# The Arizona Immigration Law (1 Viewer)



## Taxiday (Jun 5, 2010)

I have to admit that I have NOT read the bill but have made comments elsewhere about it. So, I figured it would not hurt to read what I've talked about. You might check out the following link as it also has another link to the actual bill.


http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/What-Does-Arizona-Imigration-Law-Actually-Say-94963789.html


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

Those fiends.
Not only insisting on enforcing laws and stopping people who exhibit reasonable cause to be breaking the law...but requiring a driver's licence from people driving cars.   Facist jackboots on our throats.

You know how often I actually see somebody show the laws in question like this?   Almost never.  Let's see some ID


----------



## moderan (Jun 5, 2010)

And round and round we go. I've read the bill. I also live in Arizona. My opinion is that most of the people who are against the measure are doing it as a kneejerk reaction and are uninformed at the very least.
The vocal minority in this state that are against the bill may possibly have a vested interest, i.e., relatives to protect.
If you don't know what you're talking about, your opinion is much less valuable.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

That's why it's refreshing to see somebody actually linking to the law itself instead of the rhubarb.


----------



## moderan (Jun 5, 2010)

While that's true, the copy in the links is definitely slanted rightward. This article would have you believe it's a 50/50 split for/against, instead of a few vocalists taking solos. VoA isn't exactly impartial.
Here's the law in html, with annotations.


----------



## Blood (Jun 6, 2010)

moderan said:


> And round and round we go. I've read the bill. I also live in Arizona. My opinion is that most of the people who are against the measure are doing it as a kneejerk reaction and are uninformed at the very least.
> The vocal minority in this state that are against the bill may possibly have a vested interest, i.e., relatives to protect.
> If you don't know what you're talking about, your opinion is much less valuable.


The Arizona Association of Police chiefs are opposed to the bill. I figure they would know best. 

http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=357524&CategoryId=12395


----------



## JosephB (Jun 6, 2010)

Right. It's going mean more work.



> The police chief of Tucson, Arizona, Roberto Villaseñor, said SB1070 will create a “fracture” between his force and a segment of the community.


And it's going to make them less popular -- with illegal aliens mostly, and their friends and relatives, of course.

I can see that.



> “These laws will actually increase crime, not decrease crime. Witnesses won’t come forward.”


Let's say I'm a  burglar and I'm driving down the street, minding my own business and I see  someone get mugged. I'm probably not going to flag down the police, because I  have a car load of stolen goods. It's about like that. 

 The thing is, people  who break the law and have some idea that they might go to jail for it  generally don't like to talk to the police. It would be the same with illegals aliens. If there's a  chance they might be deported, they're not going to come forward if they know  something about a crime. An unfortunate side effect, I suppose -- but not really  a compelling reason to not enforce the law. And given this "segment of the community" do you think we're talking about crimes that are being committed by people who shouldn't be here in the first place? I'd say that's a good bet.

Anyway -- suddenly the police know best? That's different for you. I thought their main concern was beating up people Rodney King style. So you'd think they'd be for the bill, seeing as how this might give them extra opportunities to do that. Anyway, it's good to see you side with "the man" on something.


----------



## eggo (Jun 6, 2010)

They have no problem pulling me over if I don't have a seat belt on.

They have no problem setting up road blocks and stopping to inform me about "alcohol awareness".

They have no problem sending me a ticket for $25.00 from New Hampshire because a quarter rolled out of the toll basket.


But ask to see someone's ID, while in the act of another crime, and that's going too far.


----------



## moderan (Jun 6, 2010)

Blood said:


> The Arizona Association of Police chiefs are  opposed to the bill. I figure they would know best.
> 
> http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=357524&CategoryId=12395


In any event, it was "Ten police chiefs from around the United  States...", not the "Arizona Association of Police Chiefs", according to  the article.  Not that a paper based in Caracas has any more  credibility with me than stateside reporting on the same subject.
 You may consider referring to the last sentence of my quote.


----------



## alanmt (Jun 6, 2010)

In the interests of breaking up the unanimity of this thread, I maintain my opposition to this bill as inappropriate and most likely unconstitutional state action.  It also bears a substantial likelihood of abuse in spite of its self-stated limitations.


