# General > General Chat >  Arizona Immigration Law

## 2dumb2kwit

I don't want this to turn into a political thing, so if it's to close to that, please delete this thread.

 I'm hoping that we can just talk about the law, and it's impact on personal, and national security. What do y'all think? Is it a good law, or does it go to far?




> The law requires Arizona police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally. Officers would arrest people found to be undocumented and turn them over to federal immigration officers.





> The new law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. Immigrants unable to produce documents showing they are allowed to be in the U.S. could be arrested, jailed for up to six months and fined $2,500. It also allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws.






> Current law in Arizona and most states doesn't require police to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments prohibit officers from inquiring out of fear immigrants won't cooperate in other investigations.



http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

----------


## crashdive123

While I have not read it yet, I do agree with the concept of law enforcement being allowed (required) to enforce all of our laws.  If I get stopped for a traffic violation, my ID is surrendered so that a criminal check can be performed on me.  Being in this country illegally is just that - illegal.

----------


## Justin Case

All This law does on the street level is make it Illegal to be Illegal basically,   its a political move ,,  as far as the cops acting or doing anything different,,  There will be no change,  they have been Racial profiling all along,  they just make up excuses to make contact,  Sheriff Joe has been enforcing Immigration laws in Az for a few years,, His Deputies are even trained by ICE and used to Carry federal ICE id's,,  

Snip,,,

_Controversy

In 2005, the Arizona state legislature passed a state law making it a felony, punishable by up to two years in jail, to smuggle illegal aliens across the border. While already a federal crime, Arizona’s law, also known as the “Coyote law”, made it legal for local police to enforce immigration law and also classified persons being smuggled as co-conspirators subject to penalties as laid out in the law.[28].

Arpaio has instructed his sheriff's deputies and members of his civilian posse to arrest illegal aliens. Arpaio told the Washington Times, "My message is clear: if you come here and I catch you, you're going straight to jail.... I'm not going to turn these people over to federal authorities so they can have a free ride back to Mexico. I'll give them a free ride to my jail."[29]

On March 3, 2009, the United States Department of Justice "notified Arpaio of the investigation in a letter saying his enforcement methods may unfairly target Hispanics and Spanish-speaking people" [30] Arpaio denied any wrongdoing and stated that he welcomed the investigation, and would cooperate fully.[31] By May, 2009, Arpaio had hired a Washington D.C. lobbyist, who wrote to Obama administration officials suggesting that the decision to probe Arpaio had been driven by political rivalries and score settling.[32] In July, 2009, Arpaio publicly stated that he would not cooperate with the investigation.[33]

In October 2009, the Department of Homeland Security removed the authority of Arpaio's 160 federally trained deputies to make immigration arrests in the field. Despite the actions of the Department of Homeland Security, Arpaio has maintained that he will still pursue illegal aliens under Arizona state law.[34]
[edit] Federal Investigations

In March 2009, the United States Department of Justice notified Arpaio of that they were investigating him for civil rights violations, in unfairly targeting Hispanics and Spanish-speaking people.[30]

In October 2009, it was reported that the FBI was investigating Arpaio for using his position to settle political vendettas.[35]

In January 2010, it was reported that the Department of Justice has impaneled a grand jury to investigate allegations of abuse of power by Arpaio.[36]

In March 2010, it was reported that an investigation into Arpaio is "serious and ongoing", according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. [37]_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

Aside from the politics, what about a law that says the police have to ask anyone they suspect of being illegal, are they illegal.

 In Virginia Beach, Va. there was an issue a while back about the police having a policy that told them not to ask anyone that question. It became a big issue, when a young girl was hit and killed by a drunk driver. The drunk driver was an illegal that had been stopped and ticketed more than once. Had he been deported or jailed, the young girl would still be alive. Needless to say...it had a few people upset.

----------


## BENESSE

How about extending the law to include everyone who hires illegals? Or even better, start there and fine heavily. :Sneaky2:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

Here are some details, about that Va. beach issue.

http://www.examiner.com/x-35821-Immi...olicy-retiring

----------


## crashdive123

> How about extending the law to include everyone who hires illegals? Or even better, start there and fine heavily.


I don't disagree with that at all.  While I believe the illegal immigration problem is huge, on so many fronts, I really do understand somebody trying to seek a better life and provide for their family.  As unemployment has risen, many that were here illegally went home.  If real sanctions were taken against employers, I really believe that would solve the majority (not all) of the problem.  I just don't buy the comment about "jobs Americans won't take" especially in today's economy.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> How about extending the law to include everyone who hires illegals? Or even better, start there and fine heavily.


 I say, that the law is the law. If you break it, you pay the consequences. That includes law that deals with immigrants, and laws that deal with hiring immigrants. Neither one should get a pass, in my book.

----------


## Batch

Are US citizens required to carry papers?

If I don't carry my ID can I be arrested for something?

If you are not required to carry papers then how can this law be used effectively.

I am pro immigration control. But, tis a slippery slope.

----------


## Rick

I think it does B. I don't think folks are allowed to hire illegals. 

Here is the official statement by the governor. 

http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_...orOnSB1070.pdf

and a link to Senate Bill 1070 (Arizona)

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

See Section 5 for illegal work. 

I think this law is desperately needed by Arizona. It does two things which appear to me to be what they were after all along. 

1. It gains national attention to a long standing problem. One the federal government is doing very little about.  
2. It slows down the growth of the problem and may even reverse it if new aliens find some other place to cross and/or aliens within Arizona seek another state to reside in.

----------


## Rick

Of course you have to have paperwork. No license you don't drive, no social you don't work. At least that's how it works for me. I can be written a citation for not having my driver's license on my person when a LEO requests it. Typically they don't because they can pull my info with my social but the law is on the books.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Are US citizens required to carry papers?
> 
> If I don't carry my ID can I be arrested for something?
> 
> If you are not required to carry papers then how can this law be used effectively.
> 
> I am pro immigration control. But, tis a slippery slope.


 I understand what you are saying, but I have to have a license to drive. I have to show my permit to be carrying a concealed handgun. And if I give an LEO the impression that I'm  a drug dealer, or a drunk, I fully expect to be questioned/investigated as such.

----------


## Justin Case

> I understand what you are saying, but I have to have a license to drive. I have to show my permit to be carrying a concealed handgun. And if I give an LEO the impression that I'm  a drug dealer, or a drunk, I fully expect to be questioned/investigated as such.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3114409AAOBi8n


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identification

----------


## justin_baker

> I think it does B. I don't think folks are allowed to hire illegals.


In case you didnt know, the IRS doesent check social security numbers. My father owns a landscaping bussiness and most of his employees are illegals. All he is required by law to do is to ask for a social security number. He probably wouldnt get in trouble because he asked for a social security number. What more proof can you really ask for? The social security numbers are fake, usually generated from ones that dont exist. He files taxes on their wages based on those social security numbers. You would think that it would send off some kind of error message in the system right? Well, it doesent. If all of the illegals who had their employers filing taxes were suddenly unable to pay taxes, then the government would lose out on a ton of money.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3114409AAOBi8n
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identification


 OK....Let's try this.

If I'm unarmed, walking down a city sidewalk, and appear to be drunk, should an LEO investigate to see if I'm drunk, and arrest me for being drunk in public, if I am?

----------


## crashdive123

> In case you didnt know, the IRS doesent check social security numbers. My father owns a landscaping bussiness and most of his employees are illegals. All he is required by law to do is to ask for a social security number. He probably wouldnt get in trouble because he asked for a social security number. What more proof can you really ask for? The social security numbers are fake, usually generated from ones that dont exist. He files taxes on their wages based on those social security numbers. You would think that it would send off some kind of error message in the system right? Well, it doesent. If all of the illegals who had their employers filing taxes were suddenly unable to pay taxes, then the government would lose out on a ton of money.


*Wrong*.  He is required to fill out paperwork (I-9) to verify the eligibility of people he hires to work in the United States legally.  That doesn't mean they have to be a citizen.  If he is not doing that - and no offense intended here - then he is part of the problem.

----------


## Rick

> the IRS doesent check social security numbers


That may be true but the new law prevents employers from hiring illegals by driving to a location and asking folks if they want work for the day, which is pretty darn common.

----------


## Justin Case

> OK....Let's try this.
> 
> If I'm unarmed, walking down a city sidewalk, and appear to be drunk, should an LEO investigate to see if I'm drunk, and arrest me for being drunk in public, if I am?


You ?   Absolutely !

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

Speaking of law....where's our "Legal Beagle"? :Innocent: 

I'd like to hear what he has to say about this.

----------


## Rick

What does drunk have to do with the new law? 

The fact is if you are brown skinned and live in Arizona you are going to be asked to prove you are legal. Call it racial profiling if you want but there aren't many white guys wading north across the river. Are legal US citizens going to be stopped? You bet they will. Show ID and you're on your way. 

If they broadcast that some old chubby white guy just gunned down some folks and I get stopped, no problem. I just hope I can remember where I was 20 minutes ago. :Blushing:

----------


## Justin Case

> Speaking of law....where's our "Legal Beagle"?
> 
> I'd like to hear what he has to say about this.


Last I heard he was going to "The Other House"   (Thirston Howell accent)

----------


## Pal334

I am completely against it!!!   I am for immigration law enforcement. This goes against our concept of freedom. Think about it. virtually none of us carrys proof of citizenship or immigration status. I agree all must have *proof of identity* available if there is a *legitimate* need for it. Giving local or State police this type of power (the right to demand proof of citizenship or immigration status "on the street") smacks of a Police State. If they have a reason to suspect a person of a crime, then there are investigative methods available to them to pursue the citizenship or immigration status of the detainee (strenghten and improve that existing system). I for one do not want this door opened.  Just one mans opinion.

----------


## Rick

Let me get this straight. You want a white lawyer from Boston that owns two houses to add balance to a conversation about illegal aliens? Okaaaaay.

----------


## Rick

Oh, calm down there, Susie. There are no black boots in Arizona. Just a few good ole cowboys that want their state back.

----------


## Pal334

> Oh, calm down there, Susie. There are no black boots in Arizona. Just a few good ole cowboys that want their state back.


My only concern is the herd mentality, if states see this passed and implimented, it can been done elsewhere

They can have it back without violating civil rights of innocent citizens. Just need to have current law enforced and properly use current laws and procedures . It takes a comitment from local, state and Federal agencies and organizations (I know , I have a polyanna view)

----------


## Rick

There's probably a lot of truth in that however. There are usually sufficient laws on the books, regardless of subject, to resolve an issue. The problem is often one of enforcement. 

As I said to start with, I think they did it to bring attention to the issue, which they've succeeded in doing. Just my opinion.

----------


## nell67

> Oh, calm down there, Susie. There are no black boots in Arizona. Just a few good ole *cowboys* that want their state back.


What about the Indians who want *THEIR LAND* back....?

----------


## Rick

You mean Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, South and North Carolina, Virginia.............

