Nauvoo
Nauvoo
Nauvoo     Home Page  |  Nauvoo Times  |  About Nauvoo  |  The Back Bench  |  Vigor - Web Edition  |  Contact Nauvoo
Nauvoo Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Nauvoo Forum » Nauvoo Classic Forum » General Discussions » Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law. (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  13  14  15 
 
Author Topic: Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law.
Pink Floyd
Member
Member # 275

 - posted      Profile for Pink Floyd           Edit/Delete Post 
Signed today.
quote:
Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration bill in the country into law on Friday, aimed at identifying, prosecuting and deporting illegal immigrants. The governor’s move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.


Even before she signed the bill at a 4:30 p.m. news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it.

Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws — an overhaul that Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon.

Saying the failure of officials in Washington to act on immigration would open the door to “irresponsibility by others,” he said the Arizona bill threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

Continuing
quote:
The law, which opponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in the country in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime. It would also give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have decried it as an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
Humm.... sounds vaguely familiar...

I wonder if this thread will make it to page 3...

[ May 28, 2010, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Pink Floyd ]

Posts: 11802 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mattai
Member
Member # 1238

 - posted      Profile for Mattai   Email Mattai         Edit/Delete Post 
[Clap] [Clap] [Clap] [Clap]

Let's have the same law in California...can't wait.

Posts: 2308 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jana at jade house
Member
Member # 559

 - posted      Profile for jana at jade house   Email jana at jade house         Edit/Delete Post 
When I heard the negative reactions about ID requirements I just laughed. I have to carry mine everywhere I go in the world, and everyone over 14 in this country faces a fine is they cannot produce ID when asked (by proper authority) too. What's the big deal?

I just hope I am not stopped when out running the dog [Blushing] I would be so embarrassed.

Posts: 6096 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam
Member
Member # 11307

 - posted      Profile for Adam           Edit/Delete Post 
Ridiculous. So watch out in Arizona if you meet a certain ethnic 'look' i.e. Portuguese, Spaniard, Basque, Italian, Greek, Native American, etc etc
Posts: 70 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian J: Hill
Member
Member # 2087

 - posted      Profile for Brian J: Hill   Email Brian J: Hill         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I just hope I am not stopped when out running the dog
Wait a minute . . . in the Netherlands they "run" their dogs?! In America we just "walk" them. No wonder Americans are overweight compared to Europeans (or at least Dutch.)
Posts: 136 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T2
Member
Member # 3078

 - posted      Profile for T2           Edit/Delete Post 
My spouse says I have to vote for Brewer now.

We'll see.

Posts: 539 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jason
Member
Member # 1256

 - posted      Profile for Jason           Edit/Delete Post 
Papers! Ver are your papers!?

In America we have the right to travel freely within the interior. I absolutely hate the idea of having to carry identification papers on my person. I hate the idea of the federal government tracking us when we get in airplanes, too. Freedom of movement is part of the appeal of living here.

Posts: 3682 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eyrie
Member
Member # 818

 - posted      Profile for Eyrie   Email Eyrie         Edit/Delete Post 
I've always had to show an ID when I board an airplane. I always carry my ID with me in the car and into stores when I shop.
I don't see how this is so different.

Posts: 634 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Taalcon
Member
Member # 10838

 - posted      Profile for Taalcon   Email Taalcon         Edit/Delete Post 
The difference is that if you look hispanic, they can randomly detain and ask you and arrest you if you don't have it. Not just at the airport. Not just at security checkpoints.

If you're walking your dog on your own street in your own neighborhood, forget your ID at home, you just happen to look hispanic, and local paroling police officers see you, they can decide to question you and demand to see your ID right then and there. Failure to produce could lead to detainment and other such incidents.

