[wacor]

If there is another thread on this then please merge.

I heard a law professor on the radio this morning discussing the AZ law that has all the liberals wetting their pants.

Found it interesting that he says it will be found unconstitutional. Not that the courts would rule that way but why. He says he doubts the issue of pofiling will even be raised but if so that it will not be the reason it is ruled against by the courts.

Once again the feds will rule the day. The issue of preemption will be what brings this down in his opinion. Apparently the feds have final say on immigration laws. Since when did we lose being a limited republic anyway???

Another point is this law does not profile. It is not a primary law. It specifically states that when somebody has been legally detained that it is the duty of law enforcement to determine if that person is an illegal. So if one is just walking down the street and there is no legal reason to detain then law enforcement does not have the right to stop a person to determine if they are here legally.

How is this any different by the way from the federal laws which have been on the books that require an employer to determine that the person they hire is not an illegal?? Why is it is any different than doing a check to determine if you are wanted if you have been pulled over for speeding? Is it profiling to ask a young person to show ID when buying booze?

[Noyb]

I watched a TV show several weeks ago about the Murders and Kidnapping for ransom that's going on in Mexico.
Possibly state sponsored .. Since Mexico is doing nothing to stop it.

On the news Channel .. Did you hear the Governor say why this was necessary ???
... the Murders and Kidnapping are moving to Arizona.

I see nothing wrong with Profiling ... As long as one is treated decently and not harassed.

[wacor]

They should treat it like the grocery store does when you buy beer.

Everybody has to show their birth date which is inputted on the cash register.

Make everybody who is detained show citizenship and there is no profiling.

The sad part is that the morons in DC will now come up with some lame attempt at what they will call immigration reform that will not do squat. And will not address a serious issue that AZ is having to deal with.

[Wino]

This law, same as the Patriot Act, will produce abuses for which no one or not many will be punished for abusing the law.

I'm all for deporting all illegals, so I'm not against the AZ. bill, but do believe there will be some police that will abuse the law - more than already done. It will turn into a he said, she said. Last time NV. and AZ. got tough on immigrants, our TX. illegal population grew about 20%. If you're not a lily white WASP in AZ you will be more subject to harassment under the new law. Mexican and Indian are a huge part of the population in AZ. If I were either, I'd be worried. As someone mentioned the other day, John Boehner should stay away from AZ. since orange is really an unusual skin pigmentation.

I'm guessing the laws in Michigan have changed re carding for alcohol. I do not recall being carded back in the 60's and 70's when I spent some time there. I know I haven't been carded in Texas or anywhere else for years, so I'm guessing the wrinkles and gray hair play a part. Utah - now that was a different story. Back then you had to show ID when buying alcohol (only through state run stores) so the state could monitor your drinking habits - I think that may still apply.

[wacor]

Wino it might just be in the area I live that carding is taken to this extreme. The city I live in is very strict with no tolerance. The cops will go to a party and if there are underage kids they will round them up and give them breathalyzer tests. If you are underage and had one sip of beer you might as well have been driving drunk. They will haul you off to jail to bring up charges where you can then post bond and spend a few thousand to deal with the courts which will include alcohol counseling etc. I might add they did this at Western Michigan University also. The cops would come into the dorms looking for kids drinking.

In the city I live in they have sting operations where they will go to restaurants and liquor stores with underage kids and have them try to get served or buy booze. Then when a liquor license is up for renewal any past violations are used to threaten them. Normally that results in the business having to submit to programs they have to send their employees too.

I always got carded until I was in my late 20's

I think this AZ law is much ado about nothing. Unless you are here illegally. It probably will end up being the starting point where we end up eventually with all having a national ID card.

[Littlefield]

They say 70 percent of Arizona citizens favor the new law since the FED has done nada and that rancher getting killed on the border contributed to the feeling now to get strict.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by wacor

They should treat it like the grocery store does when you buy beer.

Everybody has to show their birth date which is inputted on the cash register.

Make everybody who is detained show citizenship and there is no profiling.