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I am completely against it!!!   I am for immigration law enforcement. This goes against our concept of freedom. Think about it. virtually none of us carrys proof of citizenship or immigration status. I agree all must have *proof of identity* available if there is a *legitimate* need for it. Giving local or State police this type of power (the right to demand proof of citizenship or immigration status "on the street") smacks of a Police State. If they have a reason to suspect a person of a crime, then there are investigative methods available to them to pursue the citizenship or immigration status of the detainee (strenghten and improve that existing system). I for one do not want this door opened.  Just one mans opinion.


 Pal, did you read the actual wording?




> 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).


 This is why I kinda wanted Kens input, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

----------


## BENESSE

Here's what just doesn't sit quite right with me:
They are not enforcing the laws they _already_ have, perfectly good laws btw, but they go ahead and pass a _new_ one...exactly why?!
The LE that's checking the immigration status of anyone they think looks Mexican can maybe spend their time better hanging around the borders.
Cause see, that's what the illegals have to cross to get in.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> What about the Indians who want *THEIR LAND* back....?


 We've been through this, before. If they had had better imagration policies, they wouldn't have lost it, to start with. Think about it. Don't you think we should learn from history?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Here's what just doesn't sit quite right with me:
> They are not enforcing the laws they _already_ have, perfectly good laws btw, but they go ahead and pass a _new_ one...exactly why?!
> The LE that's checking the immigration status of anyone they think looks Mexican can maybe spend their time better hanging around the borders.
> Cause see, that's what the illegals have to cross to get in.


 If I see something that walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, should I ignore it, and go to the pond, to be sure that no ducks get out of it? :Innocent:

----------


## BENESSE

> We've been through this, before. If they had had better imagration policies, they wouldn't have lost it, to start with. Think about it. Don't you think we should learn from history?


You mean learn only when it's convenient? :Sneaky2:

----------


## crashdive123

> Here's what just doesn't sit quite right with me:
> They are not enforcing the laws they _already_ have, perfectly good laws btw, but they go ahead and pass a _new_ one...exactly why?!
> The LE that's checking the immigration status of anyone they think looks Mexican can maybe spend their time better hanging around the borders.
> Cause see, that's what the illegals have to cross to get in.


I agree again with you that we have laws that are not being enforced.  That being said, under existing law (here's where Ken's input would be good), unless local LE has received federal immigration training (as Sheriff Arpaio's employees did) they cannot enforce existing immigration laws.  Crazy huh?  With the new law that was passed, it gives the local law enforcement the authority to do what the feds refuse to do.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> I agree again with you that we have laws that are not being enforced.  That being said, under existing law (here's where Ken's input would be good), unless local LE has received federal immigration training (as Sheriff Arpaio's employees did) they cannot enforce existing immigration laws.  Crazy huh?  With the new law that was passed, it gives the local law enforcement the authority to do what the feds refuse to do.



 A law like that also helps avoid stupid policies , like this.




> While Ramos had already been convicted of a DUI, Virginia Beach policy, at the time, dictated that an illegal alien be convicted of three DUIs before police would report them to federal immigration authorities.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> You mean learn only when it's convenient?


 I don't get it.
What was done to the indians was wrong.
What was done to the slaves was wrong.
I can't un-do either, but we can all learn from it.

Am I a bad person, for thinking like this?

----------


## Batch

So. the problem is that the state needs to enforce existing immigration laws. This can be done without adding further laws such as requiring ID.

----------


## Batch

> In case you didnt know, the IRS doesent check social security numbers. My father owns a landscaping bussiness and most of his employees are illegals. All he is required by law to do is to ask for a social security number. He probably wouldnt get in trouble because he asked for a social security number. What more proof can you really ask for? The social security numbers are fake, usually generated from ones that dont exist. He files taxes on their wages based on those social security numbers. You would think that it would send off some kind of error message in the system right? Well, it doesent. If all of the illegals who had their employers filing taxes were suddenly unable to pay taxes, then the government would lose out on a ton of money.


That's the great thing about the IRS is they don't care where the money comes from. Your father must know that his employees are illegal or he wouldn't have been able to tell you that they were fake. He is part of the problem and sells his country out for a few bucks saved in cheaper labor. He is a criminal and I can't bring myself to sugar coat that. 

I hope for his sake he never complains about ANYTHING in this country.

----------


## nell67

> You mean Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, South and North Carolina, Virginia.............


What,you don't think Indians inhabited anything west of Illinois????

----------


## Pal334

This is the main point I dont like:

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). 



Can be interprted to mean that their "lawful purpose" is to investigate the "status"of the detainee as the primary cause that personis stopped. The rest of the proposed "law" seems to mirror existing law and procedure. So why would a new one be needed?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> What does drunk have to do with the new law? 
> 
> The fact is if you are brown skinned and live in Arizona you are going to be asked to prove you are legal. Call it racial profiling if you want but there aren't many white guys wading north across the river. Are legal US citizens going to be stopped? You bet they will. Show ID and you're on your way. 
> 
> If they broadcast that some old chubby white guy just gunned down some folks and I get stopped, no problem. I just hope I can remember where I was 20 minutes ago.


 I was just using being drunk as another example. If a LEO has reason to think you are breaking a law, it should be his duty to see if you are, and arrest you if need be. To me, it doesn't matter if the law is being drunk, selling drugs, or being in this country illegally.

 We may have gotten off on the ID thing, but I don't see where the law says anything about an ID. It says that if an LEO suspects you of being illegal, he should follow the laws that pertain to being an illegal alien.

----------


## crashdive123

> So. the problem is that the state needs to enforce existing immigration laws. This can be done without adding further laws such as requiring ID.


Actually, the law is already on the books.  As a US citizen you are not required to carry ID on you, but that is not the case for non-citizens.




> Use of green card as an identity card
> *The card must be in the possession of the U.S. permanent resident at all times.* This means that the permanent resident must have a currently valid card on the person at all times and be able to show it to a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services officer, if requested. Though aliens with permanent resident status are required to carry these identification cards, American citizens are not required to carry any citizenship identification (because no crime is being committed if you do not carry identification). Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, while status was checked when the permanent resident returned from foreign travel, the requirement to carry the green card was almost never enforced when residents traveled domestically. After that, officials from the United States Department of State began occasionally asking people if they were U.S. citizens or not, and in the latter case began enforcing the legal requirement that the person be able to immediately present their Permanent Resident Card or other proof of legal status


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permane...(United_States)

I know the quote above is for permanent residents, but I believe it is the same for legal temporary workers.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> This is the main point I dont like:
> 
> 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). 
> ...


#22 didn't sound any different than laws about searching a vehicle, etc., with probable cause.

 To me, it sounds like it takes away the option of ignoring immigration status, like that Va,Bch. policy.

----------


## Justin Case

REAL ID Act,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

----------


## Batch

Crash, my mother is an immigrant and still has a green card. If she were stopped and a cop had a probable cause to believe she was an immigrant instead of a citizen then they could apply those laws. She carries here green card with her as well as her drivers license I think her passport. 

But, her situation should not be passed to me. If I want to move freely around without papers I should be able to. I hate having to carry my concealed weapons permit and my hunting license into the woods! 

I got a frigging rifle or shotgun in my hands. Do you really think the handgun is going to be my go to. Also , Florida law allows anyone hunting, fishing or camping to carry openly or concealed without any other provisions. Yet, if you do so your likely to have a problem with any cop you run into. Enforce the existing laws and make the enforcers aware of them!

----------


## crashdive123

And you, as a US citizen do not have to carry ID by law unless you are performing an activity that requires it (driving, ccw, etc).  My parents were both immigrants, and until they became naturalized citizens, they were required to carry their green cards.  Honestly though - this really isn't a debate about identification, but rather putting an end to a problem (illegal immigration) that is very, very serious.

----------


## Ken

> Speaking of law....where's our "Legal Beagle"?
> 
> I'd like to hear what he has to say about this.


I just got here.




> Last I heard he was going to "The Other House" (Thirston Howell accent)


I did. Worked my butt off there. I floated one side of the basement floor level and installed a coupla' hundred 2x2 sheets of DRIcore. Next, I'll install the hardwood. 




> Let me get this straight. You want a white lawyer from Boston that owns two houses to add balance to a conversation about illegal aliens? Okaaaaay.


What's that supposed to mean?  :Sneaky2: 


Now, for my opinion..........

I believe that the immigration law should be vigorously enforced. Arizona may be most concerned with illegal Mexicans crossing the border, but there are many others who pose a much greater threat other than Mexicans crossing the Rio Grande. We could just as easily be talking about a terrorist from Pakistan or a heroin kingpin from France. 

However, I see a myriad of problems with the Arizona law as I understand it. Mind you, I haven't read it yet, but *I share many of Pal's concerns.* Terms such as "reasonable suspicion" have a tendancy to be abused to a terrible degree. 

And there's another issue there - it's called the Fifth Amendment.  :Innocent:

----------


## Justin Case

> I just got here.
> 
> 
> 
>  I floated in the pool as my better Half installed a coupla' hundred 2x2 sheets of DRIcore. Next,she'll install the hardwood.


That Figures  :Innocent:

----------


## Ken

> That Figures


Look........  :Sneaky2:   If you're gonna' edit my posts, at least make it believable.  You ain't gonna' see Ken floating in any pools when it's 60* and raining.

----------


## BENESSE

> I believe that the immigration law should be vigorously enforced. Arizona may be most concerned with illegal Mexicans crossing the border, but there are many others who pose a much greater threat other than Mexicans crossing the Rio Grande. We could just as easily be talking about a terrorist from Pakistan or a heroin kingpin from France. 
> 
> However, I see a myriad of problems with the Arizona law as I understand it. Mind you, I haven't read it yet, but *I share many of Pal's concerns.* Terms such as "reasonable suspicion" have a tendancy to be abused to a terrible degree. 
> 
> And there's another issue there - it's called the Fifth Amendment.


Completely agree.
That's why this new law just doesn't sit right with me.

----------


## Pal334

I guess the the best arguement I can make is it violates Federal Law. I can give an example, The only FEDERAL Agencies that can routinely demand proof of citizenship are the Immigration Service (or whatever it is called today) and the US Department of Defense, Defense Security Service (DSS)  (most of you have not heard of that small agency, it is charged with security investigations for security clearances and protection of classified material in tha hands of Industry). So, changing of Federal Law would be needed prior to implimentation of a local law that contradicts it.

----------


## Rick

Sorry, but I disagree with that and I'd bet most states will, too. State sovereignty has been at question for several years. That's why so many have passed succession resolutions. States hold the right to mandate how they will conduct business within their own borders and that's exactly what Arizona has done. In essence, they are telling the federal government it has failed at its job of immigration so they have now taken over the role. The courts will have to decide if they have the right to do so. 

No law is worded perfectly but I can't fault Arizona in their attempt to solve their problem. 99% of the folks on here are originally from another country. A few are indigenous but most are imports. The difference between us and them is our ancestors did it legally. Personally, I don't care where you're from; Europe, Africa, South America, Asia, doesn't matter to me. If you're here legally then good for you. If you are here illegally then you butt needs to be deported. Just like I would be if I were in your country illegally.