[ April 24, 2010, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]

Posts: 1263 | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jason
Member
Member # 1256

 - posted      Profile for Jason           Edit/Delete Post 
Text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070

quote:
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES,
A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

In trying to figure out what 'lawful contact' and 'reasonable suspicion' meant, I came across the following by an attoreny, Michael Yaki (who doesn't like this particular part of the law).
quote:
In plain english, if a cop reasonably believes that someone is an illegal immigrant, that in and of itself becomes a "lawful contact." In stark terms, if an Arizona cop looks at you and thinks "aha, you are here illegally" he or she has a right under the new law to detain you and ask you for your papers.
All that is needed to deport someone is for a local officer to look at them and have 'reasonable suspicion' that they are here illegally, they can then make a 'lawful contact', if no papers are produced (8 USC 1304 down below) and the federal agency can't verify them (according to 8 USC 1373(c)), the officer can arrest them for a misdemeanor (8 USC 1304). Then after the punishment for this misdemeanor ($100 dollars and/or 30 days in jail for federal, and whatever penalties AZ imposes), they take them to border patrol or a federal immigration center.

8 USC 1373(c) because it is cited in the Arizona law paragraph I pasted
quote:
(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries
The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an
inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to
verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any
individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose
authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or
status information.

8 USC 1304(d), because it is cited in 1373
quote:
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both.

Further excerpts from new Arizona law
quote:
27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

[sorry for the multitude of edits, I'm done now]

[ April 24, 2010, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Jason ]

Posts: 3682 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam
Member
Member # 11307

 - posted      Profile for Adam           Edit/Delete Post 
Anyone else ever read Milton Mayer's 'They Thought They Were Free' in a history class or otherwise? I wonder if Arizona's lawmakers are familiar with his writings?
Posts: 70 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T2
Member
Member # 3078

 - posted      Profile for T2           Edit/Delete Post 
Arizona has illegals from the UK!

I know some of them.

They are working on their American accents now.

Seriously, we have illegals from all over the world, not just Mexico.

-----------------

ETA: There was one part of the bill that was a little over the top...

40- law enforcement is encouraged to taser anyone who uses the word, "chipotle"

[ April 24, 2010, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: T2 ]

Posts: 539 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
palmon
Member
Member # 600

 - posted      Profile for palmon   Email palmon         Edit/Delete Post 
And so do we, T2.
Posts: 5632 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Twigg
Member
Member # 10972

 - posted      Profile for Twigg   Email Twigg         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
law enforcement is encouraged to taser anyone who uses the word, "chipotle"

I thought it was the phrase..

Yo Quiero Taco Bell

Posts: 342 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacaré
Member
Member # 178

 - posted      Profile for Jacaré   Email Jacaré         Edit/Delete Post 
I'll be really surprised if this law isn't challenged in federal court and declared unconstitutional (unreasonable search and seizure at the very least).

Sure, we all carry ID, but it's required for narrowly defined activities (driving, getting on an airplane, entering a military base), is applied across the board (it's not just people who look like Arab terrorists who have to show ID to get on a plane), and we all have the choice not to do whatever it is that requires ID. We don't have to have ID just to walk down the street and the police can't stop you, detain you, and haul you off to jail without probable cause.

What I find interesting is that most of the people who support this law probably classify themselves as conservatives, yet such big brotherism is totally contrary to conservative principles.

Posts: 6146 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
palmon
Member
Member # 600

 - posted      Profile for palmon   Email palmon         Edit/Delete Post 
Rasmussen report
quote:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it.
----------
Eighty-four percent (84%) of Arizona Republicans and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party in the state favor the new get-tough legislation. Democrats are more closely divided: 51% like the new law, but 43% oppose it


Posts: 5632 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
palmon
Member
Member # 600

 - posted      Profile for palmon   Email palmon         Edit/Delete Post 
The question to ask to why so many of all political persuasions want this, even while believing it may cause civil rights violations. The answer is not racism.

quote:
Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats and 57% of unaffiliateds are concerned that the law may lead to possible civil rights violations against U.S. citizens. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Republicans are not very or not at all concerned about this.

Posts: 5632 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T2
Member
Member # 3078

 - posted      Profile for T2           Edit/Delete Post 
When Sheriff Joe started doing the illegal alien roundups, crime rates plummeted in Maricopa County.

THAT is why it is widely supported.

Residents are tired of not being able to get into an emergency room. The old joke is, If you want to be seen in an ER, have someone dress up in a border patrol uniform to go with you... the waiting room will clear out fast!