----------



## moderan (Jun 6, 2010)

How is it inappropriate?


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 6, 2010)

The thing that struck me odd about the Arizona law being enacted was all the talk that Arizona was/is going to turn into some fascist state requiring immigrants to have appropriate I.D. on them at all times. 

I take it they are not aware this is federal law as well. 

Here's how I see it ( which may be wrong lol ) From everything I have read  ( Go to the site Factcheck. They have the Federal laws , as well as the Arizona ones ) Arizona has implemented many of the Federal laws ( and yes ... a few of their own as well ) on a state level empowering state agents to act upon them, thereby cutting through some of their red tape. 

Yes... with any law , there is the power to abuse it. But I do not believe this abuse will be as rampant as many suggest. If that were the case why haven't we seen it moreso on the Federal level where many of these laws are already on the books. 

Arizona has legitimate problems with immigration, and are trying ( sometimes desperately ) to deal with them. I do not fault them for that. It is simply a situation that requires close monitoring on both sides.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 6, 2010)

> The police chief of Tucson, Arizona, Roberto Villaseñor, said SB1070will create a “fracture” between his force and a segment of thecommunity.



Don't take police chief or cop union statements too seriously, they are almost always stoking some political or money deal too obscure for you to be aware of.

Take a closer look at this one though... if it's going to cause problems in a segment of his community, all they'd have to do is not push it.   They don't HAVE to stop anybody they looks like that eat _nopales_ for breakfast.


----------



## Blood (Jun 6, 2010)

moderan said:


> In any event, it was "Ten police chiefs from around the United  States...", not the "Arizona Association of Police Chiefs", according to  the article.  Not that a paper based in Caracas has any more  credibility with me than stateside reporting on the same subject.
> You may consider referring to the last sentence of my quote.


Whoops, wrong article, try this one... http://www.azglea.com/media/news/az...-pass-toughest-illegal-immigration-law-in-u-s 

And you'll find this statement, "Arizona law enforcement groups are split on the bill, with a union for Phoenix Police Department officers supporting it and a *statewide association of police chiefs opposed*," and that's about all you'll find on that [in that article].


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 6, 2010)

Personally, I am opposed to statewide associations of police chiefs.   


The fuckers


----------



## moderan (Jun 6, 2010)

Blood said:


> Whoops, wrong article, try this one... http://www.azglea.com/media/news/az...-pass-toughest-illegal-immigration-law-in-u-s
> 
> And you'll find this statement, "Arizona law enforcement groups are split on the bill, with a union for Phoenix Police Department officers supporting it and a *statewide association of police chiefs opposed*," and that's about all you'll find on that [in that article].


I'd have to second Lin's comment about police chiefs.
The fooforaw in the article, especially the issue for the ACLU, is the "profiling" issue. Given the media's continual reference to 9/11/2001 as a watershed, and subsequent impact on travel, don't you think it reasonable that people should have their papers in order at all times? Comparison to Nazi Germany is b*llshit.
I got stopped last night, walking down the street at 2 am with a bag of groceries. I produced my driver's license, had that checked for warrants, and was on my way shortly. No big deal. I didn't and don't mind a bit. The officers were very pleasant and professional. That's a small price for freedom.


----------



## Blood (Jun 6, 2010)

moderan said:


> I'd have to second Lin's comment about police chiefs.
> The fooforaw in the article, especially the issue for the ACLU, is the "profiling" issue. Given the media's continual reference to 9/11/2001 as a watershed, and subsequent impact on travel, don't you think it reasonable that people should have their papers in order at all times?


No.  No more so than Nazi Germany. What sort of papers are we talking about anyway? 



> I got stopped last night, walking down the street at 2 am with a bag of groceries. I produced my driver's license, had that checked for warrants, and was on my way shortly. No big deal. I didn't and don't mind a bit.


I know what you look like, and you don't exactly fit the image of a Mexican/South of the border type, if you did, and didn't have your ID, and if this law were already in effect (assuming some future date) then you may be in charged with a misdemeanor crime punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Repeat offenses – i.e. shopping for groceries at 2:00am with no ID and looking Mexican - would be a felony. 



