, she responded: “I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I can tell you that I think there are people in Arizona who assume that they know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

We all know what the outcome of all this double-talk will be. People with brown skin – regardless of whether they are U.S. citizens or legal residents – will be forced to prove their legal status to law enforcement officers time and again. One-third of Arizona’s population – those who are Latino – will be designated as second-class citizens, making anyone with brown skin a suspect even if their families have called Arizona home for generations.

Given the authors of this law, no one should be surprised about its intended targets. The law was drafted by a lawyer for the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), whose founder has warned of a “Latin onslaught” and complained about Latinos’ alleged low “educability.” FAIR has accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation that was set up by Nazi sympathizers to fund studies of eugenics, the science of selective breeding to produce a “better” race. The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Russell Pearce, who once e-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance website to supporters.

Making matters worse, lawmakers have allowed citizens to sue local law enforcement agencies that they believe are not adequately enforcing the new law. One can be sure that FAIR and its proxies are salivating at the prospects.

The law is not only unconstitutional, it’s bad public policy and will interfere with effective policing in Arizona’s communities. That’s why the legislation was opposed by the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. As Latinos grow more fearful of law enforcement, they will be more reluctant to report crimes, and witnesses will be less likely to cooperate with police. Criminals will target the Latino community, confident their victims will keep quiet.

Lawmakers in other states are eager to replicate this ill-advised law. Their frustration with current immigration policy is understandable, but this system must be remedied by our Congress, which should enact fair immigration reform. The federal government must craft a policy that repairs our broken immigration system and, at the same time, protects our most cherished values. States that attempt to follow Arizona’s example will only succeed in sowing fear, discord and intolerance in our communities while undermining law enforcement and inviting costly constitutional challenges.

 
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but how many of those 600 were actually here illegally? All of them? Or did they just round up all 600 Hispanics and then figure out which ones are illegal aliens after the fact?
These questions are irrelevant to my post. Tim said the federal government doesn't enforce immigration law outside of the borders. He may have meant specifically having to show papers (not sure) but my response is applicable to either. He went so far as to say it would be unconstitutional to do so. My posts illustrate that the feds do in fact enforce immigration law outside of the borders and the fact that these immigration raids haven't been ruled unconstitutional proves that they are in fact constitutional. While valid questions these just aren't applicable to the point I was making.
 
Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America
Yikes, I make at least one trip to Arizona a year and wasn't aware of this.(also heard they are second in the WORLD when it comes to kidnappings)
AZ is also at or near the top of the list for car thefts, drug trafficking etc. etc.There are lots of problems here that people who don't live in AZ are completely ignorant about....which is why it's comical to see them get up in arms when all we're trying to do is take our state back.Then they throw out words like racism without even understanding the long history of mutual respect that anglos and Mexican Americans have here in AZ.If I already wasn't voting Republican for the forseeable future before, I sure as hell am now...this entire episode is ridiculous.
 
Again, passive aggressively calling opponents of illegal immigration racists is not the way to encourage rational debate.
Humor is a rubber sword - it allows you to make a point without drawing blood. - Mary Hirsch
Say what you want, your point was that supporters of the bill are all racists. And if you choose to believe that, that's all well and good, but don't cry later that no one will have a rational debate with you or that the other side just resorts to talking points. Ditto for timschochet with his Sneeches reference in the other thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, passive aggressively calling opponents of illegal immigration racists is not the way to encourage rational debate.
Humor is a rubber sword - it allows you to make a point without drawing blood. - Mary Hirsch
Say what you want, your point was that supporters of the bill are all racists. And if you choose to believe that, that's all well and good, but don't cry later that no one will have a rational debate with you. Ditto for timschochet with his Sneeches reference in the other thread.
i never said that supporters of this bill are racists. your now saying things for me. For the record my opinion is that some people that support this bill are racist, also some people that support this bill are not racist.

all my joke was saying is that painting your self white will allow you to blend in and avoid harassment. your injecting what you want me to say.

 
Again, passive aggressively calling opponents of illegal immigration racists is not the way to encourage rational debate.
Humor is a rubber sword - it allows you to make a point without drawing blood. - Mary Hirsch
Say what you want, your point was that supporters of the bill are all racists. And if you choose to believe that, that's all well and good, but don't cry later that no one will have a rational debate with you or that the other side just resorts to talking points. Ditto for timschochet with his Sneeches reference in the other thread.
The same will apply to the National Democratic party for voters here in AZ...we used to be a potential swing state....after this little incident I'm not so sure.

