Since you didn't cite your source with this post (I'm not going to quote the whole thing), I'm not sure exactly what who you were quoting, but obviously you posted someone's summary of the law. Here's a link to the whole thing: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
These are the parts with which I take issue (particularly this first part):
Page 1: B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO
24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY
27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE
29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
This says to me that law enforcement is not only allowed, but required, to require anyone they suspect may be here illegally to prove that they are NOT illegal immigrants. This means:
1. Cops MUST assess for each person they encounter whether there is any reason to suspect that the person may be here illegally. How do you propose they make this initial assessment if not by appearance?
2. If they do have any suspicion (or if an argument could be made that they should have had suspicion) that a person is here illegally, they MUST require that person to prove otherwise. This DISALLOWS them from using their discretion as public servants. For instance, if they are called to investigate a domestic violence situation or a rape and they think the woman who was assaulted may be undocumented, they are REQUIRED to make her prove that she is legal. If she is not carrying her papers, they are REQUIRED to arrest her. The same goes for people who report crimes, call ambulances, etc. Can you see the negative effects this may have?
3. The burden of proof that one is not committing a crime (the crime of being here illegally) is now on the citizens/residents/immigrants. Anyone who is "suspect" is presumed guilty until proven innocent and is subject to mandatory arrest. Does this not fly in the face of the democracy of which we Americans are so proud?
I was sure to note the part you keep quoting about how they're not supposed to solely consider race. But here's the thing:
1. This only means that they can find a person suspect based on their race if they can identify ANY other pre-judged indicator of illegality. For instance, if someone is Hispanic and wearing certain clothes. If someone is brown and near the border. If someone is Mexican and a victim of domestic violence (if their prejudice tells them that victims of domestic violence are more likely to be here illegally). Does this not, then, allow profiling based on individual prejudices?
2. Just because they're not supposed to solely consider race doesn't by any understanding of reality mean they won't. And what's stopping them? The person being questioned has not only the burden of proof of legality, but also the burden to prove that the cop acted solely based on race. The cop has the benefit of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. And we all know that most regular citizens and legal immigrants don't have the resources to fight this battle against the cops. Plus, if they did fight, they would likely be subject to even more harassment. So how exactly does this one line in this law really protect anyone?
Page 3: 25 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
26 WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLETE OR CARRY AN ALIEN REGISTRATION DOCUMENT IF THE
27 PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
.....
D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL
41 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE
42 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
.....
15 H. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
16 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
17 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
18 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
19 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
20 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF
21 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
22 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
23 13-105.
24 (d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF
25 TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.
26 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:
27 (a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.
28 (b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
29 THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS
30 ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED
31 STATES CODE SECTION 1229c.
This is very clear that this law is not just a repetition of the federal law, as you keep saying, but in fact creates crimes and penalties that are "in addition to" any violation of or penalty prescribed by the federal law. Furthermore, it makes you a felon if you are busted twice.
Page 5: 6 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION A
7 PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE
8 IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION
9 OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW.
This section is about smuggling people into the country. This means a cop can pull anyone over to check them for smuggling if they can think of even the slightest bullshit reason to SUSPECT they may be breaking a traffic law. So this means they just have to say you drifted out of your lane or your muffler was too loud and they are legally allowed to pull you over FOR THE PURPOSE OF enforcing this immigration law. And this section doesn't say anything about not harassing people based on race.
Page 6: 11 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL
12 OFFENSE TO:
13 1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS
14 STATE, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ILLEGAL PRESENCE OF THE ALIEN IN THE UNITED
15 STATES, IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY
16 DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE
17 UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
........