> The officers were very pleasant and professional. That's a small price for freedom.


So they would have to kick your ass for you to change you mind?  Again, if you had forgot you ID and fit the profile, you would not have found them so pleasant and professional; and what does your freedom have to do with any of this anyway. Do you find this bill symbolic?  You might think twice if you had to pay $2,500.  

Fact of the matter, this bill does call for racial profiling and that makes it racist at it’s core.  I'm not ok with that even though I'm not a minority.


----------



## Blood (Jun 6, 2010)

JosephB said:


> Let's say I'm a  burglar and I'm driving down the street, minding my own business and I see  someone get mugged. I'm probably not going to flag down the police, because I  have a car load of stolen goods. It's about like that.


Not exactly, let's say you an your wife are illegal immigrants, minding your own business and your wife gets rapped.  Your probably not going to report it because you'll both get deported. That kind of makes it open season for illegal immigrants, who are also people btw.       



> Anyway -- suddenly the police know best? That's different for you. I thought their main concern was beating up people Rodney King style. So you'd think they'd be for the bill, seeing as how this might give them extra opportunities to do that. Anyway, it's good to see you side with "the man" on something.


I was responding the Mod's claim that opponents to this bill are mostly exhibiting some knee jerk reaction and ignorant to the facts, or something.  So it would make sense that those who are compelled to do the dirty work might have given it some thought, regardless if I agree with them or not. And yes, this bill definitely grants "the man" more power to himself so you should not be so surprised that I'm not behind it. So...not so different for me after all.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 7, 2010)

Blood said:


> Not exactly, let's say you an your wife are illegal immigrants, minding your own business and your wife gets rapped. Your probably not going to report it because you'll both get deported. That kind of makes it open season for illegal immigrants, who are also people btw.



It's pretty a typical tactic of those who are arguing against this bill to try and play to emotions and make proponents of it out to be cruel and heartless -- as you've done here with your rape scenario. But what about the kind of crimes that have skyrocketed in areas where there are high concentrations of illegal aliens -- crimes like burglary, drug trafficking, drunk driving, car theft etc.? What about the rights and safety of American citizens?

As I said in an almost identical thread that was going a few weeks ago, illegal aliens -- as fellow human beings -- have my sympathy. (That is, illegals who aren't here committing crimes other than just being here.) They're just trying to make better lives for themselves and their families. 

 So, of course I would have sympathy for the man and women in your scenario. But the fact is, as illegal aliens, they are breaking the law and the consequence of breaking that law is deportation. 



Blood said:


> And yes, this bill definitely grants "the man" more power to himself so you should not be so surprised that I'm not behind it. So...not so different for me after all.



This bill simply gives "the man" or local law enforcement the "power" to enforce laws which are already in existence. But you already know that.

I wonder, if federal agencies were suddenly given funding to hire the manpower necessary to enforce immigration laws, would people be screaming about it? Would they be racists for doing their jobs -- or does this only apply to local law enforcement? Or should we just do away with the laws altogether and open the borders?


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 7, 2010)

How about this one, typical in Massachusetts.
An illegal has just been released from prison where he served 5 years for a violent crime.  The prison notifies INS that he will come out the gate at noon and they can pick him up.
They say they don't do that.

So the guy catches the bus and goes back the community.


In Arizona, the thinking goes,  the state cops would do what the feds refuse to and arrest the guy for being a wetback.  Then jail him or toss him to INS for deport.


So much of the protest against this law not only doesn't understand the law itself, but the underlying situation.


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 7, 2010)

> I wonder, if federal agencies were suddenly given funding to hire the manpower necessary to enforce immigration laws, would people be screaming about it? Would they be racists for doing their jobs -- or does this only apply to local law enforcement? Or should we just do away with the laws altogether and open the borders?