 
By Mary Bauer, Southern Poverty Law Center Legal DirectorArizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path.By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally, Arizona lawmakers have created a system that guarantees racial profiling. They also have usurped federal authority by attempting to enforce immigration law.Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values. No one in our country should be required to produce their “papers” on demand to prove their innocence.
You can stop reading here. Shame on any legal institution for being so boldly false with actual law. It is an actual federal law that requires immigrants to have their identification on them or be subject to criminal penalty. It's pieces like this that have the blowback effect I accussed tim of.
 
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but how many of those 600 were actually here illegally? All of them? Or did they just round up all 600 Hispanics and then figure out which ones are illegal aliens after the fact?
These questions are irrelevant to my post. Tim said the federal government doesn't enforce immigration law outside of the borders. He may have meant specifically having to show papers (not sure) but my response is applicable to either. He went so far as to say it would be unconstitutional to do so. My posts illustrate that the feds do in fact enforce immigration law outside of the borders and the fact that these immigration raids haven't been ruled unconstitutional proves that they are in fact constitutional. While valid questions these just aren't applicable to the point I was making.
Yes, you make good points, and I was not aware that the sort of raid you mentioned took place. I'm forced to admit that certainly does give validity to both your and Yankee's argument that such actions are, indeed, consititutional. Of course, it does not allay my concerns that the Arizona law is unconstitutional. But I concede your point; I was wrong.
 
By Mary Bauer, Southern Poverty Law Center Legal DirectorArizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path.By requiring local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally, Arizona lawmakers have created a system that guarantees racial profiling. They also have usurped federal authority by attempting to enforce immigration law.Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values. No one in our country should be required to produce their “papers” on demand to prove their innocence.
You can stop reading here. Shame on any legal institution for being so boldly false with actual law. It is an actual federal law that requires immigrants to have their identification on them or be subject to criminal penalty. It's pieces like this that have the blowback effect I accussed tim of.
There seems to be some disagreement here. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU are organizations I respect, and they both believe this law is unconstitutional for the reasons stated. However, I have to admit that you also make a good point, and I'm realizing that when it comes to these issues I'm in over my head attempting to dispute you- I frankly don't know enough about the actual law to do so, so I'm going to stop. Well thought of lawyers do disagree with you, I doubt they are all being disingenous, so I'm going to shut up about the constitutionality of this law, (which I personally detest) and wait to see what others say about it.
 
The finger is never pointed at the true culprit, the people who encourage illegal immigration because it is good for their bottom line....the company/corporations/business/people/etc that HIRE and DEPEND on cheap/illegal labor. You NEVER hear the media call out/point fingers at this group, even though these business owners/CEO's should be going to jail along with the immigrants...funny how that works...not really, it's a ridiculous double standard, and of course the corporate media, for the most part, NEVER talk about the true issue...

If these corporations/business owners were not hiring the illegals, they WOULD NOT COME to the USA. That is why this issue will always be paid lip service by the powers that be/politicians...because many of the the power brokers DEPEND on illegal labor to make their profits...

They NEED to be called out and PUNISHED HARSHLY, or do we just give them a pass just because? Because why? They are 50% of the problem!

Bottom line, powerful individuals have no problem with illegal immigration and actually ENCOURAGE it and will fight tooth and nail behind the scenes for the status quo...but you will never, ever see mainstream media tell it like it really is. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one who is always pointing to the media/government/etc and wagging my finger...but on this issue, there are certainly powerful people keeping the media/politicans in check.

Go down to Mexico and check out some of the posters/billboards advertising work. These corporations may not have their name on these advertisements, but you can bet your ### they are behind them...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The finger is never pointed at the true culprit, the people who encourage illegal immigration because it is good for their bottom line....the company/corporations/business/people/etc that HIRE and DEPEND on cheap/illegal labor. You NEVER here the media call out/point fingers this group, even though these business owners/CEO's should be going to jail along with the immigrants...funny how that works...not really, it's a ridiculous double standard, and of course the corporate media, for the most part, NEVER talks about the true issue...If these corporations/business owners were not hiring the illegals, they WOULD NOT COME to the USA. That is why this issue will always be paid lip service by the powers that be/politicians...because many of the the power brokers DEPEND on illegal labor to make their profits...They NEED to be called out and PUNISHED HARSHLY, or do we just give them a pass just because? Because why? They are 50% of the problem!
The media and politicians won't, but lots of us here have pointed this out over and over.My own personal solution to illegal immigration would be a $100K fine for hiring an illegal, for each and every instance. If we did this and enforced it, the problem would solve itself almost immediately.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top