26 B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A
27 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR
28 IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.
29 C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKER
30 ACTING IN THE WORKER'S OFFICIAL CAPACITY OR A PERSON WHO IS ACTING IN THE
31 CAPACITY OF A FIRST RESPONDER, AN AMBULANCE ATTENDANT OR AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL
32 TECHNICIAN AND WHO IS TRANSPORTING OR MOVING AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE PURSUANT
33 TO TITLE 36, CHAPTER 21.1.
34 D. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1
35 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT
36 THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS
37 A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND
38 DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.
So let's see how this might play out: Let's say a bunch of Pearl Jam fans caught a ride with me to a show and someone left a joint in my car. Then let's say I give one of you a ride home from the show, but you have your cousin with you who's not documented. (What am I gonna do, leave your cousin at the venue to fend for herself?) This law means, if I get stopped (maybe for having a couple of brown people in the car with me or for rolling through a stop sign), I am guilty of a crime, I will have to pay at least $1000, and my car will necessarily be impounded, leaving me without the transportation I need to get to work to feed my family (if I had a family). I know this is a very specific scenario and you might say it's unlikely to happen, but there are many more scenarios just this absurd that will play out because of this law. They even recognized how this might affect people in ridiculous ways by noting exceptions for CPS workers and ambulance drivers. If they didn't think these people might be charged under this law, they wouldn't have made such a point to exclude them. Regardless, do you REALLY think someone should be charged with a crime, made to pay $1000, and have their car impounded just for giving someone a ride??
Page 6: 41 A. A peace officer may, without a warrant, MAY arrest a person if he
42 THE OFFICER has probable cause to believe:
43 1. A felony has been committed and probable cause to believe the
44 person to be arrested has committed the felony.
I think this provision is too open to interpretation. Let's not forget that being here illegally twice is a felony under this law. So if a cop sees someone they think has already been busted for being here illegally, can they arrest him without a warrant under suspicion of committing a felony?
Page 17: 28 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND IS
29 ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-1051 AND
30 MONIES APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER THE
31 FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND SHALL
32 BE USED FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL
33 REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
I basically just find it offensive that they are lumping undocumented immigrants together with gang members.
Page 18: 6 This act may be cited as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe
7 Neighborhoods Act".
Again, the implication that undocumented immigrants are the cause of our unsafe neighborhoods is offensive and only serves to further demonize immigrants in this country.
do some resurch on "gang's" and the "cost of undocumented immigrants in the USA",you keep asking me to prove it to you and anything I post for you will never be correct as far as your concerned so do your own homework to make up your own mind,I think you might be supprised
I admire your kind heart and you have no ill feeling for people but you won't believe the problems with undocumented immigrants and gangs till it bites you on the butt.
Godfather.
Here are couple of articles I found pretty easily about the so-called cost of undocumented immigrants in the US:
I'm sure I've also read a great article that breaks it down one cost and benefit at a time, but I think I got it through work so I may never be able to find it on the internet.
Here is a question, if this law is repealed. What should be done with the illegal alien problem?
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
These are the parts with which I take issue (particularly this first part):
Page 1: B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO
24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY
27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE
29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
This says to me that law enforcement is not only allowed, but required, to require anyone they suspect may be here illegally to prove that they are NOT illegal immigrants. This means:
1. Cops MUST assess for each person they encounter whether there is any reason to suspect that the person may be here illegally. How do you propose they make this initial assessment if not by appearance?
Cops already do this on a daily basis for a lot of things. That is their Job. To assess situations and find out if people are committing crimes. It is a fairly simple concept to understand. They are well trained and do a very good job in assessing situations. Let me give you a situation that actually occurred in the state of MN. A mini van traveling at 81 mph at 2:30 in the morning was pulled over by police. When the officer approached the vehicle he found 15 people inside. The officer asked some questions and found out that the people were in fact here illegally. Were these people racially profiled? was this purely racist behavior on the part of the officer? Absolutely not. There was reasonable suspicion to inquire further. But because the feds were the only ones who were could arrest people for federal crimes the officer called it in and was told that they weren't coming. So the officer had to cite the driver for speeding and let them go. Does that seem right to you? they wouldn't knowingly let a drug dealer go, they wouldn't knowingly let a prostitute go...so why is this law so breakable?
All this law does is give the state and local police the ability to arrest people in violation of federal law.
2. If they do have any suspicion (or if an argument could be made that they should have had suspicion) that a person is here illegally, they MUST require that person to prove otherwise. This DISALLOWS them from using their discretion as public servants.
No it doesn't, they already used their discretion to ask for the id in the first place. They aren't just going to walk down the street and ask people for ID.
For instance, if they are called to investigate a domestic violence situation or a rape and they think the woman who was assaulted may be undocumented, they are REQUIRED to make her prove that she is legal. If she is not carrying her papers, they are REQUIRED to arrest her. The same goes for people who report crimes, call ambulances, etc. Can you see the negative effects this may have?
