Arizona Governor signs Immigration Bill

[ninjadude]

Those on the left never seem to get tired of crying " racism " over every little thing.

It is by no means "little". How would you like to be singled out and arrested because of the color of your skin?

[joshsluss]

The mexican population as a whole in the U.S. is hardworking, family oriented and very self efficient.

We could afford to learn a little something from them instead of shutting them out and shipping them off.

Hey Astute, grab your mop and toilet bowl cleaner, you got a job!

[the1truebat]

Any state government cannot control or effect immigration. That belongs to the federal government. A state can't decide to do something it has no right to. So besides being unconstitutional based on racial profiling, it won't stand up to being in it's jurisdiction either.

For those that don't support this racist law and state, there is a facebook group to punish Arizona. Stop doing business with those based in Arizona, stop going there, etc. An organization of truckers is already boycotting Arizona.

That's right, we should reward the illegals for breaking the law, right? To hell with american rights, let's just roll over and hand them everything, right? There are legal ways to gain citizenship, breaking the law by sneaking in the back door isn't one of them.

[Grimmace]

If they want to end the illegal immigration in the US, write to your congressmen and have them change the Farm Bill. As long as the US dumps below-market value subsidized corn on Mexico (and the rest of the world), the Mexican farmers will continue to have only two options... come illegally to the US or starve.

The government has created this problem, and this new Arizona bill will continue to be as much a revenue-draining band aid as any other policy they try to put into place which addresses the problem but not the cause.

http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=99390

[Astute One]

popularity does not trump constitutionality.

racism and bigotry are not something to be proud of/

So, you are not proud of yourself? Remember our conversation about bigotry. Do you really want to go there again?

Bogotry is not illegal and descrimating against a foreign national is not racism by definition. Would you like to discuss the definitions of both and see where you and I fit in and where this bill fits in?

You know what will happen if we go down this road, don't you?

Your move!

Edited April 24, 2010 by Astute One

[Perdition]

Taken from the official text:

5. Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.

Does this not go against the 4th amendment?

[Wickian]

Taken from the official text:

5. Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.

Does this not go against the 4th amendment?

Well the only thing can make a person removable from the U.S. is someone who isn't a citizen and is here illegally. The only way probable cause can be assumed is if proof of citizenship is asked for and the person in question is unable to show any or attempts to flee. At that point they have broken a federal law for illegally immigrating into the country.

Most likely officers will only ask someone who can't speak, or has a poor understand of, English.

[Startraveler]

The only way probable cause can be assumed is if proof of citizenship is asked for and the person in question is unable to show any

I believe the concern would be this bit.

[Wickian]

I believe the concern would be this bit.

If that was where the legal process started I would understand the concern, but police can't even ask for it unless they have a reason to suspect it. Looking like an immigrant alone won't be enough, too vague(since there isn't really a "look" illegals have besides being mostly the same race) and politically incorrect. There will most likely be a set of guidelines such as language skills, lifestyles, day laborer hangouts and other such things that police will have to identify before their citizenship status can be questioned.

Even then, do you know of any adults who walk/drive around with any kind of I.D.? At the very least they'll have a drivers license or state I.D. card. I don't really like the idea of people being carded, but the immigration problem is a problem and the federal government has not done anything to solve that problem. I see this whole thing more as a ploy to get the federal government off their rumps and finally do something decisive on illegal immigration, whatever that action might be.

Personally, I consider the amnesty approach some politicians are considering to be a blatant slap in the face to all legal immigrants who didn't break any laws to get here.

[Michelle]

Personally, I consider the amnesty approach some politicians are considering to be a blatant slap in the face to all legal immigrants who didn't break any laws to get here.

After working with many legal immigrants, jumping through the hoops to get here and earn their citizenship, I can assure you, they feel it is a slap in the face. They think it gives all of them a bad name.

[Startraveler]

If that was where the legal process started I would understand the concern, but police can't even ask for it unless they have a reason to suspect it. Looking like an immigrant alone won't be enough, too vague(since there isn't really a "look" illegals have besides being mostly the same race) and politically incorrect.

The possibility that this law will lead to racial profiling (i.e. "looking illegal" by being of a certain race) has been discussed at length and is one of the primary reasons civil rights advocates are worried about this law.

Even then, do you know of any adults who walk/drive around with any kind of I.D.?

The same argument was made when the Indiana voter ID law was upheld. Yes, a decent number of citizens don't have a form of government ID. And even if they do, you have to ask whether leaving it at home should be grounds for arrest.

Personally, I consider the amnesty approach some politicians are considering to be a blatant slap in the face to all legal immigrants who didn't break any laws to get here.