Once again, for me this is the heart of the matter. Many of these ( and specifically the "papers" law ) are already Federal laws, and Federal agencies have proven they do not have the manpower/resources to enforce them. Sooooooo Arizona brought these laws to the state level giving state agents the authority to enforce them. How does a state agency differ from a federal one in the sense that no one went ballistic ( not that I heard anyway ) when these became federal laws. So why now ? For me the reason lies in what I said on the Glenn Beck thread, propaganda, nothing more.  There is no law on any book that can not be ( or in some cases has not been ) played with, skirted around, or out, and out abused. The deal with the law is does it benefit " the common good "  A vast majority in Arizona ( from what I have read ) believes it does.


----------



## moderan (Jun 7, 2010)

Blood said:


> I was responding the Mod's claim that opponents to this bill are mostly exhibiting some knee jerk reaction and ignorant to the facts, or something.  So it would make sense that those who are compelled to do the dirty work might have given it some thought, regardless if I agree with them or not. And yes, this bill definitely grants "the man" more power to himself so you should not be so surprised that I'm not behind it. So...not so different for me after all.


The truth of the matter is, _you don't live here_. That being the case, you're _not_ in possession of all of the facts.
It is a vocal minority that exhibits opposition to this bill, _in Arizona_. The state you live in is part of the problem-tougher laws in California and Texas have created the desert pipeline.
So let's look at it from your humanitarian angle-the average temperature in the Sonoran Desert is 102. That great numbers of people die attempting the crossing is a matter of public record. The more the law is applied, the less attempts. Less people die. Or maybe they try crossing through New Mexico, which is reportedly considering similar legislation.
This weekend I'm going to Puerto Penasco. I'll have my "papers" on or near me at all times, since I'll be a visitor in a foreign country.


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 7, 2010)

> This weekend I'm going to Puerto Penasco. I'll have my "papers" on or near me at all times, since I'll be a visitor in a foreign country.



EXCELLENT friggin point !


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 7, 2010)

Like I said, I got tossed out of Mexico for letting my visa expire.  What should I have done, whined about it?  Told them they were racists?

When I lived in Cabo the ran a crackdown on illegal time share sales people.  Mostly young, good-looking, closer sharks who run around the world living in nice condos wherever the hot spot du jour is.

They entered a workplace and went around asking anybody there with light skin or an accent to show their papers.   Nine people were deported.
(Actually what they do there is throw you in there jail for a couple of days, after which people very, very quickly deport themselves. Cheaper.  And gives the jailbirds a treat.  By comparison half the [Mexican boundary jumpers] in MCC would happily live there forever)

But, here's the question... is that RACIST?   If not, why not?  If so, why?   Don't they have  right to enforce their labor and immigration law?


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 7, 2010)

lin said:


> Like I said, I got tossed out of Mexico for letting my visa expire.  What should I have done, whined about it?  Told them they were racists?
> 
> When I lived in Cabo the ran a crackdown on illegal time share sales people.  Mostly young, good-looking, closer sharks who run around the world living in nice condos wherever the hot spot du jour is.
> 
> ...



Wanna talk racist ? What about those "employers" who prey upon illegal immigrants, paying them sub - human wages, working them slave-hours, and providing NO sense of security in the form of health benefits and such. Please ! People wanna be soooo very concerned. Why aren't they screaming in their faces ? If I read the Arizona laws correctly, won't the state agencies be cracking down on these human traffickers now ?


----------



## moderan (Jun 7, 2010)

They're supposed to. The thing is that the rank and file often don't want to enforce the law. They feel it's bad enough to be _policia_, they don't need to be _immagracion _too. There's also a big component of Police chiefs in various areas wanting to thumb their noses at Joe Arpaio, who is solidly behind the measure and is a publicity magnet.
A lot of Arizona internal politics are involved, and it takes some digging to ferret out the connections. That's what I mostly mean by people not being in possession of the facts when they don't live here. Especially here in the southern part of the state, this is a nightly news sideshow, with local stations airing their various slants and a lot of propaganda from both sides. You have to sort the stuff that's actually about the bill from antiArpaio and antiBrewer sentiment as 95% of it is posturing, lining up along the fence, preparing to jump on top if need be.
The posturing is most of the national-level stuff too. "What if it happens here?" and like that. The previous thread on the subject had some words about that as well.