----------


## Pal334

Then we shall have to agree to disagree  :Smile:

----------


## BENESSE

Rick, I don't disagree with anything you said.
Federal Govt. has failed miserably at protecting our borders and I wish someone would explain to me why it is more important that we keep thousands and thousands our troops deployed all over the world (some of them still in places they were since the cold war) instead of here at home protecting OUR borders.

I am yet to hear anyone raise a big stink over that, and to me, that stinks more than anything. 
Take a look at all the places we currently are and ask yourself whether even half of those troops wouldn't be more useful _here_ where we need them most.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deploym...tates_Military

----------


## Justin Case

> Rick, I don't disagree with anything you said.
> Federal Govt. has failed miserably at protecting our borders and *I wish someone would explain to me why it is more important that we keep thousands and thousands our troops deployed all over the world (some of them still in places they were since the cold war) instead of here at home protecting OUR borders.*
> 
> I am yet to hear anyone raise a big stink over that, and to me, that stinks more than anything. 
> Take a look at all the places we currently are and ask yourself whether even half of those troops wouldn't be more useful _here_ where we need them most.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deploym...tates_Military


Thats being talked about now B  :Smile: 

http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...rity-plan.html

----------


## BENESSE

"The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 [1] countries around the world, with more than *369,000 of its 1,379,551[2] active-duty troops serving outside the United States and its territories.* Many of these troops are still located at installations activated during the Cold War, by which the US government sought to counter the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II. Since 2001, the US has redeployed some of its forces as part of the "War on Terror."

U.S. troops are seeing active combat in several countries, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq. Others are deployed as part of several peacekeeping missions."*

Anybody see anything wrong with these numbers?*
*Anybody think that we couldn't solve our border problem with some of those troops redeployed back at home?*

----------


## Ken

Don't hold your breath - it would take an Act of Congress.

The *Posse Comitatus Act* generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Just sayin.'  :Innocent:

----------


## Justin Case

> Don't hold your breath - it would take an Act of Congress.
> 
> The *Posse Comitatus Act* generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
> 
> Just sayin.'


They did it before,

Snip,
National Guard wrapping up its U.S.-Mexican Border duty
Region's governors want 2-year mission extended

52 comments by Sean Holstege - Jun. 12, 2008 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

The last National Guard soldiers assigned to protect the U.S.-Mexican border will arrive in Arizona from Guam at the end of next week. They will leave by July 15 in the final act of a two-year mission that has been widely credited with making the border more secure. 

Continued @ http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...start0612.html

----------


## BENESSE

> Don't hold your breath - it would take an Act of Congress.
> 
> The *Posse Comitatus Act* generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from *acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States*, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
>  Just sayin.'


Aren't we talking about a foreign invasion really? 
And how can it make sense that our military personnel act in a law enforcement capacity outside our borders but not inside?

On a separate note...
If we only pulled 57,000 troops from Germany, 32,000 from Japan, 9,000 from Italy and 9,000 from UK, imagine what a difference they could make in their own country. If someone wants to be outraged about something why not start there?

----------


## Justin Case

*'Nobody wins' on immigration reform* 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36325.html


Lets Face the facts,,  Its all about the politics,,

----------


## Old GI

If we use Drivers License, what about the states that now issue to illegals.

Oh, BTW, a former governor, now a pertinent cabinet secretary, stated, paraphrasing - Arizona doesn't have an immigration problem.  Yes, she did say that about the time she was nominated to her current post.

----------


## BENESSE

> If we use Drivers License, what about the states that now issue to illegals.
> 
> Oh, BTW, a former governor, now *a pertinent cabinet secretary*, stated, paraphrasing - Arizona doesn't have an immigration problem.  Yes, she did say that about the time she was nominated to her current post.


SHE needs to be tarred and feathered and run out of town.
Talk about _dangerously_ incompetent!!!#@*

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

Poll says...




> 70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...al_immigration

----------


## Justin Case

I'm in Favor of it,,  I think its crazy that we cant have better control of our damn borders,,,,   I hate to say it,,  But Canada is looking better all the time,,,      That said,  Everybody please spare me the "if you dont love it leave it" thing,,    What I mean is that we (USA) can learn a lot from our Canadian neighbors  ,,  JMHO... :Smile:

----------


## BENESSE

> I'm in Favor of it,,  I think its crazy that we cant have better control of our damn borders,,,,   I hate to say it,,  But Canada is looking better all the time,,,      That said,  Everybody please spare me the "if you dont love it leave it" thing,,    *What I mean is that we (USA) can learn a lot from our Canadian neighbors*  ,,  JMHO...


We are learning disabled to the point that we can't even learn from our own costly mistakes. God forbid if we learned from anyone else who had a better way of TCB.

----------


## trax

> I'm in Favor of it,,  I think its crazy that we cant have better control of our damn borders,,,,   I hate to say it,,  But Canada is looking better all the time,,,      That said,  Everybody please spare me the "if you dont love it leave it" thing,,    What I mean is that we (USA) can learn a lot from our Canadian neighbors  ,,  JMHO...


Two points brother: 1. Our immigration policies are...ambivalent at best.

2. I was walking down the side of a highway late one night, unarmed, sober, fairly average Canadian looking and was accosted by a policeman. Someone had told him I was walking down the middle of the highway. When we establsihed that I hadn't been, he still demanded identification.

----------


## Rick

We should build a giant slide with the top in Arizona and the bottom just over the wall and into the Rio Grande. Any illegals would be forced to climb the slide. We could give them a free ride home.

----------


## Justin Case

> Two points brother: 1. Our immigration policies are...ambivalent at best.
> 
> 2. I was walking down the side of a highway late one night, unarmed, sober, fairly average Canadian looking and was accosted by a policeman. Someone had told him I was walking down the middle of the highway. When we establsihed that I hadn't been, he still demanded identification.


Thats SOP,,  The first thing ALL Cops do is ask for ID,,  then they run you to find out if you have any wants or warrants ,,    Its the same here , There and everywhere,,  It doesnt matter whether any crimes were committed or not,,    Just the fact that you were walking down the road in the middle of the night made you a suspicious person,  And Thats "Probable Cause" for a stop,,    right or wrong,  Thats the way it is ,,,

----------


## trax

> Thats SOP,,  The first thing ALL Cops do is ask for ID,,  then they run you to find out if you have any wants or warrants ,,    Its the same here , There and everywhere,,


Yeah, it wasn't actually the first time I've ever had a conversation with a cop (shocking I know) But, it puts to rest that whole notion that you don't have to be carrying your papers doesn't it? He asked for my ID's towards the end of the conversation. I said to him at the time, "Yeah, I have ID, but since we've established that I'm not doing anything wrong, why do you need it?"

"Just for our records, sir" 

So I said, "Oh, you keep records of people who aren't doing anything wrong? That's interesting."
Who said something about a police state?

----------


## Justin Case

> We should build a giant slide with the top in Arizona and the bottom just over the wall and into the Rio Grande. Any illegals would be forced to climb the slide. We could give them a free ride home.


They just swim back,,  LOL

----------


## Rick

Then we walk them right up the slide again.

----------


## Justin Case

> Yeah, it wasn't actually the first time I've ever had a conversation with a cop (shocking I know) But, it puts to rest that whole notion that you don't have to be carrying your papers doesn't it? He asked for my ID's towards the end of the conversation. I said to him at the time, "Yeah, I have ID, but since we've established that I'm not doing anything wrong, why do you need it?"
> 
> "Just for our records, sir" 
> 
> So I said, "Oh, you keep records of people who aren't doing anything wrong? That's interesting."
> Who said something about a police state?


catch 22,,  If he Ordered you to show ID and you refused, He "Could" have arrested you for failure to obey a peace officer ,,,   they have lots of tools at their disposal,,  he "could" have just searched you under the guise of "  For his saftey"  ,,

----------


## Justin Case

> Then we walk them right up the slide again.


Wet and wild charges a lot of money to play on their slides ,,  LOL

----------


## Rick

I'm surprised the cop didn't frisk Trax just 'cause he's so purdy. He's man purdy.

----------


## BENESSE

> Then we walk them right up the slide again.


You're going down a slippery slope, my friend. :Sneaky2:

----------


## Ken

> I was walking down the side of a highway late one night, unarmed, sober, fairly average Canadian looking and was accosted by a policeman. Someone had told him I was walking down the middle of the highway. When we establsihed that I hadn't been, he still demanded identification.





> Thats SOP,, The first thing ALL Cops do is ask for ID,, then they run you to find out if you have any wants or warrants ,, Its the same here , *There and everywhere*,, It doesnt matter whether any crimes were committed or not,, Just the fact that you were walking down the road in the middle of the night made you a suspicious person, And Thats "Probable Cause" for a stop,, right or wrong, Thats the way it is ,,,





> catch 22,, If he Ordered you to show ID and you refused, He "Could" have arrested you for failure to obey a peace officer ,,, they have lots of tools at their disposal,, he "could" have just searched you under the guise of " For his saftey" ,,


Not here, my friends.  (WOW!  I think I just paid the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a compliment!  :Blushing: )  

If you're driving, yes, police can demand a driver's license.  If you're carrying a firearm, yes, police can demand to see your LTC.  If you're doing anything that requuires a license, designated authorities can demand that you produce a license.  (Operating a bar, fishing, hunting, performing surgery, practicing law........ :Innocent: )

If you're walking down the street or doing ANYTHING that DOESN'T require a license in Massachusetts (not yet, anyway  :Sneaky2: ) the police can *ask* for identification, but *you don't have to provide it*.  It doesn't make a difference if you don't have it on your person or if it's in your back pocket.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> We should build a giant slide with the top in Arizona and the bottom just over the wall and into the Rio Grande. Any illegals would be forced to climb the slide. We could give them a free ride home.


 Or we could use one of these! :clap: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC7Jf...eature=related

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Not here, my friends.  (WOW!  I think I just paid the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a compliment! )  
> 
> If you're driving, yes, police can demand a driver's license.  If you're carrying a firearm, yes, police can demand to see your LTC.  If you're doing anything that requuires a license, designated authorities can demand that you produce a license.  (Operating a bar, fishing, hunting, performing surgery, practicing law........)
> 
> If you're walking down the street or doing *ANYTHING that DOESN'T require a license in Massachusetts* (not yet, anyway ) the police can *ask* for identification, but *you don't have to provide it*.  It doesn't make a difference if you don't have it on your person or if it's in your back pocket.


 _Is_ there anything, in Mass., that doesn't require a license???  :Online2long:

----------


## Ken

> _Is_ there anything, in Mass., that doesn't require a license???


Yep!  Walking down the street.   :Sneaky2:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Yep!  Walking down the street.