You can't round up and deport 12 million people, realistically. They either stay illegal or we create a path to citizenship. I haven't heard any realistic alternatives.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Startraveler

[ninjadude]

That's right, we should reward the illegals for breaking the law, right? To hell with american rights, let's just roll over and hand them everything, right? There are legal ways to gain citizenship, breaking the law by sneaking in the back door isn't one of them.

and nothing you've said has anything whatsoever to do with this law that racial profiles and discards the constitution.

[ninjadude]

Bogotry is not illegal and descrimating against a foreign national is not racism by definition.

but see the law doesn't do that. It discriminates against EVERYONE.

[Poopie]

I actually think this law leaves makes it too easy to ignore the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. It will probably be struck down on those grounds.

It does. This law is unconstitutional.

Any state government cannot control or effect immigration. That belongs to the federal government. A state can't decide to do something it has no right to. So besides being unconstitutional based on racial profiling, it won't stand up to being in it's jurisdiction either. For those that don't support this racist law and state, there is a facebook group to punish Arizona. Stop doing business with those based in Arizona, stop going there, etc. An organization of truckers is already boycotting Arizona.

This is what happens when the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT neglects a serious domestic issue. I love it how you throw the race card around, you're ridiculous arrogant, and boorish. To claim a whole state is racist truly shows how flighty and ignorant you really are. Knock it off already.

I consider myself to be a member of the Tea Party, and I definitely see this as unconstitutional. I'm agreeing with you on that sense. Does it sting a little?

[Startraveler]

This is what happens when the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT neglects a serious domestic issue.

They took it up very seriously in 2007. The problem is that this is an issue that p***es everyone off, meaning it's virtually impossible to forge a compromise here. For example, here's the wiki recap of the criticism faced by the 2007 bill:

The bill received heated criticism from both the right wing and the left wing. Conservatives rejected providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as it would reward them for disregarding United States immigration laws. Liberals criticized the points-based system and provisions limiting family reunification visas available to only nuclear family members of US citizens as unfair. Labor unions, human rights, and some Hispanic organizations attacked the guest workers program, claiming that it would create a group of underclass workers with no benefits. Another criticism of the guest workers program was that because each guest worker is required to return home for a year before renewing his or her visa, these workers would instead overstay their visa, becoming illegal immigrants. High-tech industry criticized the point-based green card system for scrapping employer sponsorship of green card applications and eliminating priority processing for the highly skilled workers specifically selected by the U.S. employers. Many immigration practitioners, while supporting aspects of the proposal, criticized the bill as "unworkable" and called for fundamentally revising it.

Watch next month when they try again to take up immigration reform again. The primary Republican sponsor of the immigration legislation percolating in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, is already raising a stink about the issue being put on the agenda. That's just for deciding to address it!

[Wickian]

The possibility that this law will lead to racial profiling (i.e. "looking illegal" by being of a certain race) has been discussed at length and is one of the primary reasons civil rights advocates are worried about this law.

Well I can't really express my point of view on this anymore without being repetitive, so we'll just have to wait until either the specific details cops are to look out for are released or until a large number of legal citizens get unlawfully detained or questioned to prove the racial profiling concern unfounded or true.

The same argument was made when the Indiana voter ID law was upheld. Yes, a decent number of citizens don't have a form of government ID. And even if they do, you have to ask whether leaving it at home should be grounds for arrest.

I agree with this point actually(which is why I said so in my previous post), but even so asking for government identification in regards to an illegal immigration law is just common sense. It's like cops giving someone who they suspect is drunk driving the breathalyzer test to make sure.

You can't round up and deport 12 million people, realistically. They either stay illegal or we create a path to citizenship. I haven't heard any realistic alternatives.

There are no realistic plans to deport 12 million people, but that doesn't mean things should continue as they are unchecked or that that many people even qualify for deportation.

I believe that any child born in the country is a natural born citizen of the country, and by extension, their parents have a right to be here to support them. These individuals should be given the means to find work legally(I'm not 100% sure if are or not, but I believe they're already exempt from some immigration laws).

With the above taken into account, this is the only semi-humane proposal I can come up with. The borders should be secured so as to prevent as many new illegals as possible from getting in. From that point three options are available;

1. Slow and patient deportation of illegals without American born children.

2. Full legalization of all of them complete with social security numbers and we just move on preventing any more from getting in illegally.

3. Or things continue as they are now without the federal government taking a decisive stance.

If the government took real steps to prevent more illegal immigrants from coming in first, then I would support option 1 or option 2. I don't know what the exact numbers would be, but much fewer than 12 million would be deported if you exclude illegal parents of native born children for option 1.

Unfortunately completely securing the border would be very expensive.

edit: typos.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Wickian

[Astute One]

After working with many legal immigrants, jumping through the hoops to get here and earn their citizenship, I can assure you, they feel it is a slap in the face. They think it gives all of them a bad name.