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 7, 2010)

moderan said:


> They're supposed to. The thing is that the rank and file often don't want to enforce the law. They feel it's bad enough to be _policia_, they don't need to be _immagracion _too. There's also a big component of Police chiefs in various areas wanting to thumb their noses at Joe Arpaio, who is solidly behind the measure and is a publicity magnet.
> A lot of Arizona internal politics are involved, and it takes some digging to ferret out the connections. That's what I mostly mean by people not being in possession of the facts when they don't live here. Especially here in the southern part of the state, this is a nightly news sideshow, with local stations airing their various slants and a lot of propaganda from both sides. You have to sort the stuff that's actually about the bill from antiArpaio and antiBrewer sentiment as 95% of it is posturing, lining up along the fence, preparing to jump on top if need be.
> The posturing is most of the national-level stuff too. "What if it happens here?" and like that. The previous thread on the subject had some words about that as well.



Moderan 

I thoroughly agree with you about people bumrushing a state , NOT in complete understanding about what is going on. Unfortunately I can not recall the writer's name ( and it is irritating the hell out of me lol ) BUT lol  a poem I read once concerning the civil rights movement in the South still impresses much upon me. The writer ( I do remember it was a black woman ) speaks of being invited for lemonade with white children, and playing with them while having to ride the back of the bus. When she moved up North she could ride anyplace she liked but was never invited to be in the company of white people. The subtle difference there I believe applies here as well. 

We really do not know ( or notice )  societal differences unless we are living in them, and to assume that we do is rather annoying to me. I am not so quick to vilify these laws because my husband , being in the military, is somewhat knowing of the border issues, and the immigration laws, and it is quite obvious to me that these things didn't just fly up out of some "racial" hatred. ( that is all I have to say about that one ) Now do some of these laws fall into the "racial" propaganda machine ? Yep ... sucks to say but it is true. Yet that does not mean that " racial " factors are what provoked them. 

When I have the time to actually sit down, and concentrate more I will read the other thread, and I do thank you for the info


----------



## moderan (Jun 7, 2010)

You're most welcome. I hope it's interesting reading at least.
I moved back here at the end of October, just as this stuff was heating up, after eight years in western New York, near the Canadian border. The change in social and economic climate between 2003 and 2010 was _very_ noticeable.
Most of the dissenting opinion here doesn't focus on the "race issue". It focuses on antiBrewer sentiment and speaks of it being an election year. Very little of it speaks to the "division of families" that I should think is the real issue. That just gets glossed over in favor of the newsreaders' and network owners' personal views. Editorial impartiality has gone out with the bathwater.
Maybe we should just turn the border over to the previous owners, the Tohono O'odham nation, and let them do with it as they would. Nogales would become Vegas in a hurry.
Or maybe we can simply resurrect the Anasazi, the Mohollan, and the HoHoKam, and border-crossers would become useful. As _sustenance_-the Swiftian solution.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 7, 2010)

Okay,  I just had my use of the word "wetback" changed to "nasty racist term" in my post and I really, really object to that.

I got kicked off absolutewrite for arguing with a Seattle liberal b**ch and her coven of leznazi winged monkeys on the same issue... I'm a racist for translating a Mexican newspaper headline word "mojado" into "wetback" which is the only translation, and where the term came from in the first place...from Spanish.  I really hate seeing that same ignorant crap happening here.

Especially if the source is somebody who neither lives in the United States or Latin American, where the word is used and understood.  

I have lived in Mexio or right at the border for the last 20 years, and more before that.  Anybody who would be aware of my living condition and companions and call me a "racist" would be pretty much an idiot.  Quite apart from the fact that "Mexican" (much less "illegal border jumper") is not a "race".  Okay???

I don't just live in Mexico, like a lot of gringo alcoholics (gringo, by the way, which acdtually IS a slur, though nobody cares, seems to be okay to use here...because the people freaking out know nothing about the situation of language involved) who don't speak Spanish.
I have been a reporter here, for both English and Spanish news organs.  I wrote three of the best selling guides to Mexican slang in the world.  I've worked smuggling things and people into and out of Mexico.  I know that industry and its terminology very well and use it daily with people actually involved.  Not people who read somewhere about it.