So if the cops show up and a prostitute was turning a trick and was claiming a man stole from her, should the cops let her go? It is no different, it is a god damn crime.
3. The burden of proof that one is not committing a crime (the crime of being here illegally) is now on the citizens/residents/immigrants. Anyone who is "suspect" is presumed guilty until proven innocent and is subject to mandatory arrest. Does this not fly in the face of the democracy of which we Americans are so proud?
No it doesn't. A person who is being questioned by police generally has to prove that they are innocent. It isn't a court of law, if you were being questioned about a murder you would have to prove where you were when it took place or you might have trouble.
I was sure to note the part you keep quoting about how they're not supposed to solely consider race. But here's the thing:
1. This only means that they can find a person suspect based on their race if they can identify ANY other pre-judged indicator of illegality. For instance, if someone is Hispanic and wearing certain clothes. If someone is brown and near the border. If someone is Mexican and a victim of domestic violence (if their prejudice tells them that victims of domestic violence are more likely to be here illegally). Does this not, then, allow profiling based on individual prejudices?
None of this is proper cause. and the domestic violence thing is insulting to police officers.
2. Just because they're not supposed to solely consider race doesn't by any understanding of reality mean they won't. And what's stopping them? The person being questioned has not only the burden of proof of legality, but also the burden to prove that the cop acted solely based on race. The cop has the benefit of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. And we all know that most regular citizens and legal immigrants don't have the resources to fight this battle against the cops. Plus, if they did fight, they would likely be subject to even more harassment. So how exactly does this one line in this law really protect anyone?[/quote]
All laws are like that. No law is prohibits racial profiling from actually existing, it is up to the officers. this doesn't make it any easier, they still have to show that in practice it isn't happening.
Page 3: 25 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
26 WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLETE OR CARRY AN ALIEN REGISTRATION DOCUMENT IF THE
27 PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
.....
D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL
41 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE
42 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
.....
15 H. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
16 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
17 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
18 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
19 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
20 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF
21 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
22 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
23 13-105.
24 (d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF
25 TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.
26 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:
27 (a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.
28 (b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
29 THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS
30 ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED
31 STATES CODE SECTION 1229c.
This is very clear that this law is not just a repetition of the federal law, as you keep saying, but in fact creates crimes and penalties that are "in addition to" any violation of or penalty prescribed by the federal law. Furthermore, it makes you a felon if you are busted twice.
So if you commit the same crime TWICE you become a felon? Good. Jim Carey said it best in Liar Liar...Quit breaking the law, asshole.
Page 5: 6 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION A
7 PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE
8 IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION
9 OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW.
This section is about smuggling people into the country. This means a cop can pull anyone over to check them for smuggling if they can think of even the slightest bullshit reason to SUSPECT they may be breaking a traffic law. So this means they just have to say you drifted out of your lane or your muffler was too loud and they are legally allowed to pull you over FOR THE PURPOSE OF enforcing this immigration law. And this section doesn't say anything about not harassing people based on race.
again, all cops can do this now, CLICK-IT or TICKET ring a bell. Many states allow cops to pull people over for not wearing seat belts. once you are pulled over, you are and always have been subject to checking for other crimes. that is why so many people are caught for outstanding warrants when they are pulled over for speeding.
Page 6: 11 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL
12 OFFENSE TO:
13 1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS
14 STATE, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ILLEGAL PRESENCE OF THE ALIEN IN THE UNITED
15 STATES, IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION [/u]IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY
16 DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE
17 UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
........