The reputation is already there regardless if this bill was passed or not. If your legal and speak english, you shouldn't even get questioned. The state is going to have their hands full with non-english speaking residences and won't have any time to worry about those that speak english. If you can't speak English, you better learn it, if you don't want to be asked about immigration status. That's just how it gones. US citizenship is a priveldge if you are born a foriegner. Tough sh.t.

[Astute One]

The problem is that this is an issue that p***es everyone off, meaning it's virtually impossible to forge a compromise here.

This is exactly why the Fed should turn it over to the individual states and give the boarder states some budget money. Inaction because a consensus can't be built on the Federal level is a good indication that the Fed shouldn't set the policy because it's a political conflict of interest for the fed. The INS should enforce individual state law on immigration. The states know what is best for their state. They certainly can't do any worse than doing nothing.

[Poopie]

This is exactly why the Fed should turn it over to the individual states and give the boarder states some budget money. Inaction because a consensus can't be built on the Federal level is a good indication that the Fed shouldn't set the policy because it's a political conflict of interest for the fed. The INS should enforce individual state law on immigration. The states know what is best for their state. They certainly can't do any worse than doing nothing.

Typical FED agenda. Let's not face difficult things to tackle like immigration or Social Security... Lets go after Healthcare.... womp womp whaaa.....

[Farmer77]

It is by no means "little". How would you like to be singled out and arrested because of the color of your skin?

Noone is going to be singled out and arrested because of the color of their skin. All this bill does is enable police to ask for identification. The kind of hyperbole you are spewing is ridiculous and really really makes you seem like a hormonal high school kid who just got done taking an ethnic diversity class.

Once again : this bill will not allow anyone to be arrested because of the color of their skin.

[Perdition]

Noone is going to be singled out and arrested because of the color of their skin. All this bill does is enable police to ask for identification. The kind of hyperbole you are spewing is ridiculous and really really makes you seem like a hormonal high school kid who just got done taking an ethnic diversity class.

Once again : this bill will not allow anyone to be arrested because of the color of their skin.

But it can lead to it. Say an officer pulls over someone who looks Hispanic because he may or may not be illegal, if that person doesn't have ID he can be arrested.

Here is an interesting video I found on something that happened before it was made into law.

[ninjadude]

ITo claim a whole state is racist truly shows how flighty and ignorant you really are.

No you're misunderstanding. The whole state is not racist. The whole state is responsible for passing racist law.

[ninjadude]

This is exactly why the Fed should turn it over to the individual states and give the boarder states some budget money.

I thought you were all for the constitution. Apparently not.

Noone is going to be singled out and arrested because of the color of their skin.

What do you mean? IT's ALREADY happened!!

[+HerNibs]

How can it NOT be racial profiling?

What about other states doing the same for Asian illegals or heck, Canadian?

How is this law even valid? State law cannot over ride federal law?

Nibs

[Astute One]

But it can lead to it. Say an officer pulls over someone who looks Hispanic because he may or may not be illegal, if that person doesn't have ID he can be arrested.

Here is an interesting video I found on something that happened before it was made into law.

That's not the way the law is supposed to work but just like any law, laws can be abused. Anytime anything is done to clamp down on a group of people, it doesn't matter who they are, the group protests. This is just the way it is. These protest won't do any good. The majority wants the law, and it is completely constitutional.

Actually, this law protects the constitution by protecting the citizens and constitution from foriegn invaders. Those immigrant, American citizens who protest should be deported for violating their Oath of Allegiance to United States. By protesting, these naturalized U.S. citizens, formerly Mexicans, are stating that their allegiance may lie with the invaders; which is clearly an oath violation.

http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-4180714/aHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2Npcy5nb3YvZmlsZXMvbmF0aXZlZG9jdW1lbnRzL00tNzYucGRm

Doesn't it make sense then for the protesters who are naturalized U.S. citizens from Mexico to be interogated because by protesting they give probable cause for accusations of siding with the invaders (Mexicans); and if they make statements indicating their allegiance to Mexco, they should be stripped of citizenship and sent back to Mexico for violating their oath of allegiance by acting as a traitor to the USA. OR maybe slap them on the hand and make them take a few classes on honor, ethics, and conflict of interest. Or we can treat them as traitors and imprison them or worse. Treason is a serious offense. Or shoud we treat these citizens as we do those who aid terrorist in this country and process them through gitmo. Illegal immigration can also be viewed as terrorism for the terror it inflicts on the HC system and economy.

If not, what good is an Oath of Allegiance, and it should be eliminated if we are not going to use the oath to protect the USA.

Interesting?

Edited April 25, 2010 by Astute One