Specific to this discussion, what word would be useful.  (I asked, got no reply).   Sorry, "immigrant" doesn't work.  Immigrants are people who come to live in another country and go through the immigration process.  We are talking about illegal traspassers here.  Mexicans, who have absolutely NO problem with the term "wetback", often object to the term "illegal".  The use of "illegal" in discussions is awkward because it ends up being both noun and adjective for sentences.

It's not quite as bad as "negros", or should I say "blacks", or wait, "African Americans"...a group of people for which there is NO term one can use without getting called a racist, but this is pretty close.

So, absent the forum dictating some useful and non-idiotic term to use, I don't think using "wetback" is all that messed-up.

And I sure as hell resent being tagged as using "nasty racist term".   It f**king pisses me off.

And I just told Baron I'd watch my language here, but that was before I got called a nasty racist for using an appropriate word for the situation.

This really sucks.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 7, 2010)

Please read my PM.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 7, 2010)

Please read mine


----------



## ppsage (Jun 7, 2010)

lin said:


> Please read mine


 
Lin

In this instance, you are privileged to count yourself among the select group of bilingual speakers for whom the true meaning of this term may be more precisely understood and accepted. For most of us, who must fall back on the talents of the lexicographers--Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010 (–noun: Disparaging and Offensive) or The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (n. Offensive Slang)—the term is at least distasteful, far more so than illegal immigrant which, you rightly point out, is also not without difficulty. All of this being, of course, part of the price everybody pays for the generality of language and the possibility of polite discourse. What surprises me here is the passion this particular semantic compromise has sparked in an otherwise typically practical fellow and the extent of self-damage he's apparently willing to endure there from. My suggestion is two aspirins etc. In appreciation, pp.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 7, 2010)

You consider "nasty racist term"  a compromise?  And practical?  Interesting.

Also notice... it doesn't even make clear what was said in the context, what it was actually all about.  Could have been handled better.  I told them that and think they agree actually.  I really don't much care about it any more.
Of course, commentary can change that at any given minute.


----------



## moderan (Jun 7, 2010)

There's this interesting new view on the subject:Saenz@Huffington
In which Thomas Saenz leads with this:"In a legislative journey full of contradictions, perhaps the greatest  irony surrounding the enactment of Arizona's SB 1070 is that the law was  championed by elected officials who purport to be supporters of law and  order.  In fact, the new law presents a serious threat to public  safety, not just in Arizona, but nationwide."
And concludes with this:"Fear among victims and witnesses leading to decreased cooperation with  police, an exodus of well-trained police officers, and a shift of  federal officers from combating crime to detaining peaceful immigrants.   That is quite a list of public safety accomplishments for SB 1070's  sponsors.  It appears that their commitment to public safety is as thin  as their commitment to Arizona's economic progress and to constitutional  compliance."
Which is Newcastle-coaling, and as wrongheaded as putting a Mr. PotatoHead top on a scarecrow.
Mr. Saenz's main objection is that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) would have to get involved as Arizona police have not the right to deport people themselves.

Another article espoused this sentiment:"The media sympathy for illegals is so overpowering [that] they lost sight of  the fact, if they ever could have comprehended it, that Arizonans  actually think fewer illegals in their state is a desirable outcome."
That was referring to this article, from this morning's Az Republic.
And contrast those all with this:latinalista article, which seems to be calling for a political firestorm on the subject...which was part of Gov. Brewer's intent in the first place.


----------



## Blood (Jun 8, 2010)

moderan said:


> It is a vocal minority that exhibits opposition to this bill, _in Arizona_. The state you live in is part of the problem-tougher laws in California and Texas have created the desert pipeline.
> 
> So let's look at it from your humanitarian angle-the average temperature in the Sonoran Desert is 102. That great numbers of people die attempting the crossing is a matter of public record. The more the law is applied, the less attempts. Less people die. Or maybe they try crossing through New Mexico, which is reportedly considering similar legislation.


 I agree that some might be deterred from entering through Arizona, in which case I don’t think you really want Texas and/or New Mexico adopting the same measures, or it’s back to square one because they will come.  