26 B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A
27 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR
28 IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.
29 C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKER
30 ACTING IN THE WORKER'S OFFICIAL CAPACITY OR A PERSON WHO IS ACTING IN THE
31 CAPACITY OF A FIRST RESPONDER, AN AMBULANCE ATTENDANT OR AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL
32 TECHNICIAN AND WHO IS TRANSPORTING OR MOVING AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE PURSUANT
33 TO TITLE 36, CHAPTER 21.1.
34 D. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1
35 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT
36 THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS
37 A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND
38 DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.
So let's see how this might play out: Let's say a bunch of Pearl Jam fans caught a ride with me to a show and someone left a joint in my car. Then let's say I give one of you a ride home from the show, but you have your cousin with you who's not documented. (What am I gonna do, leave your cousin at the venue to fend for herself?) This law means, if I get stopped (maybe for having a couple of brown people in the car with me or for rolling through a stop sign), I am guilty of a crime, I will have to pay at least $1000, and my car will necessarily be impounded, leaving me without the transportation I need to get to work to feed my family (if I had a family). I know this is a very specific scenario and you might say it's unlikely to happen, but there are many more scenarios just this absurd that will play out because of this law. They even recognized how this might affect people in ridiculous ways by noting exceptions for CPS workers and ambulance drivers. If they didn't think these people might be charged under this law, they wouldn't have made such a point to exclude them. Regardless, do you REALLY think someone should be charged with a crime, made to pay $1000, and have their car impounded just for giving someone a ride??
First read the part in bold above
and Yes, you are giving a ride to an illegal immigrant, maybe this person shouldn't let people in their car without knowing who they are and what they have on them. Seems like a good plan to me.
But in practice what will happen is, the cops will ask a bunch of questions and most likely, because you had no idea that this was going on they will let you go with a warning and the illegal immigrant will be arrested. But keep in mind that if an illegal immigrant is in the car with a bunch of people from the states it is far less likely that the cops will have a suspicion that some isn't from the united states. Jesus christ, it isn't always a worst case scenario.
Page 6: 41 A. A peace officer may, without a warrant, MAY arrest a person if he
42 THE OFFICER has probable cause to believe:
43 1. A felony has been committed and probable cause to believe the
44 person to be arrested has committed the felony.
I think this provision is too open to interpretation. Let's not forget that being here illegally twice is a felony under this law. So if a cop sees someone they think has already been busted for being here illegally, can they arrest him without a warrant under suspicion of committing a felony?
[/quote][/quote]
This is what they do now! They can arrest you without a warrant if they have reason to believe you have committed a felony. It is called probable cause, and if you want to get rid of that, well then there are going to be a lot more criminals on the streets.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Here is a question, if this law is repealed. What should be done with the illegal alien problem?
personally I think that migrant workers should be allowed back into the country. they get a work visa for summers or whenever else needed, they do a job as hired legally by a company, get paid a decent wage and then go back. And if people want to stay here full time then apply for it and work as a migrant worker until they can come through the right channels. If it is truly just about living a better life, or getting paid more money to live I see this as a reasonable solution. It keeps companies honest and makes them responsible for the people they employ. the workers are then subject to the employee protection laws of the United states and cannot relaly be taken advantage of in the same way. That is just my opinion though.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
So do any of you think that other states are going to try and pass a bill like Arizonas ?
States like Utah and other boarder states....
I think some states will pass these kinds of bills if this law is upheld by the supreme court. I don't see too many doing anything until that is decided
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Here is a question, if this law is repealed. What should be done with the illegal alien problem?
personally I think that migrant workers should be allowed back into the country. they get a work visa for summers or whenever else needed, they do a job as hired legally by a company, get paid a decent wage and then go back. And if people want to stay here full time then apply for it and work as a migrant worker until they can come through the right channels. If it is truly just about living a better life, or getting paid more money to live I see this as a reasonable solution. It keeps companies honest and makes them responsible for the people they employ. the workers are then subject to the employee protection laws of the United states and cannot relaly be taken advantage of in the same way. That is just my opinion though.
Holy shit, I think we have a winner! Laws and regulations will be followed. Migrant workers are able to get decent wages to support their families back home without fear of being deported. Businesses can avoid employing people illegally. It also allows people that would like to live here full time an opportunity to lay down a foundation to support their citizenship. Plus, Uncle Sam gets his cut of taxes.
Here is a question, if this law is repealed. What should be done with the illegal alien problem?
personally I think that migrant workers should be allowed back into the country. they get a work visa for summers or whenever else needed, they do a job as hired legally by a company, get paid a decent wage and then go back. And if people want to stay here full time then apply for it and work as a migrant worker until they can come through the right channels. If it is truly just about living a better life, or getting paid more money to live I see this as a reasonable solution. It keeps companies honest and makes them responsible for the people they employ. the workers are then subject to the employee protection laws of the United states and cannot relaly be taken advantage of in the same way. That is just my opinion though.
Holy shit, I think we have a winner! Laws and regulations will be followed. Migrant workers are able to get decent wages to support their families back home without fear of being deported. Businesses can avoid employing people illegally. It also allows people that would like to live here full time an opportunity to lay down a foundation to support their citizenship. Plus, Uncle Sam gets his cut of taxes.
