Arizona Immigration Law: Examining the Debate

[IcedEcliptic]

I don't hate Bush, even though I disagree with some of his policies. I don't know the man personally, so I can't really hate him. You, however, seem to hate Obama. Why don't you tell us the truth... You disagree with his policy, rather than hating him for things beyond his control, like domestic terrorist attacks?

I was afraid of Bush, but didn't hate him. I think I hated Dick Cheney and Karl Rove however. I don't really love or hate politicians, they are more alike than not.

 

[BobG]

Why do you associate immigrant with drunk driver...that sound like prejudice!

No one associates immigrants with drunk drivers.

They associate random stops of innocent people with sobriety check points - one instance where random stops of innocent people justified by apprehending a guilty few managed to hold up in the USSC. It's the innocent people stopped that have the similarity - not the guilty, since the guilty have committed different crimes from each other.

(As also mentioned, it's an imperfect comparison since in the overwhelming majority of the stops, the "approved" stops didn't even include checking the driver license or registration, let alone testing random drivers for sobriety.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Depends on the state. And most states if you are violating any laws they can ask you for identification. And that was my point, you have to be breaking a law. I don't know about you but I was taught that I should have it no matter what anyway. Kind of a just in case senerio.

It does not depend on the state. According to the US Supreme Court you are not required to present ID to an officer unless they have "probable cause". The law we are discussing here specifically seeks to reduce the requirement on officers, in the case of checking citizenship, to "reasonable suspicion" which according to the USSC does not allow for a requirement to produce ID. As far as the constitution is concerned if an officer wishes to check your citizenship status (investigate your "papers") they must have "probable cause".

The issue here is not protecting illegal immigrants it is criticism of a blatantly unconstitutional law. How do you feel about the reduction of constitutional protections? What would you think of a law that requires you to present proof of having health insurance to authorized persons who will report you for investigation to the IRS if you fail to do so?

 

[cronxeh]

What would you think of a law that requires you to present proof of having health insurance to authorized persons who will report you for investigation to the IRS if you fail to do so?

Funny you mentioned that. I believe with the new health care legislation, this task might be up to Department of Health and Human Services law enforcement branch. These guys are feds with guns and have broad powers of enforcement

 

[CRGreathouse]

Funny you mentioned that. I believe with the new health care legislation, this task might be up to Department of Health and Human Services law enforcement branch. These guys are feds with guns and have broad powers of enforcement

If you have an opportunity at some point to give a citation, feel free -- I'd like to read up on this.

 

[mheslep]

40-50 yards wide, two trenches, a road, fencing, all monitored, for 600+ miles to protect you from the scaaaary Mexicans?

That's a fairly smug insult to the people on the border having to deal with the problem. Obviously that doesn't concern you.

What a waste of money and resources, and a clever way to rapidly teach them how to build better tunnels, as in Korea and Israel.

One million people per year won't go through rat hole tunnels.

 

[Meghan222]

I don't hate Bush, even though I disagree with some of his policies. I don't know the man personally, so I can't really hate him. You, however, seem to hate Obama. Why don't you tell us the truth... You disagree with his policy, rather than hating him for things beyond his control, like domestic terrorist attacks?

No you are right, I HATE Obama, it has nothing to do with his color, although that will be the conclusion a lot will jump to. I hate him for two reasons, being a liar with no consiquences, and being an arrogant man who thinks he is God. And he does. In fact, when we were both, Obama and I, living in Chicago, he made a joke, much like his "I wasn't born in a manger" crap. His joke was that he was Jesus here to save the world. He grew in popularity after that. He maintains it was a joke, but 90% of all jokes are based on some fact. He knows we know he's not God, but he thinks he is. And yes to top it off I HATE his policy. This is a fantasic country. Better than any other nation ever. He wants a dictatorship, with the illusion of demacracy. But we were given a republic. "What have you given us sir." A man to Benjamin Franklin. "A republic, if you can keep it." He replied. I want my country back! And furthermore, he does have some control over domestic terrorism. If he would stop appoligizing for us, and start inforcing our current laws, instead of knocking down leaders who deserve repect, I.E. officers, military ect ect. Then maybe there would be less attacks. You may not like bush but he kept us safe. I am so sick of talking to people who are ignorant on both sides. They know one side of each argument, so they can argue their side, but they don't investigate their own. Why is that? Ignorance is bliss? I didn't agree with Bush 100% of the time, but by comparrison, Bush was the best ever, in comparison to Obama. Wanna argue with that, look at the facts.