If jumping trains, being preyed upon by gangs, crossing your incendiary Sonoran desert, being led by guides to an ambush point, lack of water, snakes and all the other hazards that come with border crossing fails to prevent even pregnant ladies from desperately making the attempt, then increasing the threat of being fined or deported would seen be the very least of their worries.  

This new bill does nothing to specifically address the issue of securing the borders, which is were the problem lies.   Some illegal immigrants have reportedly re-enter the US over 60 times through Arizona.        




moderan said:


> The truth of the matter is, _you don't live here_. That being the case, you're _not_ in possession of all of the facts.


 Alright then, how about this...if the same bill were on the table here in Texas, I would be  opposed to it for all the same reasons I'm opposed to it being passed in Arizona, or New Mexico, or any other place. Political sideshows are beside the point. The true culprit lies hidden within the text of the Bill, here: 




> A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United   States or Arizona Constitution.


 So it’s this part… “to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution,” which I call into question.  What exactly is the extent permitted by the United States constitution? 




> According to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement: “The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-87 (1975).


 But the (Southern California) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that…




> there are so many lawful immigrants or visitors and U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry that racial appearance can no longer be used. United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).


 However, getting back to Arizona…



> The Arizona Supreme Court agrees that “enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors.” State v. Graciano, 653 P.2d 683, 687 n.7 (Ariz. 1982) (citing State v. Becerra, 534 P.2d 743 (1975)).


So being caught appearing Mexican without papers may cost one a fine, jail time, or some other unpleasantry even if one is a lawful immigrant or visitor or U.S. citizen of Mexican ancestry.  At least according to the U.S Ninth Circuit of Appeals as well as many folks who appear of Mexican Ancestry, this is likely.   And given that every law enforcement official, agency, county, city, town or other political subdivision of Arizona now has the power of “Reasonable Suspicion” over all Hispanic looking people, it's not just a matter of time but how many times.    

Question: Could a Mexican American who lives in Arizona and who opposes the bill claim that those who live in Arizona but are not Mexican American do _not_ posses all the facts, since the latter is not targeted?    



> This weekend I'm going to Puerto Penasco. I'll have my "papers" on or near me at all times, since I'll be a visitor in a foreign country.


That’s a good idea.  I hope you don’t lose them, but again, the issue here is being required to carry papers in your own country, or else.  

_What needs to be done instead of fighting it, is to help those illegal immigrants who are already here, particularly those who are rooted, while securing our borders.  Only then can we began to weed out the criminal element.   _


----------



## Blood (Jun 8, 2010)

MaggieG said:


> Wanna talk racist ? What about those "employers" who prey upon illegal immigrants, paying them sub - human wages, working them slave-hours, and providing NO sense of security in the form of health benefits and such. Please ! People wanna be soooo very concerned. Why aren't they screaming in their faces ? If I read the Arizona laws correctly, won't the state agencies be cracking down on these human traffickers now ?


Sounds a lot like many of the jobs I've had, minus the illegal immigration part.  And no you didn't read it correctly, no where does it say state agencies will "crack down", only that it's now against Arizona law, specifically.  But there's always that possibility.


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 8, 2010)

Moderan 

I have not completely finished with the other thread so I don't want to comment on it until I do. The inter-state politicking does not shock me. For the most part, I despise all politicians for the pandering pimps that they are, making legitimate problems, and issues their three dollar crack hos just to get their greedy little hands on a vote. That is why as I said " research, research, research, and do not fall prey to the brothel of sound bites put there. People need to stop fussing over who said it, and pay attention to what is being said, and *DONE* 

Blood -



> That’s a good idea. I hope you don’t lose them, but again, the issue here is being required to carry papers *in your own country*, or else.



Are you referring to people of Mexican heritage who have ( as well as their ancestors ) lived in Arizona all their lives ? ( of course making them Americans ) As I have read the laws ( maybe I am not catching something here ) nothing more is required of them than a driver's license. The same is the case for legal immigrants. It is also my understanding of this law that some prior bad act is required to give the State agencies just cause to stop them in the first place.  Am I missing something here ? 