It makes so much sense that it will never happen.
The problem is that people who say the wealth of our nation will be sucked away by people taking there 150 pay checks to other country's to spend. Yet the fact that tons of Jobs are being shipped outside of our country, to take advantage of cheap labor, doesn't affect anyone....
tonifig8, I agree, it will never work. The work visa's won't be issued to enough people because of concerns of lost domestic jobs and people will continue to sneak in and states like AZ will be forced to profile for illegal immigrants.
Here is a question, if this law is repealed. What should be done with the illegal alien problem?
personally I think that migrant workers should be allowed back into the country. they get a work visa for summers or whenever else needed, they do a job as hired legally by a company, get paid a decent wage and then go back. And if people want to stay here full time then apply for it and work as a migrant worker until they can come through the right channels. If it is truly just about living a better life, or getting paid more money to live I see this as a reasonable solution. It keeps companies honest and makes them responsible for the people they employ. the workers are then subject to the employee protection laws of the United states and cannot relaly be taken advantage of in the same way. That is just my opinion though.
Holy shit, I think we have a winner! Laws and regulations will be followed. Migrant workers are able to get decent wages to support their families back home without fear of being deported. Businesses can avoid employing people illegally. It also allows people that would like to live here full time an opportunity to lay down a foundation to support their citizenship. Plus, Uncle Sam gets his cut of taxes.
It makes so much sense that it will never happen.
your right it wont happen, if all migrant workers got citizenship here in the us they could not afford to work at the current wage they work for now,it sounds kinda funny but ya gotta wonder why thing's happen the way they do...in your I idea if soon enough most migrant workers become legal that will drive up the wage for day labors and in turn drive up the cost of produce,beef or whatever or as you say "go back home and support their familys".....with very little contrubited to the US economy.
your right it wont happen, if all migrant workers got citizenship here in the us they could not afford to work at the current wage they work for now,it sounds kinda funny but ya gotta wonder why thing's happen the way they do...in your I idea if soon enough most migrant workers become legal that will drive up the wage for day labors and in turn drive up the cost of produce,beef or whatever or as you say "go back home and support their familys".....with very little contrubited to the US economy.
Godfather.
I would much rather have a little higher prices for food than wonder every day who is sneaking in today. This won't secure the border, it just manages it a little better. And I promise you they will spend money while they are here. There is no one saying it isn't going to be minimum wage that they are working for. I am not talking about getting them citizenship, just decreasing the incentive to do it illegally. What is a contribution to the us economy? they will have to feed themselves while they are here, they will have to cloth themselves, they will be entertained somehow...i think they will contribute plenty to the US
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
your right it wont happen, if all migrant workers got citizenship here in the us they could not afford to work at the current wage they work for now,it sounds kinda funny but ya gotta wonder why thing's happen the way they do...in your I idea if soon enough most migrant workers become legal that will drive up the wage for day labors and in turn drive up the cost of produce,beef or whatever or as you say "go back home and support their familys".....with very little contrubited to the US economy.
Godfather.
I don't think that you would see a huge influx in the cost of food under any circumstance involving immigrants except for labor intensive items like apples and strawberries (that is a high school kid's job anyway). In the Midwest anyway, the farming economy is dictated by Mother Nature, John Deere, and the commodities market out of Chicago.
I would much rather have a little higher prices for food than wonder every day who is sneaking in today.
How much higher would you be willing to pay?
Thanks for the thoughtful response to my other post. I'll have to reply later, when I have more time.
great, I like discussing with you as you seem to not take it soooooooooooo personally and just like the discussion.
And too be honest I would pay as much as it took to make sure that anyone in the US legally gets treated fairly by their employer. I really don't think that the costs will go up all that much, things like orange juice and other things that are more hand picked would increase a little bit, but things like corn and wheat would more than likely stay pretty close to where they are at. Especially if it meant more secure borders. I think too often secure is confused with impenetrable. I still want people to be able to come here, just legally so we can make sure that anyone wanting to harm us at the very least has to work extremely hard to get here undetected.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
This says to me that law enforcement is not only allowed, but required, to require anyone they suspect may be here illegally to prove that they are NOT illegal immigrants. This means:
1. Cops MUST assess for each person they encounter whether there is any reason to suspect that the person may be here illegally. How do you propose they make this initial assessment if not by appearance?