 

[Meghan222]

It does not depend on the state. According to the US Supreme Court you are not required to present ID to an officer unless they have "probable cause". The law we are discussing here specifically seeks to reduce the requirement on officers, in the case of checking citizenship, to "reasonable suspicion" which according to the USSC does not allow for a requirement to produce ID. As far as the constitution is concerned if an officer wishes to check your citizenship status (investigate your "papers") they must have "probable cause".

The issue here is not protecting illegal immigrants it is criticism of a blatantly unconstitutional law. How do you feel about the reduction of constitutional protections? What would you think of a law that requires you to present proof of having health insurance to authorized persons who will report you for investigation to the IRS if you fail to do so?

Um taking that out of context. Yeah I also said that IF PULLED OVER OR OTHERWISE DETAINED! That would constitute probable cause!

 

[Meghan222]

It does not depend on the state. According to the US Supreme Court you are not required to present ID to an officer unless they have "probable cause". The law we are discussing here specifically seeks to reduce the requirement on officers, in the case of checking citizenship, to "reasonable suspicion" which according to the USSC does not allow for a requirement to produce ID. As far as the constitution is concerned if an officer wishes to check your citizenship status (investigate your "papers") they must have "probable cause".

The issue here is not protecting illegal immigrants it is criticism of a blatantly unconstitutional law. How do you feel about the reduction of constitutional protections? What would you think of a law that requires you to present proof of having health insurance to authorized persons who will report you for investigation to the IRS if you fail to do so?

Oh and one more thing, um I live in Arizona, I ACTUALLY read the bill thank you, and you have to be detained for SOME VIOLATION OF THE LAW! So they were already breaking the law in some form. Furthermore if I had to carry around any paperwork, which eventually you will have to carry around proof of health insurance, THANK YOU OBAMA, I would rather do so, to prove I am a legal citizen. How many legals do you know? And how many illegals? I know quite a few on both, and frankly legals want this, Arizona wants this, and illegals know they have to take responsiblity. If you are driving without insurance on your car, do you speed?? No, you are careful not to break laws so you aren't in trouble. I have no qualms against illegals, but they are illegal. Meaning they broke a law. I think we need to put them at the back of the line of citizenship if they are here "for work" and then if they have broken any laws other than coming here, they get deported. Or imprisoned. Which ever.

 

[Meghan222]

I'm going to stop you right there, because the first glaring issue is: fetal stem cell research. Explain to me again how they don't interfere in our progress.

And on stem cell research, you know for a guy that will argue with everyone, and thus far it looks like you do, you are certainly not very versed in the things you claim to know. You watch a lot of msnbc do you? Cause it certainly seems that way. They are not against stem cell research. They are against the way it is done. Right now it is done by creating beings, or aborted babies, then using them for research. However did you know that they can use imbilical cords, and it has much more than either a dead baby or a dead being would ever produce. Here's a thought, if you have ever had a kid you know they offer to hold a portion of the imbilical cord so if your child gets sick or something they can reproduce the cells to help the child get better. But it's like $5000 or something like that to do. Why did no one else think of this, how about we (as a country) offer to hold portions of it for free in exchange for using the rest for research. I can't see any objections to that. And no one dies for it. It's funny the argument is that stem cell research saves lives, but no one says, by taking them.

 

[BobG]

I got a real kick out of the Congressional candidate who rode an elephant across the Rio Grande, followed by a mariachi band.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diwJHN9gUrY

The only official concern was that the elephant might have ticks.