And I must agree, the measure certainly is not conservative, but I have my I. D. ready in case LAW ENFORCEMENT asks me to prove my citizenship.

Of course Jayno (Jan "Nappy" Napolitano) says Arizona will loose funding if the law is passed, I just wish we would cede out of the Union and go back to the good ol, original constitution.

John Taylor as a prophet said it would happen, that folks would flee to the rocky mountains where the constitution would be upheld.

Posts: 539 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Twigg
Member
Member # 10972

 - posted      Profile for Twigg   Email Twigg         Edit/Delete Post 
This could be apples and oranges, but seems like the Feds are talking out both sides of their mouth. Scolding Arizona in one instance and prosecuting illegal enablers themselves to the point of property seizure.

linky

Posts: 342 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pink Floyd
Member
Member # 275

 - posted      Profile for Pink Floyd           Edit/Delete Post 
T2 said:
quote:
Of course Jayno (Jan "Nappy" Napolitano) says Arizona will loose funding if the law is passed, I just wish we would cede out of the Union and go back to the good ol, original constitution.
Ah yes. The good ol' days when we could all own slaves and women couldn't vote.

Roper66 said:
quote:
When I was in the AF and stationed in Germany, I got pulled over because apparently, I was driving too slow on the autobahn and creating a traffic hazard--I was looking for my exit (ausfahrt in German--such a funny word). The officer immediately recognized that I was not German, and the first thing he asked to see was my passport.

In every country I've been to I've had to travel with ID. Why is it considered racist to expect that foreigners do the same in our country?

Because we have that good ol' constitution where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[ April 25, 2010, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Pink Floyd ]

Posts: 11802 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
palmon
Member
Member # 600

 - posted      Profile for palmon   Email palmon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Ah yes. The good ol' days when we could all own slaves and women couldn't vote.
What is the reaction you are looking for?
Posts: 5632 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pink Floyd
Member
Member # 275

 - posted      Profile for Pink Floyd           Edit/Delete Post 
When people say they want to go back to living under the "original constitution" I think that they sometimes don't realize what that means. They don't realize that many, many good changes and interpretations have been made to the constitution by the courts. Such as the civil rights laws that protect people from being singled out by law enforcement because "they just look guilty."

Or perhaps like T2 says, they do want to return to living under the original constitution and what that means.

I don't.

[ April 25, 2010, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Pink Floyd ]

Posts: 11802 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacaré
Member
Member # 178

 - posted      Profile for Jacaré   Email Jacaré         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This could be apples and oranges, but seems like the Feds are talking out both sides of their mouth. Scolding Arizona in one instance and prosecuting illegal enablers themselves to the point of property seizure.
Yes, it is apples and oranges. In the San Diego case, it's the federal government doing what it's supposed to do, at least in principle. They're enforcing federal law by going after the employers of illegal immigrants. Arizona is trying to enforce federal (not state) law by trampling on the Constitution.

quote:
In every country I've been to I've had to travel with ID. Why is it considered racist to expect that foreigners do the same in our country?
Because it's not just foreigners. Any American citizen who "looks" like an illegal immigrant (in the judgement of a police officer) now has the burden of proving that he's not.

quote:
Our law enforcement officers are trained to spot of number of clues that might indicate someone is here illegally. To suggest that the only thing they look for is skin color demeans the intelligence and integrity of our law enforcement officers and is a surefire way to end any meaningful discussion of the issue.
Perhaps. But one of the reasons we have rules like Miranda is to prevent law enforcement from abusing its authority.
Posts: 6146 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LizardWizard
Member
Member # 577

 - posted      Profile for LizardWizard           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
They don't realize that many, many good changes and interpretations have been made to the constitution by the courts.
Absolutely. And by the congress, the states, and the people. Like say, the Bill of Rights.
Posts: 1285 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pink Floyd
Member
Member # 275

 - posted      Profile for Pink Floyd           Edit/Delete Post 
And the other thing that bugs me is when someone says "let's go back to the original intent of the founding fathers."

In some issues like race and women's rights, the founders "original intent" was pretty lousy.

