Immigration

[ariscus99 1]

What is the meaning of scenario again? We digress. So, the cop is supposed to believe me when I spit out a random DL or SS? What if I don't know them by heart? I know plenty of people who don't know theirs. Then I state, "there is no law that says I need my ID, when I don't need it for business."

I ask the question again, what does the cop do? Arrest me because I don't have identification?

What if, what if, what if. There are pretty basic computer systems that most pd's have, that once a number or license is ran pictures come up verifying who you are. Also many can do this with just a name. Why are you so opposed to assisting in the enforcement of laws? Many of which are already in place but aren't being enforced. And now that the law is on the books you know that you need to carry an ID with you, so now you can do so, so it's not really a hindrance to you to carry a small credit card sized piece of plastic, that can easily slip into your sock or pocket. You and the rest of the liberals are blowing this out of proportion, had the federal government done the duty by keeping our borders secure in the first place we wouldn't be in this situation.

What part of this law is unconstitutional?

[tdslf1 0]

Ari says,

And again what part of this law is unconstitutional?

Sorry, let me rephrase. The initial bill would have allowed legal immigrants to be harrassed along with illegal immigrants because of the "probable cause clause" with legal contact. This would have been unconstitutional to keep it that way. Now since they have revised the law, because they got people calling foul on civil liberties, it fell in line with more peoples sensibilities. This law does nothing to solve their problem. Drug traffic, murders and kidnappings is their problem, not immigration to that large an extent.

[tdslf1 0]

"This is america, I'm an american, I don't need to buy no damn healthcare if I don't want to", I heard someone say that a couple weeks back at a rally. I say, I'm an american and I don't need to carry around some damn papers in my own neighborhood just because I have dark skin."

Can I get a tea bagger rally outta this?

Edited May 13, 2010 by tdslf1

[ariscus99 1]

Sorry, let me rephrase. The initial bill would have allowed legal immigrants to be harrassed along with illegal immigrants because of the "probable cause clause" with legal contact. This would have been unconstitutional to keep it that way. Now since they have revised the law, because they got people calling foul on civil liberties, it fell in line with more peoples sensibilities. This law does nothing to solve their problem. Drug traffic, murders and kidnappings is their problem, not immigration to that large an extent.[/color] [/color]

most of the drug traffickers, murderers, and kidnappers in AZ are illegal immigrants, so it will in fact help a lot by either locking them up or shipping them out.

[ariscus99 1]

"This is america, I'm an american, I don't need to buy no damn healthcare if I don't want to", I heard someone say that a couple weeks back at a rally. I say, I'm an american and I don't need to carry around some damn papers in my own neighborhood just because I have dark skin."

Can I get a tea bagger rally outta this?

Get the illegals to leave and stop coming in illegally and you wont have too. Simple fix.

[tdslf1 0]

Ari says,

most of the drug traffickers, murderers, and kidnappers in AZ are illegal immigrants

WOW, enough of a blanket statement or do you need to round it out with the black folk too?

[tdslf1 0]

Ari says,

Get the illegals to leave and stop coming in illegally and you wont have too. Simple fix.

Yes!!! Lets gather them all up and drop them off at the boarder. Simple.

Now tell us how you get 10 million illegal immigrants to leave without trampling on legal immigrant and natural american rights? How are you and me gonna do this?

Oh!!!I know. Lets gather all the white people first and work our way down. Lets see how that works.

Well, on second thought, lets not start with them. They look too much like us. Brown people are different, foreign, alien, nazi's. They definitely should go first.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The point is not whether anyone supports this bill or not, the question is whether it is constitutional and will be upheld in court. Unless any on here are constitutional attorneys or authorities, I will defer to them:

Many are claiming that Arizona’s controversial new immigration law is unconstitutional. The reason? Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power….To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

The “Rules of Naturalization” clause is, traditionally speaking, what grants Congress the authority to regulate immigration. If a power is not enumerated in the Constitution as vested in the Congress, then it is delegated to the states. However, if it is an enumerated congressional power, states do not have jurisdiction over the issue as pursuant to the Supremacy Clause.

Some textualists might argue that the “naturalization” element of the clause definitionally refers (or referred at the time of the document’s drafting) to “investing aliens with privileges of naturalize citizens.” As such, it can be distinguished from the concept of “emigration” or “immigration” which refers to people moving from place to place. However, even if we wanted to take a textualist approach, clearly, when people immigrate to our country, this necessarily involves conferring the privileges of naturalized citizens. Thus, it is the Congress which has authority over the “uniform Rule” of this process, in other words, its regulation.

Anyway, this much isn’t really controversial to American jurisprudence. Immigration has been a federally regulated issue for quite some time. What we do have are special laws which permit the cooperation of state governments and law officials to enforce federal laws. But this authority is very, very narrow and really only there to aid federal enforcement. Furthermore, it is a power that is granted by the federal government. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Here is the law from 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c which outlines the authority of state law officials and immigration enforcement:

(a) In general. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who–

(1) is an alien illegally present in the United States; and

(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.

(:smile2: Cooperation. The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.

What the Arizona law does really goes beyond this. Under reasonable suspicion, Arizona law enforcement may check the documentation status of certain individuals. It also permits Arizona law enforcement to arrest, without warrant, any person with probable cause of being removable from the United States. However, state law enforcement has to have confirmation from the federal government to arrest or detain individuals here illegally (unless they are committing some other crime). Illegals cannot just be arrested by the independent volition of local law enforcement for being here illegally. At the very least, they would need confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to whom illegal individuals would then have to be turned over. Or so it would seem.

Crafters of the Arizona legislation say that the preceding worries aren’t valid because they claim they are merely enforcing the federal laws already in place. However, if Arizona is trying to so do by granting themselves new powers, then it’s just not clear how they can possibly do so. The legislation will very likely face serious constitutional issues in the future, no matter how well intentioned it may be.