 But don't get caught J-walking....right? LOL

----------


## Ken

> But don't get caught J-walking....right? LOL


Still don't have to show an ID!   :Smile:

----------


## Justin Case

You dont have to do anything,,  but with a bad attitude with a cop carries certain consequences,,,,

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> You dont have to do anything,,  but with a bad attitude with a cop carries certain consequences,,,,


Ken- What's he being charged with?
Cop- Resisting arrest.
Ken- What were you arresting him for?
Cop- Resisting arrest.
Ken- What did he do, to cause you to arrest him?
Cop- He resisted arrest.

----------


## Trabitha

The way I understand the bill is like this:

The only thing this bill does is allow for the local/state police to do what the federal government was supposed to be doing all along...but hasn't.  (not political, because BOTH parties have ignored AZ's issues regarding the boarder.)

In the past, a local/state police officer was not ALLOWED to ask for residency or proof of citizenship when someone committed a crime.  If an illegal alien committed crime after crime, the local department had no way of deporting them.  That was the Federal Governments job...but they weren't doing it.  This bill will now allow local enforcement to enforce those federal laws on their own.

They can't simply pull someone over because they LOOK hispanic.  The person must be doing something illegal and even then, there are steps that must be taken before ID or residency can be asked for.
This paranoia over "profiling" or walking around with your "papers" is just that.  Paranoia and a political scare tactic that the Left is betting on working.  
If the Federal government had LISTENED to AZ's pleas for the past 5+ years, there would be no need.  As it stands...well...they didn't.  So AZ took it into their own hands.  I say good for them.

----------


## Trabitha

> Two points brother: 1. Our immigration policies are...ambivalent at best.
> 
> 2. I was walking down the side of a highway late one night, unarmed, sober, fairly average Canadian looking and was accosted by a policeman. Someone had told him I was walking down the middle of the highway. When we establsihed that I hadn't been, he still demanded identification.


It's just what they do.  I had a cop ask for MY ID the other day because the groomer screwed up my dog and I called her out on it.  They have paperwork to do, and it's not like I did anything wrong, so it's no big deal if you ask me.  Flash my ID, laugh at my picture, and go about my business.

----------


## Rick

Oh, sure. We don't mind waiting. I'm sure you have ID somewhere. Go ahead and look again. Jeff, here, tends to get a bit surly when folks don't have ID. You don't want Jeff to get surly. Trust me. 

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## Justin Case

_(Troops Have been used in the Past,,)_

COPY,

WASHINGTON, March 12, 2009 - As President Barack Obama considers deploying National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to control escalating violence, Arizona's governor has requested about 250 more National Guard troops on its border with Mexico, and the Texas governor is considering a similar action.

"We're going to examine whether, and if, National Guard deployments would make sense and in what circumstances they would make sense as part of this overall review of our border situation," Obama told reporters yesterday, according to media reports. The White House confirmed his comments, made during a media roundtable session.

"I haven't drawn any conclusions yet," Obama said. "I don't have a particular tipping point in mind."

While emphasizing that he does not want to "militarize" the border, Obama called it "unacceptable if you've got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing our citizens."

"I think if one U.S. citizen is killed because of foreign nationals who are engaging in violent crime, that's enough of a concern to do something about it," he said.

The president noted that Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited Mexico last week to meet with his Mexican counterparts about the situation and to discuss additional support the United States could provide.

Meanwhile, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates r_equesting 250 more_ National Guard Soldiers to be posted along the 350-mile Arizona-Mexico border.

Although Brewer has the authority to call up the troops, she asked Gates to mobilize them as part of the federally funded Joint Counter Narco-terrorism Task Force. That force currently includes about 150 Army and Air National Guard members.

"Arizona communities and citizens are negatively affected by the impacts of the illegal drug trade and related border violence, and enforcement agencies in all jurisdictions are stretched as they attempt to address the enormity of the problems," Brewer said. *"The support these additional Soldiers can provide to law enforcement agency operations would prove invaluable."
*
In neighboring Texas, Gov. Rick Perry has expressed the need for more troops or border agents along its border with Mexico. Perry reiterated at a ceremony last week the need for more help to disrupt operations of the Mexican Mafia, Texas Syndicate, Barrio Azteca, MS-13 and other violent transnational gangs.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters today it's too soon to know if additional military support will be granted.

The last major federal National Guard mission along the U.S.-Mexico border was Operation Jump Start. The two-year mission, from June 2006 to July 2008, dispatched as many as 6,000 National Guard members to Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to make the border more secure for legal immigration and commerce until the U.S. Border Patrol could boost its own ranks.

Guard members did not serve in a direct law-enforcement role, but provided vital reinforcement to the Border Patrol. Their missions included engineering, aviation, entry identification teams, and a wide range of technical, logistical and administrative support.

By the time the mission ended in July, more than 30,000 citizen-Soldiers and -airmen from across the nation had participated.

Whitman emphasized that the proposed border mission, if ultimately approved, would have a very different purpose and timeline than Operation Jump Start.

In the meantime, the United States is exploring other ways it can help Mexico deal with escalating violence, he said. "We continue to offer Mexico assistance in any number of ways," he told reporters.

The Merida Initiative, for example, provides Mexico and several other countries funding to counter drug trafficking, and the U.S. military has a strong military-to-military partnership with Mexico. The United States also is providing Mexico foreign military financing for five helicopters, a maritime surveillance aircraft and handheld scanners used for detection purposes, Whitman said.

"The U.S. government as a whole is concerned about the escalating violence and its effect on public security as well as the Southwest U.S. border," he said. "I think that what you are seeing is a recognition of the problem that is facing the Mexican government, and as good neighbors, the United States is looking at any number of ways in which we might be able to render some additional assistance." 

http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/03/13...mexico-border/

----------


## Trabitha

Deploying national guard to the boarder is not what the state needed.  That never addressed the millions of illegals that cross the boarder every year.  In one MONTH on one PATH, almost 1000 illegals have been counted crossing into AZ illegally.  Posting guardsmen is obviously not working on those who have already made it INTO this country.  The Federal government restricted states from deporting these people when they were caught committing a crime.  As I said before, this bill now allows the States to do what the Federal government has failed to do.

----------


## Justin Case

> Deploying national guard to the boarder is not what the state needed.  That never addressed the millions of illegals that cross the boarder every year.  In one MONTH on one PATH, almost 1000 illegals have been counted crossing into AZ illegally.  Posting guardsmen is obviously not working on those who have already made it INTO this country.  The Federal government restricted states from deporting these people when they were caught committing a crime.  As I said before, this bill now allows the States to do what the Federal government has failed to do.


thats just not the case ?  all confirmed Illegals are thrown on a bus and shipped back,,  been doing it for years..


ICE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Im...ms_Enforcement

DEPORTATION FROM THE UNITED STATES
http://www.usimmigration.com/deportation.html

----------


## Trabitha

Looking up and defining the agency in no way means that they were DOING it, Justin.  
Look up just how many illegals were rounded up in the state of AZ and deported.  Compare that to how many are flowing and have flowed in to the state.  THEN find out how many criminals are let off, because the local enforcement isn't allowed to ask for proof of citizenship.   :Wink: 

It's a lot more complicated than, "The agency is there, they must be doing their job."

----------


## Justin Case

Trust me,,  when they got caught they were deported,,  If they committed and got convicted of some other crime ( like drugs)  they did the time here then were deported,,  I have sen it Happen ,,  Its true that a lot more come in than go out,,  but trust me ,  they do go out ,,


SNIPPET,
Impact of Arpaio's sweeps is unclear

by Dennis Wagner - Oct. 4, 2008 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Shortly after sunrise on a Thursday in late August, a half-dozen immigrants watched nervously as Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies pulled over an aging sedan.

The Hispanic driver, a day laborer, was handcuffed and placed in the rear of a patrol car.

Nearby, his Mexican and Guatemalan friends shuffled their feet outside an auto-repair shop, a pickup spot for workers in Fountain Hills.

Five months earlier, Fountain Hills and this *site were targeted in one of the sheriff's crime-suppression sweeps against illegal immigrants, 16 of whom were rounded up for deportation.
*
That hasn't stopped day laborers from gathering on the corner at Saguaro Boulevard each morning, hoping a contractor will drive up offering work.

The story is the same in Mesa, Phoenix and other communities where Sheriff Joe Arpaio cracked down on immigrant-laborer hangouts: Workers returned within days, though sometimes in smaller numbers.

The impact of the sweeps on crime is less clear. The sheriff's goal for the sweeps is to improve public safety and suppress crime, plus drive out illegal immigrants.

In four of five smaller areas where sweeps occurred, calls for assistance increased or were relatively flat right after the raid compared with the same period a year earlier. In the other area, they declined.

In neighborhoods of north and east Phoenix, data show that total violent crimes rose after deputies conducted saturation raids. In Fountain Hills, sheriff's statistics show deputies dealt with more major crimes this June than they did in June 2007, yet fewer overall crimes.

At the least, residents and business owners agree, Arpaio has sent a daunting message to undocumented immigrants and would-be employers, warning that immigration laws are being enforced.

Jose, one of the immigrants who gathers in Fountain Hills in the morning, said the raids sent shivers through his community. "I have many friends who left Arizona for Las Vegas and other places," said Jose, who declined to give his last name. "We're always watching."

Jose said he risks arrest so he can provide for his two children, who were born in the United States. He has spent 13 years in the U.S. but lost his job at a concrete company months ago when the employer had to verify his Social Security number.

As Jose spoke, a landscaping truck approached. The driver slowed as if to stop, then saw the deputies nearby and veered away. Jose and his friends shook their heads ruefully.

Impact on immigration

To date, Arpaio has carried out eight high-profile crackdowns in six Valley cities.

Those operations involved hundreds of sworn deputies putting in thousands of work days. They arrested about 400 people, including more than 200 suspected illegal immigrants.

The state's illegal-immigrant population is estimated at about 500,000, the lion's share in metropolitan Phoenix. Assuming 300,000 reside in Maricopa County, the saturation patrols netted 0.4 percent of the total.
*
When Arpaio began his sweeps in March, he insisted they were "crime suppression" efforts rather than immigration roundups. But he vowed to detain every illegal immigrant encountered and touted the number arrested for deportation.*

CONTINUED@

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...weeps1004.html


(I Live here,  This stuff has always been covered by local news)  and BTW,,  These Sheriff Deputies are ICE trained and carry FEDERAL ICE ID badges,,,

----------


## Trabitha

Here, this will give you a better idea of why AZ chose to take the steps it took:
http://www.immigrationcounters.com/

These are the numbers for the entire country.  They are a boarder state that must contend with other states demanding equal attention.  That's simply unrealistic.  The boarder is not under control and the local authorities didn't have the authority to address the issue.  Add that to the fact that they could not obtain the attention from the federal organizations that they needed, the only responsible thing to do, to protect their tax pay populous is to take it into their own hands to carry out laws that were already on the books.  In order for them to DO that, they needed a bill to grant them that authority.  If the Fed. can't give them to proper defense, the states are TOTALLY within their rights to do it themselves.

----------


## Trabitha

So when you look at that link, Justin...you're "trust me when they are caught they are deported" comment looks more than a bit hard to swallow.  
While I respect your opinion, it's wrong.  The US does not deport the amount of illegal criminals as you would like to believe.  The amount of criminals that funnel OUT of the system and back on the streets is astronomical.