The constitution was designed to be changed and updated to meet the needs of the time. If people really think about it, I don't think anyone really wants to go back and start over.

[ April 26, 2010, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Pink Floyd ]

Posts: 11802 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
palmon
Member
Member # 600

 - posted      Profile for palmon   Email palmon         Edit/Delete Post 
(PF - not that it matters, but I appreciate the expanded response much more than the snide remark.)
Posts: 5632 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheOne
Member
Member # 431

 - posted      Profile for TheOne   Email TheOne         Edit/Delete Post 
The constitution was designed to be amended and for rules of law. So, stating that we should go back to the "original constitution" doesn't mean losing appropriate amendments but losing the inappropriate interpretations that many feel have not been a part of the original intent of the constitution.

I agree with Roper's comments so far. I think Arizona has the right to take action and that the move can be enforced without trampling on the rights of others.

Posts: 6045 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mirkwood
Member
Member # 1788

 - posted      Profile for mirkwood   Email mirkwood         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Our law enforcement officers are trained to spot of number of clues that might indicate someone is here illegally. To suggest that the only thing they look for is skin color demeans the intelligence and integrity of our law enforcement officers and is a surefire way to end any meaningful discussion of the issue.
Yep.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacaré
Member
Member # 178

 - posted      Profile for Jacaré   Email Jacaré         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, one of the most surefire ways to end meaningful discussion is to declare it offensive.
Posts: 6146 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
palmon
Member
Member # 600

 - posted      Profile for palmon   Email palmon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer:
The bill I'm about to sign into law - Senate Bill 1070 - represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix...the crisis caused by illegal immigration and Arizona's porous border.
------
I've decided to sign Senate Bill 1070 into law because, though many people disagree, I firmly believe it represents what's best for Arizona. Border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state, to my Administration and to me, as your Governor and as a citizen.
There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life.
KTAR.com

While this is from an article was written about LA in 2004, it gives a clue to what Arizona is dealing with

quote:
the illegal-alien crisis, but its magnitude for law enforcement is startling. Some examples:

• In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

• A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal ; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico. • The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S. attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation.
-----------
Enforcing known immigration violations, such as reentry following deportation, against known felons, would be even more productive. LAPD officers recognize illegal deported gang members all the time—flashing gang signs at court hearings for rival gangbangers, hanging out on the corner, or casing a target. These illegal returnees are, simply by being in the country after deportation, committing a felony (in contrast to garden-variety illegals on their first trip to the U.S., say, who are only committing a misdemeanor). “But if I see a deportee from the Mara Salvatrucha [Salvadoran prison] gang crossing the street, I know I can’t touch him,” laments a Los Angeles gang officer. Only if the deported felon has given the officer some other reason to stop him, such as an observed narcotics sale, can the cop accost him—but not for the immigration felony.
The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave Heather Mac Donald, 2004,



[ April 26, 2010, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: palmon ]

Posts: 5632 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pink Floyd
Member
Member # 275

 - posted      Profile for Pink Floyd           Edit/Delete Post 
Roper said:
quote:
Most people who use that phrase are really advocating a movement back to a more limited federal government with an expansion of states rights and individual liberties for citizens.
Then that is what they should say, Roper. The original constitution limited states rights and individual liberties in many ways (commerce, elections, state taxation, etc.) that would be difficult to "return to." The only way to "go back to limited government" is to go forward and make changes.

palmon said:
quote:
it gives a clue to what Arizona is dealing with

No one is doubting the difficulties Arizona is dealing with. But this is wrong. I live in Utah. If I travel to Arizona and the police look at me and say "you look illegal, prove you are not," how do I do that? Utah did not require proof of citizenship when I got my drivers license. (They do now, but I don't have to do that until mine expires in 5 years.) So, my DL doesn't prove my citizenship, what do I do? Carry my passport or birth certificate with me? What about Mrs Pink? She doesn't have a passport. She was born in Hawaii before it was made a state, and as we know Hawaii didn't really issue birth certificates before it was made a state. So you might say, "Well Mrs Pink is not who the police are going to check up on, trust them. They know what they are looking for, and it isn't Mrs Pink." And I know that how?