That being said, I do think Arizona’s legislation is well-intentioned and, in principle, I’m a fan of the spirit of its measures. I’m expecting there to be cogent legal arguments out there its behalf, which I’m very interested in considering. But, conservatives who claim to revere the merits of legal process cannot countenance laws which compromise the integrity of our legal system. Trying to enact productive legislation is great, but the bottom line is that the legal justification must come first.

The larger issue that the Arizona immigration legislation raises, I think, is what ought we to do when the federal government is woefully remiss in carrying out its duties and protecting its citizens? Surely, Arizona cannot stand idly by while its borders are inundated by wards of a narco-state and innocent Americans die as a result. Is the situation so urgent that Arizona must enact laws which it is not, strictly speaking, authorized to do? Or is the legislation really within the legal authority for Arizona to implement in the first place? I leave this discussion open for others to weigh in on.

Special thanks to brilliant legal discussion with Matthew Austin for analysis on this post.

[ariscus99 1]

[

WOW, enough of a blanket statement or do you need to round it out with the black folk too?

Show me some evidence to the contrary. Are you saying that the people who have made Pheonix Az the #2 city for kidnappings world wide are middle to low class white people? Middle to low class black people? Middle class to low class any person who is here legally? Or is just possible that the ones doing this are the illegals, who are part of the drug cartels? What about the drug traffickers? Whens the last time you saw a huge drug raid on your local African American neighbors? Or does that usually seem to be only illegals from south of the border? I'm not saying these things are exclusive to them, I'm saying that in the troubled parts of Az the parts that want this law, they are the overwhelming majority doing these crimes, unless of course you can show some evidence to the contrary?

[ariscus99 1]

]Yes!!! Lets gather them all up and drop them off at the boarder. Simple. [/color]

Now tell us how you get 10 million illegal immigrants to leave without trampling on legal immigrant and natural american rights? How are you and me gonna do this?

Oh!!!I know. Lets gather all the white people first and work our way down. Lets see how that works.

Well, on second thought, lets not start with them. They look too much like us. Brown people are different, foreign, alien, nazi's. They definitely should go first.

Thats the point. We can't do it that way, it wont work. So until they are gone or dealt with, this Az law is going to be enforced. Like I said earlier, the best way to make them leave, is to make the unemployable. Hard sanctions on any business that uses them, including individuals who use day laborers from the home depot and lowes as well. Finish the wall and patrol it, make it so the only way in is where we want people to come in.

[waynooo 1]

Why should I have to carry my ID if I am jogging around my town? I am not driving, but I am legal. What if the cop is fresh off an illegal raid somewhere and there is a call in on the radio that says an illegal is running in the community and the cop stops me? I am dark skinned, but with no ID? What should the cop do, ask me my name and forget about the ID, when I don't have it? Or am I going to jail or detention?

This is the dilemma with that law.

We can what if this to death, what if you were driving a blue sedan and the cops got a report that there was a bank robbery. The criminals got away in a blue sedan. You surely would be pulled over, most likely at the end of a gun to boot. I try not to leave my house with out ID. It makes sense to carry it.

[leroyspuds 0]

MYTHS LEADING TO RACISM AGAINST LATINO IMMIGRANTS:

Myth #1. Crime rate high among unauthorized immigrants

Supporters of Arizona’s harsh new immigration law claim that it is, in part, a crime-fighting measure. However, crime rates have already been falling in Arizona for years despite the presence of unauthorized immigrants, and a century’s worth of research has demonstrated that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rates for both property crime and violent crime (including murder, assault, and rape) have fallen in Arizona in recent years

High immigration states have the lowest crime rates.

According to a 2008 report from the conservative Americas Majority Foundation, crime rates are lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates, such as Arizona. From 1999 to 2006, the total crime rate declined 13.6 percent in the 19 highest-immigration states (including Arizona), compared to a 7.1 percent decline in the other 32 states.

A 2007 study by University of California, Irvine, sociologist Rubén G. Rumbaut, found that for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the unauthorized population. Moreover, these patterns have been observed consistently over the last three decennial censuses, a period that spans the current era of mass immigration, and recall similar national-level findings reported by three major government commissions during the first three decades of the 20th century. The problem of crime in the United States is not ‘caused’ or even aggravated by immigrants, regardless of their legal status.

[june09bandit 0]

I live in Arizona, 5 miles north of Mexico. About 40 miles west of where the rancher was shot ON HIS OWN PROPERTY. It is scary to me. I won't go for a walk without my hubby. Kinda sad in a way. Am I afraid of legal Mexican immigrants? Not at all (unless they fit a broad category of people that I'm afraid of regardless of race) - especially since I'm married to a second generation Mexican American. Am I afraid of the ones that are willing to kill to stay in the USA? Absolutely. I want the border to be much more difficult to cross. I want Arizona to be the hardest place to breach the border. I don't want to be afraid to go for a walk in the morning.

In order to travel north from here, I am frequently asked to declare my citizenship at a border patrol checkpoint. No big deal. My mexican husband has NEVER been challenged at that checkpoint.

When I go to Mexico, I will absolutely have an ID (passport) on me at all times, and I will not feel like my rights are being violated.

Not all illegals are here with bad intentions, I get it.. but do it legally.

[lauragshsu 6]

I think we need to also address the issue of anchor babies. Pregnant women illegally crossing the border to have their child here, and then being allowed to stay with theirchild in the US. What are your thoughts on that? How should it be handled?

[ariscus99 1]

I agree something needs to be done about anchor babies. I worked at a fire station in campo ca that is literally right on the border and we had people come across in labor at least twice a week. That is a really touchy issue with the lobs tho.