If Bhakta's political career falls through, I think we've finally found the replacement for Geraldo Rivera. Chasing the illegal immigrant brings back memories of Geraldo trying to conduct an interview with a judge's "hitman" while chasing him through the streets of Akron, OH.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Oh and one more thing, um I live in Arizona, I ACTUALLY read the bill thank you, and you have to be detained for SOME VIOLATION OF THE LAW! So they were already breaking the law in some form.

I read the bill too, and I do not even live there.

a) You are wrong, the bill S.B.1070 did not state that you had to be detained or arrested. Just a few posts back I linked you an article that showed the language of the law was clarified in a follow-on bill (ie a bill separate and following after the original) for that exact reason.

b) Detained does not mean you broke the law. Detained means that the officer has some "reasonable suspicion" that you may have broken the law. "Reasonable suspicion" is less than "probable cause". Now, pay attention this time please, the law specifically states that it allows officers to check citizenship status based on "reasonable suspicion". As I stated in the post which you were here responding to, this law is specifically attempting to loosen the restrictions on officers from requiring "probable cause" (which is required according to the highest court of this "best nation ever") to only requiring "reasonable suspicion", which according to the highest court in the bestest nation ever would be illegal.

Just in case now, here is a copy of the original bill..
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Here is the article I already cited for you about the follow-on...
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Governor-signs-several-changes-to-Arizona/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx

And here is a short overview of court decisions regarding "reasonable suspicion" which I already cited earlier on in this thread...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/

 

[IcedEcliptic]

If you have an opportunity at some point to give a citation, feel free -- I'd like to read up on this.

He has not cited his previous series of statements, so I do not expect he will these.

That's a fairly smug insult to the people on the border having to deal with the problem. Obviously that doesn't concern you.

One million people per year won't go through rat hole tunnels.

I thought the smug insult would be building a fence over the entire southern border.

 

[BobG]

40-50 yards wide, two trenches, a road, fencing, all monitored, for 600+ miles to protect you from the scaaaary Mexicans? What a waste of money and resources, and a clever way to rapidly teach them how to build better tunnels, as in Korea and Israel.

That's a fairly smug insult to the people on the border having to deal with the problem. Obviously that doesn't concern you.

One million people per year won't go through rat hole tunnels.

A solution that reduces the flow is reasonable.

Additionally, is building a fence really more expensive than other options? A fence would cost $4 - 8 billion dollars, according to Michael Chertoff a few years ago. The Social Security Administration cracking down on fake Social Security Numbers would cost about $7 billion dollars a year.

Of course, if the fence were successful, "extra" income to the SSA would slow it's increases and possibly even decline if combined to apprehend illegal immigrants currently in the country. It would still have less impact than a cold turkey withdrawal from Social Security taxes paid to bogus SSNs.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

A solution that reduces the flow is reasonable.

Additionally, is building a fence really more expensive than other options? A fence would cost $4 - 8 billion dollars, according to Michael Chertoff a few years ago. The Social Security Administration cracking down on fake Social Security Numbers would cost about $7 billion dollars a year.

Of course, if the fence were successful, "extra" income to the SSA would slow it's increases and possibly even decline if combined to apprehend illegal immigrants currently in the country. It would still have less impact than a cold turkey withdrawal from Social Security taxes paid to bogus SSNs.

Cracking down on employers, once again, seems the cheapest and most effective method. One must check SSN's for many reasons, so that cost cannot be made to disappear, even if not a single person crosses that border. Given that SS is a doomed slush-fund anyway, I am not moved by the argument. I should add that the fence would require constant checking, patrols, and maintenance, repair, along with increased tunneling. This would slow the flow, as you say, but the cost of building the fence would be the beginning.

 

[cristo]

Locked, pending moderation.

 

[Josh111]

Arizona Law - What makes one removable from the US?

I have read this "controversial law" and have trouble finding any racist language in it. However, there is one thing I wondered about, Article 8 section E:

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

If it is already a offense to be in the US illegally. what is a offense that makes one removable from the US?

Also don't police already have the right to arrest someone who is a citizen of this country as a suspect? (The " PROBABLE CAUSE" SECTION ABOVE)