I thought you and Roper and T2 were arguing for more "limited government?" Can the President of the US travel to Arizona without fear of being arrested to prove he is really a citizen? Is that the kind of "expansion of personal liberties" you are talking about? This law seems to restrict my personal liberties, not expand them.

At least that is how I see it.

[ April 26, 2010, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Pink Floyd ]

Posts: 11802 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pink Floyd
Member
Member # 275

 - posted      Profile for Pink Floyd           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, I gave the example of Mrs Pink. She cannot travel to Arizona right now because she cannot prove her citizenship under the Arizona guidelines, even though she has never even traveled outside the US other than the first six months of her life when her parents were stationed at a Navy base in Hawaii. That limits her personal freedom to freely travel anywhere in the US without fear of being detained, simply because she "looks suspicious."

But how could it curtail YOUR freedom? Suppose for lunch today you decide to go to say Taco Bell. You could be detained by the police and demand to show your identification before you walk into the place. On your way back to work, you could be stopped by the police because you are listening to Salsa music on your car radio. When you get back to work, you could be detained by the school officer because you are carrying in a pinata for the PE time for your class. When you go home, the police could be sitting in your driveway to check your papers becuse a neighbor reported that you might be illegal. The governor said specifically that each of these things are not going to happen because of time and resource problems. But there is nothing in the law that says it cannot happen.

In effect: "Trust the Government (i.e. the Police). They will do what is best."

Sometimes when you are not the one being profiled, profiling looks like a good thing.

The fourth amendment to the constitution says:
quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What happened to going "back to original intent?"

Does that explain it a little better?

[ April 26, 2010, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: Pink Floyd ]

Posts: 11802 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Twigg
Member
Member # 10972

 - posted      Profile for Twigg   Email Twigg         Edit/Delete Post 
By your definition PF, I could have filed a complaint againt the second police officer who pulled me over for a broken tail light only minutes after being pulled over it. Was the second time unreasonable? Was it harrasment?

You simply assume the worst PF. Carding someone because they are carrying a pinata? You do want to be taken seriously right?

Posts: 342 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pink Floyd
Member
Member # 275

 - posted      Profile for Pink Floyd           Edit/Delete Post 
Nah Twigg. Maybe I don't.

On the other hand...
quote:
"We're Hispanic; we're Mexican. We've been saying, Are we going to be getting stopped on our way to the store when we're walking to get lunch somewhere?' " Serrano said.

About 40 percent of the Mexican-grown produce that's consumed in North America comes through Nogales, according to Amy Adams, a spokeswoman with the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas. Serrano said that a revolt among independent truckers would create backlogs in moving that produce out of Nogales warehouses.

...

On the other hand, Jaime Chamberlain, the owner of two Nogales-based distribution businesses and the incoming chairman of the Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, said that a boycott by 70 truckers could have a significant impact on freight rates, which would translate into higher prices. He also thought the state would take an economic hit from lost sales revenue.

"If there are truckers who do feel that this is not a good bill and not a good law, and if they refuse to drive through the state of Arizona, that's not good for Arizona, because every single one of these truckers spends money in our state," he said.


Posts: 11802 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Twigg
Member
Member # 10972

 - posted      Profile for Twigg   Email Twigg         Edit/Delete Post 
An economic hit from enforcing the law?

A worthwhile inconvenience.

Posts: 342 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pink Floyd
Member
Member # 275

 - posted      Profile for Pink Floyd           Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps you are right.

But I'm not the only one that thinks this is a clear civil rights violation.
ACLU of Arizona:
quote:
Officers not trained in federal immigration law who attempt to exercise this arrest authority would be subject to legal liability for violations of the Fourth Amendment. In addition, an immigration judge could invalidate the arrest of immigrants by Arizona police officers pursuant to this provision because even federal immigration agents do not have the power to conduct warrantless arrests away from the border unless the agent can articulate specific reasons to believe the person was likely to escape before a warrant could be obtained. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2).
Mike Huckabee
quote:
former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AK) validated racial profiling concerns related to the implementation of the newly signed law and told host Neil Cavuto that it is going to open the state of Arizona up to a “plethora of lawsuits” that will prove “very, very costly”
I guess we will find out soon enough.