----------


## Justin Case

Thats a good Site Trabitha,,,  Thanks  :Smile: 

Dont get me wrong,,  I am not in favor of Illegal Aliens,  I am just saying that this bill is politically motivated IMO..   I dont thing this Law will change anything on the streets,  The authority has always been there,

----------


## Justin Case

All Persons who find themselves "In The system and are confirmed "Illegal" by INS ARE Deported ,,,,,  (when the US Justice system is through with them)

BUT   >>>>>   YES They DO come right back ,,,,

----------


## crashdive123

> Thats a good Site Trabitha,,,  Thanks 
> 
> Dont get me wrong,,  I am not in favor of Illegal Aliens,  *I am just saying that this bill is politically motivated* IMO..   I dont thing this Law will change anything on the streets,  The authority has always been there,


I understand that is your opinion, but I must disagree.  Medical care costs more because of illegal immigration.  Property taxes are higher because of illegal immigration.  Unemployment is higher because of illegal immigration.  The "multi-lingual" politically correct coalition costs us more.  Crime is higher because of illegal immigration.  These issues have nothing to do with politics.  Look at what it is doing to just California.  http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigr...caillegals.htm

----------


## Trabitha

> Thats a good Site Trabitha,,,  Thanks 
> 
> Dont get me wrong,,  I am not in favor of Illegal Aliens,  I am just saying that this bill is politically motivated IMO..   I dont thing this Law will change anything on the streets,  The authority has always been there,


I don't think it was politically motivated at all.  I lived a few years in southern AZ and can tell you first hand that it's freakin' scary.   :Online2long:   The majority of the citizens there know about the problem because it's in their front yard every day.  Both sides of the table (left and right) have always asked for support at the boarder, and neither has gotten it.  It's a big issue out there on both sides and at every level. It got to the point where our police couldn't do a damn thing.  If we opened our mouth and called the cops on what turned out to be an illegal, we made ourselves a target because they were going to come right back in another day or 2.  You shouldn't have to live in America with that type of fear.  Now that the cops can ask for proof, and have the power to deport the trouble makers, I think things will change a LOT.  Now they can take action against those who would otherwise get a slap on the wrist...because that was all they could really do.

Are they going to come right back into the country if they are deported?  I'm sure they will, however that's another battle that the Federal government needs to put more than a band-aide over.  

I should also note, that INS in and of it's self is corrupt.  Look into how many illegals are AWARDED with permanent residence/ green cards through that program because it's "easier" than actually confirming their stories as to why they are in the US illegally.

----------


## Justin Case

> I understand that is your opinion, but I must disagree.  Medical care costs more because of illegal immigration.  Property taxes are higher because of illegal immigration.  Unemployment is higher because of illegal immigration.  The "multi-lingual" politically correct coalition costs us more.  Crime is higher because of illegal immigration.  These issues have nothing to do with politics.  Look at what it is doing to just California.  http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigr...caillegals.htm


I Know,,  Its doing it here too,  I am just saying that this law will not change anything on the street level ,,(at least not yet)  cops have ALWAYS pulled over brown skin people in AZ,,   Granted, they made up some other excuse to do it,, BTW,  working "Illegals"  pay taxes to a bogus SS number and that money stays in the fund,,,,  thats another thing that gets talked about locally,  some say this has saved Medicare, Social security etc,,  I dont believe its that much money however,,  but some people do.

----------


## Trabitha

Oh, I agree it will take time.  The cops will be tip-toeing around all the complainers for the next year or so.  Just wait until they have more confidence in their jobs.  It will change a LOT.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> All Persons who find themselves "In The system and are confirmed "Illegal" by INS ARE Deported ,,,,,  (when the US Justice system is through with them)
> 
> BUT   >>>>>   YES They DO come right back ,,,,


 But how many are never "confirmed illegal", even if stopped or arrested for another crime, because it is not policy to check immigration status?

----------


## Justin Case

> But how many are never "confirmed illegal", even if stopped or arrested for another crime, because it is not policy to check immigration status?


It Is policy if they are arrested,,  Suspected Illegals get whats called an "INS Hold" put on them until it can be ascertained if they are Legal or not,,

I had to spend some time as a guest of Arizona Dept of corrections, for beating up the meter reader because he hit my dog with a shovel,,  There were Lots of Mexicans in there waiting for INS releases or Holds,,

----------


## Justin Case

I just heard on CNN that Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon is planning on suing the State of Arizona over this Law,,,   Not sure of the details yet,,

----------


## crashdive123

> I Know,,  Its doing it here too,  I am just saying that this law will not change anything on the street level ,,(at least not yet)  cops have ALWAYS pulled over brown skin people in AZ,,   Granted, they made up some other excuse to do it,, BTW,  working "Illegals"  pay taxes to a bogus SS number and that money stays in the fund,,,,  thats another thing that gets talked about locally,  some say this has saved Medicare, Social security etc,,  I dont believe its that much money however,,  but some people do.


Don't be fooled by the paying taxes hype.  Some may be saying it has saved those programs, but they too would be incorrect.

----------


## crashdive123

> It Is policy if they are arrested,,  Suspected Illegals get whats called an "INS Hold" put on them until it can be ascertained if they are Legal or not,,
> 
> I had to spend some time as a guest of Arizona Dept of corrections, for beating up the meter reader because he hit my dog with a shovel,,  There were Lots of Mexicans in there waiting for INS releases or Holds,,


Right.  And if it is determined that they are here illegally, most times they recieve a "notice to appear" for a deportation hearing.  Care to guess what percentage actually show up for that hearing?

----------


## Justin Case

> Right.  And if it is determined that they are here illegally, most times they recieve a "notice to appear" for a deportation hearing.  Care to guess what percentage actually show up for that hearing?


Hmmmm,,   I think that happens while they are on Hold (Hearing),,  I had to do 30 days in county and every Wednesday the INS Van/sometimes Bus would come and take a bunch of them to the border,,   BUT,,  I would be lying if I said I know exactly how that works,,  it was 12 years ago... :Blushing:

----------


## BENESSE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lj056ao6GE

----------


## Justin Case

LOL,,  Soo True !

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

I think I'm starting to understand. (Yes, I'm a little slow.) Those who don't like this law, think things are like this. :Innocent: 

*WARNING;* A few dirty words. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxODBppps18

----------


## BENESSE

Maybe if we just installed some toll booths on the border we could solve this problem _and_ make money too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-...eature=related

----------


## Justin Case

> I think I'm starting to understand. (Yes, I'm a little slow.) Those who don't like this law, think things are like this.
> 
> *WARNING;* A few dirty words. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxODBppps18


Ummmm,,,,,,,,,uhhhhhhh,,,,,,,well,,,,,,,,I,,,,,,,,   aw screw it,  Never mind . :Blushing:

----------


## Justin Case

> Maybe if we just installed some toll booths on the border we could solve this problem _and_ make money too.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-...eature=related


LOL LOl  :clap:   That ought to do it !   :Smile:

----------


## Trabitha

> Maybe if we just installed some toll booths on the border we could solve this problem _and_ make money too.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-...eature=related


Benesse for Senate!!   :clap:

----------


## finallyME

I am a little late to this party.  Anyways, kind of funny that there is a law that says it is illegal to be illegal.  They need to pass another law that says that it is against the law to break the laws already set up.  :clap:

----------


## Ken

Massachusetts may finally be waking up........   :Smile: 

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/pol...omments&cnum=3

----------


## Rick

Now, if they would just pass a law requiring a urine test to receive welfare benefits I think we'd be heading in the right direction.

----------


## Trabitha

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-92136104.html
A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona

The chattering class is aghast at Arizona's new immigration law. "Harkens back to apartheid," says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. "Shameful," says the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. "Terrible&hellipan invitation to abuse," says the New York Times' David Brooks.

For his part, President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama has ordered the Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."

Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency&hellipwhere reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person&hellip"

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."

The bottom line is, it's a good law, sensibly written and rigorously focused -- no matter what the critics say

----------


## Justin Case

Arizona Is going to get sued soooo bad by Soooo many people that are going to claim their civil rights are being Violated,,,  

And , Everyone they arrested is going to want a trial and since they cant afford a Ken,  The State will have to pay for that too,,,,  

(Just another Random thought)  :Smile:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Arizona Is going to get sued soooo bad by Soooo many people that are going to claim their civil rights are being Violated,,,  
> 
> And , Everyone they arrested is going to want a trial and since they cant afford a Ken,  The State will have to pay for that too,,,,  
> 
> (Just another Random thought)


 Then now would be a good time to make a frivolous lawsuit bill, and at least make it a "loser pays cost" system. :Innocent: 
(Yes, I have plenty of ideas, about how things should be done.) LOL

----------


## crashdive123

> Arizona Is going to get sued soooo bad by Soooo many people that are going to claim their civil rights are being Violated,,,  
> 
> And , Everyone they arrested is going to want a trial and since they cant afford a Ken,  The State will have to pay for that too,,,,  
> 
> (Just another Random thought)


I'll bet those lawsuits (if they happen) will be a small fraction of what is being spent now on the problem.  Keep in mind, this law merely enforces existing federal law, but gives the locals the authority to do it.  It isn't anything new other than the fact that it will now be enforced.

----------


## Ken

Sad thing is, this problem could have been avoided entirely if we had secured out southern border.  Why wait any longer?

----------


## Rick

Secure our borders? 

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## Old GI

If all illegals are sent back.  What happens in the "Sanctuary Cities"? :Innocent:

----------


## BENESSE

> Sad thing is, this problem could have been avoided entirely if we had secured out southern border.  *Why wait any longer?*


Why indeed, other than it has been our MO for a very long time. Wait for TS to HTF and then do something about it. Let's see what happens. IMO this _might_ be better than nothing but it's far from what it takes.

----------


## Trabitha

> Arizona Is going to get sued soooo bad by Soooo many people that are going to claim their civil rights are being Violated,,,  
> 
> And , Everyone they arrested is going to want a trial and since they cant afford a Ken,  The State will have to pay for that too,,,,  
> 
> (Just another Random thought)


But as I posted, this bill was WELL thought out before it was passed.  People can claim whatever they want, if they haven't read the bill (and most haven't), but claim there is something in there that ISN'T it will simply be tossed out.

If people want to inundate their local courts with stupid lawsuits and risk a tax hike because of the drain on an already frail state economy...that's on them. IMO.   :Wink:

----------


## Justin Case

> By JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press Writer Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writer    28 mins ago
> 
> PHOENIX  Politicians weighed in on Arizona's tough new immigration law Tuesday, while Mexico cautioned its citizens about an "adverse political atmosphere" in the state and a Phoenix man said he was aiming to get a referendum to repeal the measure on November's ballot.
> 
> In California, Meg Whitman, the Republican front-runner in the California gubernatorial primary, said that Arizona is taking the wrong approach to with its tough new law.
> 
> "I think there's just better ways to solve this problem," Whitman said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
> 
> But Sen. John McCain told CBS's "The Early Show" that his state needed such a law because the Obama administration has failed to "secure our borders." The Arizona Republican called the situation in his state "the worst I've ever seen," and that ineffective border enforcement has resulted in drugs pouring into the southwestern United States from Mexico.
> ...