> What needs to be done instead of fighting it, is to help those illegal immigrants who are already here, particularly those who are rooted, while securing our borders. Only then can we began to weed out the criminal element.



I am not in complete disagreement with you here. One of the major problems with this though is the funds for new resources I think. Ie- It is easier said than paid for.


----------



## MaggieG (Jun 8, 2010)

Blood said:


> Sounds a lot like many of the jobs I've had, minus the illegal immigration part.  And no you didn't read it correctly, no where does it say state agencies will "crack down", only that it's now against Arizona law, specifically.  But there's always that possibility.



*smirks* 

Excuse my paraphrasing. I see little point in creating a law to *not* enforce it, or as I put it "crackdown"


----------



## moderan (Jun 8, 2010)

Blood said:


> ]
> 
> This new bill does nothing to specifically address the issue of securing the borders, which is were the problem lies.   Some illegal immigrants have reportedly re-enter the US over 60 times through Arizona.



That's true. I agree...however, the tone of objection by the opponents of the bill not stage-named "Blood" doesn't call that into account.




Blood said:


> ]Alright then, how about this...if the same bill were on the table here in Texas, I would be  opposed to it for all the same reasons I'm opposed to it being passed in Arizona, or New Mexico, or any other place. Political sideshows are beside the point. The true culprit lies hidden within the text of the Bill, here:
> 
> So it’s this part… “to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution,” which I call into question.  What exactly is the extent permitted by the United States constitution?
> 
> ...


You have a point...the bill should be about criminality, and in fact is trying to be, but the "profiling" issue is obscuring the fact that officers need to see some sort of "undesirable activity" before taking any kind of action. It isn't illegal to look Mexican any more than it is illegal for me to walk home from the grocery store at 2 am.
I don't think it's a bad thing to be required to carry "papers" in one's own country. I think the backlash effect from 9/11 would show that to be a sound policy.


----------



## Blood (Jun 8, 2010)

MaggieG said:


> *smirks*
> 
> Excuse my paraphrasing. I see little point in creating a law to *not* enforce it, or as I put it "crackdown"


Well...if that were true then Arizona wouldn't need to pass the law in the first place.


----------



## alanmt (Jun 8, 2010)

And now the Prescott Arizona mural scandal.  Arizona is having a tough time of its own making.


----------



## MrDeadman (Jun 8, 2010)

The fact that it passed is alarming, but not as much as the enforcement will be. Watch, this will be one of those laws that through enforcement a lot of trouble, a lot of unpredicted s**t (at least from the smug a** f**kers that designed it), will produce a shock wave of ramifications. It is one thing to make a law, it is another to enforce it, but then, once it enters the belly of the courts, it becomes something completely different. 

Good Thread so far on this though, very engaging.


----------



## Blood (Jun 8, 2010)

alanmt said:


> And now the Prescott Arizona mural scandal.  Arizona is having a tough time of its own making.


 Oh right, something about the artist having to lighten skin tones - too many kids of color   _...brought to you by the same people who drafted the new bill, no doubt.   _

He just paint them green, blue, orange, zebra stripe...and be done with it.


----------



## Teve Torbes (Nov 6, 2010)

Your sig should read: "_Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum europ*a*e vincendarum"_

Arizona has the right to protect its own territory, especially if the state fails to do so.  If a state isn't able to maintain a semblance or peace and order, then the state ceases to exist, and the rights and freedoms of those who had legally and lawfully resided in the state go down the drain.  How would you like it if a couple million Canadian suddenly crossed the border into Montana and disrupted your way of life?  



alanmt said:


> And now the Prescott Arizona mural scandal.  Arizona is having a tough time of its own making.


----------



## alanmt (Nov 13, 2010)

I love it when canadians cross the border.  My firm represents a lot of Canadians in injury claims.  A couple million would triple our population, but we have room.  Most Canadians only come to shop or visit our natural wonders, although a few come for faster high quality health care.  Most Canadians only want to visit however, as they view their nation as superior to ours.  They have a much more open immigration policy than we do, and they have successfully integrated a lot of legal immigrants.


----------