[ April 26, 2010, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Pink Floyd ]

Posts: 11802 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Iggy
Member
Member # 2337

 - posted      Profile for Iggy   Email Iggy         Edit/Delete Post 
* * * Begin Rant* * *In the surrounding 5 miles where I live in AZ, I am surrounded by illegal Mexicans who deal in meth and other illegal drugs.

5 years ago when I moved into my husbands home (we were just married), there were Mexicans living around us(U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry). They were very elderly, and in those 5 years, cousins of cousins of cousins, have come across the boarder and terrorized these poor people- taken over their homes and deal and cook the meth.

Yes, the boarder patrol and the local law enforcement know what is happening. They are 'watching', they want to catch the BIG dealers.

Sheriff Joe is a godsend in my opinion. Even though he is sheriff for the next county and not mine. The drug dealers he has arrested and deported have thinned out the crud that are living around me. Trickle down theory is a fact.

Also, one perky and very mad little old lady (not me!!!) got rid of her unwanted house invaders by giving the lot of them pudding doused with laxative. She told them she thought it just might be the water!?

We keep to ourselves- we seldom answer the door- ALL of our friends know to call us as they are knocking. If you refuse to give water to anyone who asks you can pay a hefty fine if they turn you in. We are in the desert you know.

As for the ACLU-bah! let them come here, live in my neighborhood for a year or two and put up with the meth kitchens that blow up, the horrible stench of the kitchens, the constant road traffic of the buyers, and the "we are aware of the situation, ma'am, but we really want their boss's and not these puny little drug dealers" attitude of the local law enforcement.

Yes I am for this new AZ law. I am second generation Norwegian on my Daddy's side and about 5th generation Britain on my Mother's side. I am a US Citizen, pay my taxes (oh how I pay the taxes!), vote, and am absolutely fed up with the illegal alien Mexicans that ooze over the boarders then suck off of the US welfare system. I am more fed up with and terrified of the illegal Mexicans who brazenly come over the boarders and deal the illegal drugs and commit crimes.

As for civil rights- why should illegal aliens have rights in our country? We don't have the same rights as nationals in their own country when we are visiting there, legally or illegally??
* * *Rant over* * *

Posts: 425 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LizardWizard
Member
Member # 577

 - posted      Profile for LizardWizard           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
why should illegal aliens have rights in our country?
You just don't get it do you? This isn't about what rights illegal aliens may or may not have. It's about the rights of legal immigrants and U.S citizens like you and me. You and me have lost rights in Arizona that I hold dear, and that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Let law enforcement do their job, but don't take away my rights.
Posts: 1285 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jason
Member
Member # 1256

 - posted      Profile for Jason           Edit/Delete Post 
One thing I didn't see in the law is a requirement that US citizens carry identification. The federal law, (which the Arizona law is seeking to implement on a state level) only requires that aliens carry proof of their citizenship. If I am a US citizen walking down the street there is no legal requirement for me to carry identification. Thus, if stopped, I can simply claim to be a US citizen. The law states that the police must then make a request to the immigration center to try and ascertain the citizenship status of the individual.
quote:
The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an
inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to
verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any
individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose
authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or
status information.

I don't think an instantaneous response is going to occur. I find it highly police state-like then for the officer to arrest or detain someone for the sole purpose of proving their citizenship claim is false. I don't see any protection in the law to keep the police state enforcer from doing that, nor making up another small pretense to hold me in custody while they check on my immigration status.

I think this should be a secondary ability. If you were going to arrest them anyway, then go ahead and check the immigration status. I don't think that is an easy distinction to make and poses lots of room for abuse.

Posts: 3682 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
palmon
Member
Member # 600

 - posted      Profile for palmon   Email palmon         Edit/Delete Post 
It could be said that Iggy's security and liberty have been sacrificed by the refusal to enforce immigration laws.
Posts: 5632 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator


 
This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  13  14  15 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Nauvoo Home Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.6.0