So Basically,   Now they can be jailed, Fined and THEN deported,,

----------


## crashdive123

And that's a problem because????????????????

----------


## Justin Case

> And that's a problem because????????????????


HuH ?   where did I say it was a problem ?

----------


## crashdive123

My comment was rhetorical in nature.

----------


## Rick

That means it was asked just for effect. He really didn't want an answer.

----------


## BENESSE

> That means it was asked just for effect. He really didn't want an answer.


Rhetorical, Shmetorical.
When did THAT ever stop anyone from answering?

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> That means it was asked just for effect. He really didn't want an answer.



 Soooooo....He was pontificating. :Innocent:

----------


## crashdive123

> Rhetorical, Shmetorical.
> When did THAT ever stop anyone from answering?


Good point.

----------


## Rick

I was just trying to explain to Justin what rhetorical means. Once we get him up to speed we can have a 2d vs Ken vs Justin thread.

----------


## Justin Case

> I was just trying to explain to Justin what rhetorical means. Once we get him up to speed we can have a 2d vs Ken vs Justin thread.


What speed would that be ?

----------


## Rick

Well, let's see. It's 2D and Ken so I'd say 78. 33 1/3 is to fast, 45 is about normal so, yeah, 78.

----------


## panch0

My uncle (RIP) was a heavy drinker. He was very dark and wore old clothes had shaggy hair, and looked pretty illegal. He told me once he was in a bar where the wimmins dance, and the border patrol came buy and started asking for documents. They took most of the dancers and some of the patrons. One border patrol asks my uncle are you an american citizen, and my uncle answered "Are you?" The Border patrolman left him alone after that. He was a nam vet and he thought it was kink of funny. I don't look Mexican, but if they asked me to show proof, I would say something in english and show them my drivers license. I think that would be enough to prove my status. If I were in a hurry and got asked I wouldn't like it, but if I were speeding and get pulled over for speeding I woulnd'nt like it either.

----------


## justin_baker

> That's the great thing about the IRS is they don't care where the money comes from. Your father must know that his employees are illegal or he wouldn't have been able to tell you that they were fake. He is part of the problem and *sells his country out for a few bucks saved in cheaper labor.* He is a criminal and I can't bring myself to sugar coat that. 
> 
> I hope for his sake he never complains about ANYTHING in this country.


Normally i would agree with you, but my fathers business is different. He pays above minimum wage to his starting workers and pays extremely generously to his experienced workers. None of it is under the table and he files taxes for all of them. He would much rather hire americans, but none actually want to take the job. Hes had a few americans here and there, but here in california the lower class and middle classes are literally almost exclusively divided between whites and mexicans. Hell yeah he knows that there illegal, but if he didnt hire illegals then he wouldnt have a house. If _you_ owned a landscaping, construction, ect. business then trust me, _you_ would be hiring illegals, or you would not have a functioning business. Yeah i guess you could call him a criminal, but then i would be a criminal for speeding or jaywalking. Thats pretty much what it amounts to nowadays.

----------


## justin_baker

> If all illegals are sent back.  What happens in the "Sanctuary Cities"?


I thought sanctuary cities only exist in CA? Anyways, it would be a pretty interesting conflict between state and city rights.

----------


## crashdive123

> Normally i would agree with you, but my fathers business is different. He pays above minimum wage to his starting workers and pays extremely generously to his experienced workers. None of it is under the table and he files taxes for all of them. He would much rather hire americans, but none actually want to take the job. Hes had a few americans here and there, but here in california the lower class and middle classes are literally almost exclusively divided between whites and mexicans. Hell yeah he knows that there illegal, but if he didnt hire illegals then he wouldnt have a house. If _you_ owned a landscaping, construction, ect. business then trust me, _you_ would be hiring illegals, or you would not have a functioning business. Yeah i guess you could call him a criminal, but then i would be a criminal for speeding or jaywalking. Thats pretty much what it amounts to nowadays.


Sorry - I don't buy it.  In today's economy if he cannot fill positions with legal workers (if he is paying what you say he is) then there is something wrong with the way he is doing business.  Many of the lawn & ornamental companies or mow & blow companies struggle because they cannot compete with the prices that companies charge that hire illegals.  It seems that is not the case with your dad's business.  Employers that hire illegas are not just part, but the majority of the problem, and they should be penalized.  If repeated violations occur, they should lose their business and face criminal prosecution.

----------


## BENESSE

> I thought sanctuary cities only exist in CA? Anyways, it would be a pretty interesting conflict between state and city rights.


It might surprise you how many sanctuary cities there are and where: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

----------


## Rick

I've held off on this but it doesn't make sense to me. If your dad receives social security numbers for his employees and pays social security on his employees then they have to match. It does take some time for the red flags to hit but they will hit. If he's not pay social security on them then that will catch up with him too.

----------


## Justin Case

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## nell67

> Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.


Justin,are you speechless,or what?

----------


## Justin Case

> Justin,are you speechless,or what?


Sometimes  :Blushing:

----------


## Ole WV Coot

Personally, as if anyone cared I like the law. Therefore it will be ruled immoral, illegal, against our leader's leanings and downright nasty. Politically incorrect again, making it a habit anymore.

----------


## Rick

Wait! I know. Let's add nicotine to this law. It will become addictive and they won't be able to rescind it.

----------


## Justin Case

Just sen on CNN that Pima county Sheriff vows not to enforce this law,  

Ya Know,,  I just gotta sat something,,  John MCain Is wasting no time running TV ads trying to get re elected and using this law as his platform,,  Where The Hell Has he been ?  HE is the guy that should have been doing something for AZ all along,,  If Republican Senators blame the Federal Government for failure to protect our borders, and THEY ARE THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, Then who is really to blame for the current lack of Immigration control ?

----------


## crashdive123

> Wait! I know. Let's add nicotine to this law. It will become additive and they won't be able to rescind it.


Yeah, but then you can only enforce it in designated areas - and never in a public building.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Wait! I know. Let's add nicotine to this law. It will become additive and they won't be able to rescind it.





> Yeah, but then you can only enforce it in designated areas - and never in a public building.


...and pay for someone else's health insurance. :Innocent:

----------


## Rick

But they will all be huddled in front of where they work at least three times a day. Should be easy to nab 'em.

----------


## BENESSE

> But they will all be huddled in front of where they work at least three times a day. Should be easy to nab 'em.


 :Laugh:   :clap:

----------


## Pal334

I guess I made my position fairly clear on this subject. Now I read this, just as I was fearing;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201...uffpost/557721

National ID Card Included In Democratic Immigration Bill
Ryan Grim Ryan Grim – Thu Apr 29, 8:05 pm ET
Democrats pushed forward on an immigration overhaul on Thursday evening with no Republican support, as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) continues to hold out, arguing that the divisive issue will make progress on climate change legislation impossible. 
The Senate is also in the middle of debating Wall Street reform, which is expected to take up the next few weeks of floor time. Reid, however, said that the chamber would be able to handle the task. "We can do more than one thing at once," he said. 
The Democratic proposal includes increased money for border patrol and drug war agents, equipment, helicopters and unmanned drones. It would create a national ID -- which is dubbed a "biometric social security card." Though Democrats insist that it is not an ID card and can only be used for employment purposes. 
The proposal would also include a crackdown on employers who hire undocumented workers. It works to deport some immigrants who are not in the country legally and creates a limited pathway to citizenship for others. 
Democrats brought out their heavy hitters for the announcement: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.); Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.); Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who's been leading the push for immigration reform; Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.); Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) and Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
The crackdown on employers relies on the creation of national identity cards. "These cards will be fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant, wear resistant, and machine-readable social security cards containing a photograph and an electronically coded micro-processing chip which possesses a unique biometric identifier for the authorized card-bearer," reads the bill summary.

----------


## Rick

You do not have to carry your social security card with you. So it can not be used as a forced form of ID. 

"You should treat your  Social Security number as confidential  information and avoid giving it out  unnecessarily. You should keep your  Social Security card in a safe place with  your other important papers.  Do not carry it with you unless you need to show  it to an employer or  service provider."

From the social security website: 

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10002.html#protect

----------


## Pal334

No arguement here. Standing by to see how it developes

----------


## Justin Case

BREAKING NOW,, MASSIVE SEARCH UNDERWAY,,,,

Report: Deputy shot by undocumented immigrant in desert (AK-47)

PINAL COUNTY, AZ -- A Pinal County Sheriff's deputy has been rescued after being shot in the Arizona desert, apparently by an undocumented immigrant.

The deputy is now being transported to Casa Grande Regional Medical Center in an unknown condition.

According to Pinal County Sheriff's Lt. Tamatha Villar, the deputy said in a radio transmission around 4:30 p.m. that he had been shot by an undocumented immigrant.

Villar said the deputy was working alone in the search for undocumented immigrants when he stopped five suspects southwest of Casa Grande, near Interstate 8 and Arizona 84.

One of the suspects reportedly pulled out an AK47 assault rifle, shooting the deputy in the abdomen.

The suspects apparently then took off with a "load of marijuana," and remain on the loose right now.

Authorities spent over an hour searching for the deputy, who was able to communicate with authorities via his radio.

Just after 5:30 p.m., Air15 video showed a Department of Public Safety helicopter crew landing in the desert and walking the wounded deputy to the chopper.

Crews are now searching the desert for the suspects.

Stay with ABC15.com for updates.


http://www.abc15.com/content/news/ce...amEzMc3Sg.cspx

----------


## Ken

1. *Play Fair* - give 24 hours advance notice.*  :Innocent: 

2. *Play Rough* - Saturate the border with Apache gunships. Activate the FLIR as needed. Obliterate ANYTHING that crosses the border (except at official crossings).  :Sneaky2: 

3. *Play Forever* - Don't stop, like those morons in charge did with our Combat Air Patrols.  :Sneaky2: 


*  Just kidding about the advance notice.  Serious about everything else.

----------


## Ken

Call me a prick, but I believe, and always have, that actions come with consequences.

I also believe, and always have, that it's better to kill a million of theirs rather than lose just one of ours.  If "they" don't like it, they should stay home and/or refrain from terrorist/criminal acts.

----------


## BENESSE

> *Call me a prick*, but I believe, and always have, that actions come with consequences.
> 
> I also believe, and always have, that it's better to kill a million of theirs rather than lose just one of ours.  If "they" don't like it, they should stay home and/or refrain from terrorist/criminal acts.


*Prick!*
Now that _that's_ out of the way, I agree.

----------


## Justin Case

> *Prick!*
> Now that _that's_ out of the way, I agree.


 :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

----------


## Rick

Arizona Governor Signs Changes into Immigration Law. 