Cops already do this on a daily basis for a lot of things. That is their Job. To assess situations and find out if people are committing crimes. It is a fairly simple concept to understand. They are well trained and do a very good job in assessing situations. Let me give you a situation that actually occurred in the state of MN. A mini van traveling at 81 mph at 2:30 in the morning was pulled over by police. When the officer approached the vehicle he found 15 people inside. The officer asked some questions and found out that the people were in fact here illegally. Were these people racially profiled? was this purely racist behavior on the part of the officer? Absolutely not. There was reasonable suspicion to inquire further. But because the feds were the only ones who were could arrest people for federal crimes the officer called it in and was told that they weren't coming. So the officer had to cite the driver for speeding and let them go. Does that seem right to you? they wouldn't knowingly let a drug dealer go, they wouldn't knowingly let a prostitute go...so why is this law so breakable?
All this law does is give the state and local police the ability to arrest people in violation of federal law.
Yes, cops, on a regular basis, assess situations and find out whether crimes are being committed. The difference is that this law requires them to assess every situation for THIS PARTICULAR crime. And it REQUIRES action based on SUSPICION, not based on probable cause. If there were similar laws that said every time you saw someone you thought might be a stoner, for instance, you were required to have them prove they weren't in violation of any law, then people probably wouldn't have such a problem with this law. But there aren't other such laws, and this country would never stand for it if someone tried to enact one.
As for your example, I have no idea if those people were racially profiled or not. Part of the problem with racial profiling is that, though it does happen, it's hard to prove. Your example highlights the difference between this law and other laws though. That cop had to have probably cause to pull them over. Legally, he couldn't have pulled them over if they weren't already breaking another law. (Though we all know he could have just lied and said they were breaking another law if he wanted to.) In this AZ law, however, cops don't need any reason to pull someone over other than that they "suspect" that they are here illegally. The requirement of probably cause is gone. Can you imagine if cops could just pull you over for no real reason, when you're not breaking any laws, just because they suspect that you might be breaking a law but don't have probably cause? Don't you see the problem here? This is a total infringement upon our freedom. And if it were happening to us...... well, it wouldn't happen to us. (Actually, it has happened to me and I can tell you it's really horrible, but that's a whole other story.)
As to whether or not what happened in your example seems right to me, I can't really say, especially without all the facts. But I don't think this law was any more breakable than any others. Cops can and do let drug dealers, prostitutes, speeders, etc. go all the time. KDH12 posted a very insightful article about it the other day: http://insideandout.chicagopublicradio.org/content/why-there-divide-juvenile-justice So your argument here seems to be that immigration law is the only one where exceptions are made in favor of leniency, but I would argue that leniency is an option for many laws, but this AZ law singles out immigration for stricter punishment/enforcement.
And, as I pointed out in my original post, it's not true that this law ONLY gives states the ability to arrest people in violation of federal law. It ALSO creates new crimes and punishments and, most importantly, changes the way law enforcement is allowed and required to assess whether or not someone is in violation of federal law.
2. If they do have any suspicion (or if an argument could be made that they should have had suspicion) that a person is here illegally, they MUST require that person to prove otherwise. This DISALLOWS them from using their discretion as public servants.
No it doesn't, they already used their discretion to ask for the id in the first place. They aren't just going to walk down the street and ask people for ID.
For one thing, it at least disallows them from using their discretion at this point in the process (the asking for ID part). For another, one could argue that room for discretion in the previous point in the process (the assessing whether you should be suspicious part) is limited since there will certainly be instances where you can't, as a reasonable and intelligent cop, deny that you were suspicious, as in my examples below.
For instance, if they are called to investigate a domestic violence situation or a rape and they think the woman who was assaulted may be undocumented, they are REQUIRED to make her prove that she is legal. If she is not carrying her papers, they are REQUIRED to arrest her. The same goes for people who report crimes, call ambulances, etc. Can you see the negative effects this may have?
So if the cops show up and a prostitute was turning a trick and was claiming a man stole from her, should the cops let her go? It is no different, it is a god damn crime.