The sad part is that the morons in DC will now come up with some lame attempt at what they will call immigration reform that will not do squat. And will not address a serious issue that AZ is having to deal with.

what i read about the need for this bill is pretty much the same arguements i've heard before: the increase in crime, taking jobs from americans.......but there's never any numbers to back this up, (just the allegations rampant in rhetoric) and the bill (least what i've seen of it on the web) doesn't do anything to curb either of those things: it just gives state law enforcement the power to do what the feds only do sporadically.

and no one quoted in any of articles i've looked at pointed out the third -and most important, imo- reason to curb illegal immigration...the economic drain on public services

so i wonder....does this new bill mean that local law enforcement will investigate and shut down or fine legit american businesses that hire illegals? will it be a misdemeanor for a white person to pick up a hispanic person at the corner to clean their office or mow their lawn? if it does, then it's not nearly as one sided as it sounds on the surface.

illegal immigration exists as a two edged sword: the talk out of arizona surrounding this bill seems to ignore that

[Wino]

I have no problem with a national ID card. I already have a passport card (in addition to a full passport) I carry in my wallet full time. I will occasionally use it for ID in lieu of my drivers license. My problem is the mug shot on the card is as ugly as the one on my drivers license and passport, so I've come to the conclusion I'm just plain ugly.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

They say 70 percent of Arizona citizens favor the new law since the FED has done nada and that rancher getting killed on the border contributed to the feeling now to get strict.

Without going into great detail, I've no doubt there are murdered wetbacks buried all over isolated ranch land 50+ miles from the Mexican border in Texas and doubt that is much different from NM, AZ, NV. Ranch hands and landowners doing the murders.

This Mexican illegal alien matter has to be handled in an intelligent way and without heavy handedness. If you think we have problems with Islamic terrorist, you haven't seen nothing if we create militant Mexicans, legal or illegal.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by iltos

what i read about the need for this bill is pretty much the same arguements i've heard before: the increase in crime, taking jobs from americans.......but there's never any numbers to back this up, (just the allegations rampant in rhetoric) and the bill (least what i've seen of it on the web) doesn't do anything to curb either of those things: it just gives state law enforcement the power to do what the feds only do sporadically.

and no one quoted in any of articles i've looked at pointed out the third -and most important, imo- reason to curb illegal immigration...the economic drain on public services

so i wonder....does this new bill mean that local law enforcement will investigate and shut down or fine legit american businesses that hire illegals? will it be a misdemeanor for a white person to pick up a hispanic person at the corner to clean their office or mow their lawn? if it does, then it's not nearly as one sided as it sounds on the surface.

illegal immigration exists as a two edged sword: the talk out of arizona surrounding this bill seems to ignore that

They are taking jobs from Americans. But the fact is Americans do not want to do those jobs. So it perhaps is not as black and white as some would like. I noticed a large landscape company had a lot of ads in the paper. Yet they had a very large contingent of Mexicans working for them who spoke no english. These were not US citizens and not sure if they even had green cards. But it was legal to hire them as long as ads were placed and locals had no interest in the jobs. These people would work here for a few months and then go back to Mexico

I don't claim to have followed up on the crime statistics but I have seen more than one law community source from the effected areas that stated there was a lot of crime involved. On the border areas themselves it seems that much of that is drug related.

As to profiling if somebody does not speak english I would think that alone would be enough evidence on the surface to warrant asking for id to prove one is not illegal. I don't care if they are speaking spanish or Russian. If they don't know our language I see no issue with checking on their status. And I would say the same goes for an ugly American in any other country. You live by the rules of where you inhabit or visit.

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by wacor

As to profiling if somebody does not speak english I would think that alone would be enough evidence on the surface to warrant asking for id to prove one is not illegal. I don't care if they are speaking spanish or Russian. If they don't know our language I see no issue with checking on their status. And I would say the same goes for an ugly American in any other country. You live by the rules of where you inhabit or visit.

I disagree with this for a few reasons. Primarily, just because someone is speaking a different language to their colleagues doesn't mean they don't speak English. Moreover, there are legal immigrants who haven't yet gotten up to speed on US English. Not speaking the language of the land should not be used as cause to suspect illegal immigration. This is the very thing that will cause this law to be abused and lead to actual profiling. I think that the bill should have spelled out explicitly that speaking in a foreign tongue, ethnicity, or race do not qualify as probably cause.

Originally Posted by Wino

I have no problem with a national ID card. I already have a passport card (in addition to a full passport) I carry in my wallet full time. I will occasionally use it for ID in lieu of my drivers license. My problem is the mug shot on the card is as ugly as the one on my drivers license and passport, so I've come to the conclusion I'm just plain ugly.

I agree on the national ID. I think we should have a national driver's license. Is this a catch-22 for those on the right? They want to control immigration but they are big into state rights. I often see this as a conflict, they preach both security and liberty at the same time but we know that we can't have all of both.

I haven't seen your mug so I can't comment on that.