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS...n.law.changes/

----------


## Ken

> Arizona Governor Signs Changes into Immigration Law. 
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS...n.law.changes/


_(CNN) -- "Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill Friday that makes changes to a controversial new state immigration law, saying the changes should ease concerns about racial profiling."_

This is just plain stupidity.  Of course there's gonna' be some racial profiling.  Who do they think will be sneaking over the border down there?  Japanese?  

No different than at airports.  Who are we primarily worried about there?  I haven't heard of too many Dutch grandmothers trying to cause airliners to crash.

I guess that common sense means nothing when you're politically correct.

----------


## Rick

Officer: "Well now, Mr. Yokohama. I clocked you at 82 in a 55. Say, just out of curiosity, are you a legal citizen?"
Mr. Yokohama: "私は英語を理解しない"
Officer: "That's just what I thought you little slimy...."

----------


## crashdive123

Maybe he should learn some.

----------


## Rick

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## Justin Case

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## Rick

One of your more intelligent posts.  :Innocent:

----------


## smhg

My uncle lives in Tucson and had this posted on his Facebook page the other day:

_The latest poll by the Arizona Governor asked whether people who live in Arizona believe illegal immigration is a serious problem: 29% responded "Yes, it's a serious problem." 71% of respondents replied " No es una problema seriosa"_

 :Innocent:

----------


## Justin Case

> my Uncle Lives In Tucson And Had This Posted On His Facebook Page The Other Day:
> 
> _the Latest Poll By The Arizona Governor Asked Whether People Who Live In Arizona Believe Illegal Immigration Is A Serious Problem: 29% Responded "yes, It's A Serious Problem." 71% Of Respondents Replied " No Es Una Problema Seriosa"_


Lol   Lol  :Smile:

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

OK, I'm arriving late to the party.  However some things that have been mentioned and not bother me.

First the 5th Amendment:



> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation


.
Immigration is NOT A Capital crime.It is Not popular but not "Infamous". The Law for Illegal Immigration is already there. So we can forget about "Due Process". Simple, Violate the law, pay the consequences.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html

Second, Has anyone forgotten that a LEO can detain anyone for up to 72 hours to ascertain your identity??? So YES you MUST carry ID. Citizen or not. If you are a "Suspected Terrorist" or "Suspected affiliate of a Terrorist agency/group" You can throw the 72 hour "Rule" out. Patriot Act ring any bells??

Third, A State has the ability in it's "Sovereignty" To apply it's OWN LAWS. These Can ADD TO but NOT DETRACT From Federal Law.

So. As I see it. Arizona has acted WITHIN the Constitution, and applicable Federal Laws.

I agree with what Rick has said, I Believe that Arizona has done this to FORCE the FEDS to ENFORCE the Current Laws, Which THEY HAVE SO CONVENIENTLY IGNORED!!! If the federal Government WILL NOT do the job, then it falls on the state to do so.

*Keep on Trucking Arizona!!!*

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

I just thought of something that could solve two problems. Where we don't have a "Wall" along the border, we could put prisons there. New prisons are being built all the time. Put them along the border, and kill two birds with one stone.

Mexican law has it that if you cross into their country illegally, You *WILL* be Caught and returned. No one is crying about that are they. It's fair. We should "Return the favor".

----------


## Pict

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, *and shall protect each of them against Invasion*; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

I'd say Arizona rightly has a beef with the Federal Government not doing its job.

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, *or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
*

I would also say Arizona is showing great restraint regarding its own Constitutionally defensible options.  If Jan Brewer decided that the border incursions by the Mexican military protecting drug dealers warrant it SHE can declare war.

Mac

----------


## Ken

Uhhhh, Poco? There are several misstatements of law and inaccuracies in your post #169.  :Innocent:

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> Uhhhh, Poco? There are several misstatements of law and inaccuracies in your post #169.


OK enlighten me.

----------


## Ken

> OK enlighten me.


Okay.




> Immigration is NOT A Capital crime.It is Not popular but not "Infamous". The Law for Illegal Immigration is already there. So we can forget about "Due Process". Simple, Violate the law, pay the consequences.


Immigration isn't a crime at all. Illegal entry into the United States (overstaying a visa, etc.) is a crime. It meets the legal definition of "Infamous Crime."

"Infamous Crime" is a legal term. It doesn't mean a crime that's particularly notable or highly publicized - it's another term used for the word "felony." A conviction for illegal entry - second or subsequent offense, carries a two year term of imprisonment. That's a felony.

"Due Process" isn't something we can "forget about." Due process simply requires that the law must be followed. For example, due process enables someone charged with illegal entry to challenge deportation if say, for instance, that person actually WAS an American citizen.  :Innocent: 




> Second, Has anyone forgotten that a LEO can detain anyone for up to 72 hours to ascertain your identity???


No they can't. There must be an underlying criminal charge to hold a person, not simply a question of their identity. Even if they ARE being held, ever hear of habeas corpus? Every state I'm aware of requires police to bring the "accused" before a court or magistrate (if court is not in session) within a set period of time - usually under 24 hours.




> So YES you MUST carry ID. Citizen or not.


That's absolutely incorrect. I'm not aware of any such law anywhere in the United States. If there is such a law in any jurisdiction, it's unconstitutional. 




> If you are a "Suspected Terrorist" or "Suspected affiliate of a Terrorist agency/group" You can throw the 72 hour "Rule" out. Patriot Act ring any bells??


Once again, habeas corpus. Don't confuse our domestic law with our military's activities at Guantanamo - entirely different.




> Third, A State has the ability in it's "Sovereignty" To apply it's OWN LAWS. These Can ADD TO but NOT DETRACT From Federal Law.


State Sovereignty applies to a point. The concept of "adding to" or detracting from" federal law is incorrect and meaningless. A state law cannot be IN CONFLICT with Federal Law - that would include the United States Code and the Constitution. Federal Law is the "supreme law of the land."

State law may give you certain legal rights which can be enforced (only in that state's courts) which are greater (but not less) than those allowed by the United States Constitution.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> Okay.
> 
> Immigration isn't a crime at all. Illegal entry into the United States (overstaying a visa, etc.) is a crime. It meets the legal definition of "Infamous Crime."
> That is why I said "*Illegal* Immigration"
> "Infamous Crime" is a legal term. It doesn't mean a crime that's particularly notable or highly publicized - it's another term used for the word "felony." A conviction for illegal entry - second or subsequent offense, carries a two year term of imprisonment. That's a felony.
> OK, but not the first offense right???
> "Due Process" isn't something we can "forget about." Due process simply requires that the law must be followed. For example, due process enables someone charged with illegal entry to challenge deportation if say, for instance, that person actually WAS an American citizen. 
> 
> I misspoke. Thank you for the correction.
> ...


 Thank you, Ken. That clarifies some things. Confuses me on how some things LEO's can do and get away with, with the courts blessings. Detainment is what I am implying here. You know the ID thing? All a Cop has to do is "Suspect you" of doing something. It has happened to me, with no ID and until I COULD PROVE WHO I WAS, I was detained. Since then, I go NOWHERE without ID. Maybe next time I should just get nasty with the cop for violating my Constitutional rights???? Oh I was on foot, sober, late at night. I had to get someone I knew that was staying at the same Motel to get my ID. Just so you understand the context.  I just went to the store to get some smokes about 1 AM. The store was right close to the Motel.... fortunately for me. Also fortunate that someone I knew came out at that time of night.  The cop had EVERY intention of handcuffing me, putting me in a car and a jail cell, until I could Prove who I was.

----------


## crashdive123

Solving the problem with illegal immigration is actually quite simple.  All it would require is the following:

1.  Go after employers that hire illegals.  Make the penalties stiff.
2.  Go after people that house (or rent to) illegals.  Make the penalties stiff.
3.  Nobody in the country illegally can attend school.
4.  Medical care (except a true emergency) is not available to people here illegally.
5.  No social welfare benefits will be afforded to illegals.
6.  Make English the official language of the country.
7.  Secure our borders.

As I said earlier - I can certainly understand people wanting to come here to make a better life for themselves and their families.  I don't blame the illegals for taking advantage of a broken system.  I blame our government (not just the current one).  I do get angry (that's putting it mildly) when those that are here illegally march and protest against those of us that want our laws enforced.  Kind of bassackwards don't you think?

*EDIT:*  Outsourse to a private company the issuance of work visas.  Monitor them closely and make abuses of the system carry harsh sanctions.

----------


## Pocomoonskyeyes3

> Solving the problem with illegal immigration is actually quite simple.  All it would require is the following:
> 
> 1.  Go after employers that hire illegals.  Make the penalties stiff.
> 2.  Go after people that house (or rent to) illegals.  Make the penalties stiff.
> 3.  Nobody in the country illegally can attend school.
> 4.  Medical care (except a true emergency) is not available to people here illegally.
> 5.  No social welfare benefits will be afforded to illegals.
> 6.  Make English the official language of the country.
> 7.  Secure our borders.
> ...


I couldn't agree more!!! For #1&2 I say a Penalty/fine of about $10,000,000/Illegal person sounds about right. Maybe More?? :Innocent:

----------


## crashdive123

First offence - monetary fine.  Second offence - business and business assets are confiscated - and sold, with proceeds going toward a better "fence".

----------


## Ken

> Originally Posted by *Ken* Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum. 
> _Okay._
> 
> _Immigration isn't a crime at all. Illegal entry into the United States (overstaying a visa, etc.) is a crime. It meets the legal definition of "Infamous Crime."_
> _That is why I said "Illegal Immigration"_
> 
> _"Infamous Crime" is a legal term. It doesn't mean a crime that's particularly notable or highly publicized - it's another term used for the word "felony." A conviction for illegal entry - second or subsequent offense, carries a two year term of imprisonment. That's a felony._
> _OK, but not the first offense right???_
> 
> ...


 



> Thank you, Ken. That clarifies some things. Confuses me on how some things LEO's can do and get away with, with the courts blessings. Detainment is what I am implying here. You know the ID thing? All a Cop has to do is "Suspect you" of doing something. It has happened to me, with no ID and until I COULD PROVE WHO I WAS, I was detained. Since then, I go NOWHERE without ID. Maybe next time I should just get nasty with the cop for violating my Constitutional rights???? Oh I was on foot, sober, late at night. I had to get someone I knew that was staying at the same Motel to get my ID. Just so you understand the context. I just went to the store to get some smokes about 1 AM. The store was right close to the Motel.... fortunately for me. Also fortunate that someone I knew came out at that time of night. The cop had EVERY intention of handcuffing me, putting me in a car and a jail cell, until I could Prove who I was.


Poco, I deal with these issues almost every week. The law regarding police stops, searches, seizures, detentions, arrests, etc. is constantly evolving. 

Suffice it to say that police frequently exceed their legal authority in many of these instances. 

Have I ever been there myself? Yep. Has a police officer ever demanded to see my ID? Yep. Have I given it to them if I wasn't driving a car? Nope. Have I ever "exchanged words" with a police officer in such instances? Yep. They usually back off when I start citing case law and statutes by chapter and section. Funny thing is, I'm also entitled to have THEM identify themselves to me. 