I think discretion is in order. For one thing, we're not just talking about people who are committing the crime of being here illegally. We're also talking about anyone under suspicion of being here illegally - even if she is perfectly legal - who isn't carrying proof of innocence. Are you actually saying a cop should NECESSARILY arrest (or at least harass) a woman who had just been beat up and raped, who they were called to HELP?? Or a person who had called the cops on behalf of someone else? Can you really not see the horribly negative effects this may have? This will allow all women, children, etc. without papers to be assaulted, raped, robbed, etc. at will because they will bee too afraid of being deported if they call for help. At least now they have some hope that the cop will use his discretion. And how would you feel if you were hit by a car or having a heart attack or something and the person witnessing it didn't call for help because he was too afraid of deportation? I know at least some states have laws that actually protect criminals in violation of drug crimes in these circumstances. Why should these criminals be protected but undocumented immigrants shouldn't have even the hope of discretion on the part of the cop?
3. The burden of proof that one is not committing a crime (the crime of being here illegally) is now on the citizens/residents/immigrants. Anyone who is "suspect" is presumed guilty until proven innocent and is subject to mandatory arrest. Does this not fly in the face of the democracy of which we Americans are so proud?
No it doesn't. A person who is being questioned by police generally has to prove that they are innocent. It isn't a court of law, if you were being questioned about a murder you would have to prove where you were when it took place or you might have trouble.
The difference is that in all other cases the cops must have probably cause. In this law, for this crime, they don't.
I was sure to note the part you keep quoting about how they're not supposed to solely consider race. But here's the thing:
1. This only means that they can find a person suspect based on their race if they can identify ANY other pre-judged indicator of illegality. For instance, if someone is Hispanic and wearing certain clothes. If someone is brown and near the border. If someone is Mexican and a victim of domestic violence (if their prejudice tells them that victims of domestic violence are more likely to be here illegally). Does this not, then, allow profiling based on individual prejudices?
None of this is proper cause. and the domestic violence thing is insulting to police officers.
How do you know it's not "proper cause"? Proper cause isn't defined here. As a matter of fact, this part of the law is where they list the things that are excluded from being proper cause and only "race, color, or national origin" are excluded. Otherwise, it clearly states that you only need "suspicion" and it provides no guidance or limitations about what should or shouldn't raise your suspicion.
And the domestic violence thing is not insulting to police officers. I didn't suggest that all, most, or even many police officers would have this prejudice. I'm merely acknowledging that some might. You can't really claim that absolutely no law enforcement official in the state of Arizona would have this prejudice. And I'd be willing to bet that at least a few do.
2. Just because they're not supposed to solely consider race doesn't by any understanding of reality mean they won't. And what's stopping them? The person being questioned has not only the burden of proof of legality, but also the burden to prove that the cop acted solely based on race. The cop has the benefit of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. And we all know that most regular citizens and legal immigrants don't have the resources to fight this battle against the cops. Plus, if they did fight, they would likely be subject to even more harassment. So how exactly does this one line in this law really protect anyone?
All laws are like that. No law is prohibits racial profiling from actually existing, it is up to the officers. this doesn't make it any easier, they still have to show that in practice it isn't happening.
But not all laws are like that because other laws don't provide such leeway to allow racial profiling.
This is very clear that this law is not just a repetition of the federal law, as you keep saying, but in fact creates crimes and penalties that are "in addition to" any violation of or penalty prescribed by the federal law. Furthermore, it makes you a felon if you are busted twice.
So if you commit the same crime TWICE you become a felon? Good. Jim Carey said it best in Liar Liar...Quit breaking the law, asshole.
You didn't address my first and main point.
Do you believe, then, that it should be a felony to commit any crime twice?
This section is about smuggling people into the country. This means a cop can pull anyone over to check them for smuggling if they can think of even the slightest bullshit reason to SUSPECT they may be breaking a traffic law. So this means they just have to say you drifted out of your lane or your muffler was too loud and they are legally allowed to pull you over FOR THE PURPOSE OF enforcing this immigration law. And this section doesn't say anything about not harassing people based on race.
again, all cops can do this now, CLICK-IT or TICKET ring a bell. Many states allow cops to pull people over for not wearing seat belts. once you are pulled over, you are and always have been subject to checking for other crimes. that is why so many people are caught for outstanding warrants when they are pulled over for speeding.