Overall, I see the bill as leading to abuse. While the law requires that an officer have legal cause to detain an individual, they can always find a reason and once the person is found to be an illegal immigrant, they won't have the protection of our constitution to have them released (in this country at least). I see nothing that prevents law enforcement from violating equal protection at will. Note that the fourteenth amendment is written that no person shall be denied equal protection. The word citizen or the phrase "legal resident" do not a appear.

I would like to see these types of strict enforcement laws combined with some type of amnesty as well as greater ability for a business to sponsor an immigrate for temporary work status. There are illegal immigrants that were brought here at such a young age that this country is all that they know. Many of them don't know anyone in their nation of birth and some of them don't even speak the language. Sending them back to that country is inhumane. Since they have had a de facto amnesty for many years, I believe we are responsible for remaining consistent and not pulling the rug out from someone where we are partly to blame for their situation due to many years of lack of enforcement.

I don't want to see immigrants denied medical care for any reason. Again, this is just a matter of humanity.

Employers are committing another violation of the law when they hire illegals by not paying into social security and welfare. If it is true that some jobs can only be filled by hiring immigrants, let the employer follow a procedure to prove it. In order to hire or sponsor an immigrant, they should have to open their records and show they could not find a legal resident to fill the job.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by wacor

They are taking jobs from Americans. But the fact is Americans do not want to do those jobs. So it perhaps is not as black and white as some would like. I noticed a large landscape company had a lot of ads in the paper. Yet they had a very large contingent of Mexicans working for them who spoke no english. These were not US citizens and not sure if they even had green cards. But it was legal to hire them as long as ads were placed and locals had no interest in the jobs. These people would work here for a few months and then go back to Mexico

I don't claim to have followed up on the crime statistics but I have seen more than one law community source from the effected areas that stated there was a lot of crime involved. On the border areas themselves it seems that much of that is drug related.

As to profiling if somebody does not speak english I would think that alone would be enough evidence on the surface to warrant asking for id to prove one is not illegal. I don't care if they are speaking spanish or Russian. If they don't know our language I see no issue with checking on their status. And I would say the same goes for an ugly American in any other country. You live by the rules of where you inhabit or visit.

my only concern is that law doesn't seem to address the issues of illegal immigration, just the immigrants themselves: in that sense, it seems reactionary....directed towards a class of people, rather than the issues which have created them.

[wacor]

Thingy did you pay attention. The law specifically states the person has to have already been legally detained. There is no loss of rights or issue of cause to detain somebody to verify citizenship. They must have already been detained for a legal reason. Now if you want to say this will be expanded I won't argue that. In MI we have had mandatory seat belt laws for years. It was a secondary offense which meant you already had to be pulled over for something else. They could not just pull you over for the seat belt violation alone. I guess they were not happy with losing that income so now it is a primary offense. I saw a cop last week sitting in the middle of a 5 lane road up near an intersection where he eyeballed every driver and withing 30 seconds was off to give a ticket

[wacor]

Originally Posted by iltos

my only concern is that law doesn't seem to address the issues of illegal immigration, just the immigrants themselves: in that sense, it seems reactionary....directed towards a class of people, rather than the issues which have created them.

With all due respect that sounds like an excuse to enable. I don't care what class of people they are. If they are here illegally we need to get rid of them. What purpose are laws if one can ignore something as obvious as citizenship???

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by wacor

Thingy did you pay attention. The law specifically states the person has to have already been legally detained. There is no loss of rights or issue of cause to detain somebody to verify citizenship. They must have already been detained for a legal reason. Now if you want to say this will be expanded I won't argue that. In MI we have had mandatory seat belt laws for years. It was a secondary offense which meant you already had to be pulled over for something else. They could not just pull you over for the seat belt violation alone. I guess they were not happy with losing that income so now it is a primary offense. I saw a cop last week sitting in the middle of a 5 lane road up near an intersection where he eyeballed every driver and withing 30 seconds was off to give a ticket

My point is that the detention requirement will be irrelevant as any statement of law is irrelevant if there is no legal recourse. If a citizen is profiled, pulled over, detained, or searched without cause, any evidence found supporting a subsequent charge may get thrown out by the court. While it's unlikely that the prosecution won't find some way around it, a citizen still has the protection of the constitution and a chance to go free. This does serve as a discouragement to law enforcement for violating procedure.

However, an illegal immigrant under the same situation will not be released back into the public but instead they will be deported. It doesn't matter if law enforcement follows procedure or the letter of the law or not. They will still accomplish their original intended goal of having the person deported. So all of the language that states that a person must be detained or held for some other reason has no teeth at all. Those are rights that the courts will consider granted only to citizens and legal residents.