I'm kinda' like Coot. I've been doing this for over 25 years. I'm not easily impressed or intimidated, even by police officers. One reason is the fact that I've represented scores of them. 

However, I'm not encouraging anyone to wise mouth a police officer. Several have been known to make up stories (lie through their teeth) to justify an otherwise unlawful arrest or threashold inquiry.

----------


## Ken

> Go after people that house (or rent to) illegals. Make the penalties stiff.


In Mass, the A.G.'s office would probably charge you with discrimination.  :Sneaky2:

----------


## LowKey

And should the illegal provide papers/workvisa/greencard/whatever that subsequently prove to be falsified is the employer liable?

I've worked in landscaping crews. Some of the stories those guys could tell...

----------


## crashdive123

> And should the illegal provide papers/workvisa/greencard/whatever that subsequently prove to be falsified is the employer liable?
> 
> I've worked in landscaping crews. Some of the stories those guys could tell...


I've hired several hundred people to work in the pest control industry.  I have filled out the I-9 forms and sent them in.  In all of those instances, only once did I receive notification that the social security number and identity of this person did not match.  Local and federal authorities were notifed, the employee was fired.  No law enforcement agency ever followed up.  I don't know if this individual was in the country illegally, or had just stolen an identity to hide a past from a new employer.  Either way - he did not work for me long.  

If employers want to do the right thing, then it is simple.  If not, they should suffer the consequences of their actions.

----------


## Ken

> If employers want to do the right thing, then it is simple. If not, they should suffer the consequences of their actions.


The sad thing is that *the government itself is a serious offender.* Take the case of *Obama's aunt, Zeituni Onyango.* She entered the United States in 2000 on a temporary visa. She received a social security card in 2001, but her visa expired shortly thereafter. She then applied for asylum in this country after her visa expired, but was denied and ordered to return to Kenya in 2002. 

*She's still here*, and in the middle of her second appeal.

Since 2003 she has been *living in a Boston public housing project* owned by the Boston Housing Authority.

She *currently works part-time for the Boston Housing Authority* as a public health advocate. William McGonagle, deputy director of the Authority, noted she "did a good job" as a public health advocate on behalf of the Boston Housing Authority and added, we have no affirmative responsibility I am aware of to further check on (her) status after (she is) initially deemed to be eligible. 

She suffers from a back problem, and has *undergone surgery and received costly medical care and hospitilization at taxpayers expense.* 

*A 1977 federal consent decree,* resulting from a class action lawsuit, *prohibits state officials from denying public housing to illegal immigrants.*

And yet, we tell private employers and landlords that they are violating the law. The government officials permitting this bullsh*t should be prosecuted themselves. But they won't be. Tell me that that isn't dead wrong.  :Sneaky2:

----------


## Pal334

Something ironic about verifying citizenship. The company I consult at is a major Defense Contractor and all employees have Top Secret (TS) Government security clearance. When they were initially hired the company used the E-Verify system for citizenship/ right to work verification. And when they were investigated for the TS security clearance, Federal Investigators verified their citizenship status. So there was a double federal verification of US citizenship. Last week, as a normal course of business, the E-Verify records were audited by the US government and 20 of our folks with TS clearances were identified as having incomplete records and had to bring in all original citizenship documents for re verification (including me in the number). I provided a certifed copy of my security clearance investigation and adjudication, which was deemed inadequate. My response was "have a great day" a certified Federal Investigation will have to do, I am not providing anything additional. To use a worn phrase from the forum "Monday should be interesting".  My point in this long winded ramble is that earlier I made my opposition to the "Arizona issue" clear in earlier posts. This circumstance is another example of how the "system" is broken, and abdicating our rights would only be encouraging abuse.

----------


## cowgirlup

> The sad thing is that *the government itself is a serious offender.* Take the case of *Obama's aunt, Zeituni Onyango.* She entered the United States in 2000 on a temporary visa. She received a social security card in 2001, but her visa expired shortly thereafter. She then applied for asylum in this country after her visa expired, but was denied and ordered to return to Kenya in 2002. 
> 
> *She's still here*, and in the middle of her second appeal.
> 
> Since 2003 she has been *living in a Boston public housing project* owned by the Boston Housing Authority.
> 
> She *currently works part-time for the Boston Housing Authority* as a public health advocate. William McGonagle, deputy director of the Authority, noted she "did a good job" as a public health advocate on behalf of the Boston Housing Authority and added, we have no affirmative responsibility I am aware of to further check on (her) status after (she is) initially deemed to be eligible. 
> 
> She suffers from a back problem, and has *undergone surgery and received costly medical care and hospitilization at taxpayers expense.* 
> ...


Crazy.  That was big news for a while then you never heard about it.  You can;t fix the problem in the private sector until it gets fixed with government agencies first.

What a mess.

----------


## Justin Case

Defending the law


THE SPEAKER SPEAKS: Arizona Rep. Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, speaks to Mohave County leaders Friday in Kingman. By JIM SECKLER/The Daily News
House leader speaks out on immigration bill
By JIM SECKLER/The Daily News
Published: Sunday, May 9, 2010 11:58 PM MDT
KINGMAN  The leader of the Arizona House of the Representatives blasted the national media in its coverage of an immigration bill.

Arizona Rep. Kirk Adams (R-Mesa) met with Mohave County leaders Friday, including Arizona Reps. Nancy McLain and Doris Goodale. Adams said the bill requires a police officer to have a legal reason to stop and ask a persons immigration status. The bill specifically outlaws racial profiling based on race, color or national origin.

I havent seen the national media come close to adequate coverage on the bill, Adams said. Its unfortunate that they make it sound like the Gestapo asking people for their papers.

Adams also said he supports a fence along the entire border with Mexico and said the border in Texas and California does have an elaborate fence because of its larger representation. In parts of Arizona, the border is marked only with barbed wire on wooden posts.

Try telling this to the guy on CNN, Adams said.

The House speaker said the violence along the border is so bad it looks like the Wild West on steroids. On a visit to the border he had to have an armed escort. The violence has taken a human toll with rapes, robberies and murders. He also supports sending troops to the border and downplays criticism of militarizing the border.

Adams admits the bill wont solve the problem and does not secure the border but allows the state to work toward a solution. He also said two miles from his own house, there was an arrest of two dozen people who had a large cache of weapons and drugs.

If this was happening in Manhattan, Boston or Washington, then there would be a national emergency, he said.

Some police chiefs have opposed the bill because a provision in the bill allows an Arizona resident to sue a law enforcement agency if the agency is not enforcing the law to the fullest extent. Adams said the bill was changed to include a loser pay clause where the loser of a lawsuit would have to pay the legal costs. That would prevent frivolous lawsuits, he said.

Another concern was the rising cost to cities or counties to house illegal immigrants in jail. Adams said a provision would give a city the option to incarcerate an illegal immigrant or let border patrol agents take custody.

Adams also said he was concerned with the economic cost of possible boycotts planned by critics of the bill but the cost not to do anything would be greater. The cost of illegal immigrants was estimated to be about $1 billion a year in state services including health care and education. That does not include the cost of crime. He also denied the bill was passed for political reasons in an election year by saying the bill had been worked on for several years.

Another issue is if a victim of a crime is an illegal immigrant, then police officers would not be allowed to ask their immigration status, which could hurt an investigation to the crime, Adams said.

Adams said the first priority is securing the border after which there can be a discussion on what happens to the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country. The state and feds need to stop the drug cartels that bring drugs and human smuggling north and see cash and guns going south to Mexico.
http://mohavedailynews.com/articles/...2117662435.txt

----------


## trax

> My uncle lives in Tucson and had this posted on his Facebook page the other day:
> 
> _The latest poll by the Arizona Governor asked whether people who live in Arizona believe illegal immigration is a serious problem: 29% responded "Yes, it's a serious problem." 71% of respondents replied " No es una problema seriosa"_


Kind of like the old question "what's the difference between Miami and Cancun? In Cancun your waiter speaks English"

----------


## Rick

Anyone care to guess where this fence is? Oh, come on. We paid for it. We man it. We keep the bad guys out. 

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.



DMZ between North and South Korea. Yet, we can't control our own border.

----------


## Ken

> DMZ between North and South Korea. Yet, we can't control our own border.


I've got a piece of that fence - the old "Wire" one from the DMZ. 

Here it is:

----------


## Justin Case

> I've got a piece of that fence - the old "Wire" one from the DMZ. 
> 
> Here it is:


If you ever want to buy more pieces of Barbed Wire just let me know  :Wink:   :Innocent:

----------


## Ken

> If you ever want to buy more pieces of Barbed Wire just let me know


Moron.  :Sneaky2:  It was a gift from my brother in memory of my Dad. My Dad served in the Korean war, and my kid brother commanded a battalion there 50 years later.

----------


## Justin Case

> Moron.  It was a gift from my brother in memory of my Dad. My Dad served in the Korean war, and my kid brother commanded a battalion there 50 years later.


Oh,  My Bad,,   :Blushing:

----------


## Ken

> Oh, My Bad,,


No problem.  Just drop and give me 50 and all will be forgiven.   :Smile:

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Moron.  It was a gift from my brother in memory of my Dad. My Dad served in the Korean war, and my kid brother commanded a battalion there 50 years later.


 So, you're sayin' that you don't need any more barbed wire? :Innocent:

----------


## Trabitha

> I've got a piece of that fence - the old "Wire" one from the DMZ. 
> 
> Here it is:


Wow!!  What a great thing to have, Ken!

----------


## Justin Case

This photo was sent to me in an email,  No explanation or anything, just the pic ?  

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## crashdive123

> This photo was sent to me in an email,  No explanation or anything, just the pic ?  
> 
> Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.


Somebody sent you a picture of a little white box with a red x in it?

----------


## Justin Case

Hmm,  I can see it fine,  here, I will attach the file (jpeg)

----------


## Winnie

Perhaps I should just come over on a tourist visa, get a job and outstay my welcome.... Ooops that won't work, I'm willing to pay my way and contribute to the economy. That's far too viable. :Smile:  :Sneaky2:

----------


## Rick

I suspect that just might be a photoshop job.

----------


## crashdive123

It may be a photshop job, but in many cases, not too far from the truth.

----------


## Justin Case

> I suspect that just might be a photoshop job.


I suspect you are right,,

----------


## Justin Case

> DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- The L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 in favor of a boycott of Arizona in a meeting Tuesday.
> 
> It came down to the vote of Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, whose district is mostly African American and Latino and some of his constituents voiced their opinion.
> 
> The grandmother of murdered teen Jamiel Shaw Jr. was in tears as she spoke to the Board of Supervisors.
> 
> "But you don't know what it feels like to see your grandson laying on the ground full of blood," she said.
> 
> Jamiel Shaw Jr. was allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant who was released from jail.
> ...


Continued @ http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...les&id=7472292

----------


## crashdive123

I'm willing to hazard a guess that a city or state that officially boycotts a state is in violation of law - Constitution maybe?

----------