If this were just a maintenance of the status quo, why did they feel the need to add this clause in there specifically? And can all cops legally do this now FOR THE PURPOSE OF enforcing any other law? Yes, Click It or Ticket rings a bell, but I don't get your point. This law only requires, again, "suspicion" to believe the person is in violation of another law. Regardless, this section, like the rest of the law, just makes whatever harassment may already exist now even more acceptable.
So let's see how this might play out: Let's say a bunch of Pearl Jam fans caught a ride with me to a show and someone left a joint in my car. Then let's say I give one of you a ride home from the show, but you have your cousin with you who's not documented. (What am I gonna do, leave your cousin at the venue to fend for herself?) This law means, if I get stopped (maybe for having a couple of brown people in the car with me or for rolling through a stop sign), I am guilty of a crime, I will have to pay at least $1000, and my car will necessarily be impounded, leaving me without the transportation I need to get to work to feed my family (if I had a family). I know this is a very specific scenario and you might say it's unlikely to happen, but there are many more scenarios just this absurd that will play out because of this law. They even recognized how this might affect people in ridiculous ways by noting exceptions for CPS workers and ambulance drivers. If they didn't think these people might be charged under this law, they wouldn't have made such a point to exclude them. Regardless, do you REALLY think someone should be charged with a crime, made to pay $1000, and have their car impounded just for giving someone a ride??
First read the part in bold above
and Yes, you are giving a ride to an illegal immigrant, maybe this person shouldn't let people in their car without knowing who they are and what they have on them. Seems like a good plan to me.
But in practice what will happen is, the cops will ask a bunch of questions and most likely, because you had no idea that this was going on they will let you go with a warning and the illegal immigrant will be arrested. But keep in mind that if an illegal immigrant is in the car with a bunch of people from the states it is far less likely that the cops will have a suspicion that some isn't from the united states. Jesus christ, it isn't always a worst case scenario.
The part about recklessly disregarding that the person riding with you is here illegally? What the hell does that even mean? It could mean anything, really. Sure, you can argue your case that your circumstance doesn't constitute reckless disregard, but your car will be impounded and you'll be charged a fine in the meantime. My aunt's father came here illegally about 50 years ago. He's a wonderful man and great asset to our family. But I have no idea whether or not he ever got papers. And I'm not about to ask him to pull them out before letting him go with me to my grandmother's funeral (which was the last reason we were together). You could say I have reason to believe he's probably illegal, since I know he was at some point and don't know otherwise. So would that count as reckless disregard of his immigration status? Probably.
Give me a break about not letting anyone in your car if you haven't confirmed that they don't have a joint on them! That would basically mean I could never give fans like you a ride to a show.
I know it's not always the worst case scenario and I'm not suggesting it is. But the issue lies in what the law allows and requires, because it leaves the door open for all kinds of scenarios. When it comes to crafting law, it doesn't matter if you think it probably won't be enforced. Plus, the whole purpose of this law is to make sure these things are enforced. Do you think if one of these bad scenarios happens (and surely at least one will happen somewhere) we should just say, well we figured we'd pass this law knowing you might get fucked because we figured it probably wouldn't happen that often. Sorry you're the one who got fucked, but you have no real recourse because the cop was following the law.
I think this provision is too open to interpretation. Let's not forget that being here illegally twice is a felony under this law. So if a cop sees someone they think has already been busted for being here illegally, can they arrest him without a warrant under suspicion of committing a felony?
This is what they do now! They can arrest you without a warrant if they have reason to believe you have committed a felony. It is called probable cause, and if you want to get rid of that, well then there are going to be a lot more criminals on the streets.
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but I still think there's too much wiggle room here. And since the rest of the law seems designed to allow certain populations to have their rights violated, I don't trust that this part won't be used in the same way.
If we want to crack down on all the companies hiring undocumented immigrants, I think that's more appropriate than just cracking down on the immigrants themselves. But we must then be prepared for the consequences to our economy, including an increased cost of food. Is everyone okay with that?
fixing part of the problem wont work,btw we are paying the consequences right now with the cost
of housing,feeding,medical, etc. but you probley don't believe that do you, when they sneek over here and have babies we pay it and other medical cost not to mention the increase in crime (gang's and drug wars)
Godfather.
just as others argue that the price of food won't go up
I argue that if they rounded up all the illegal residents then the cost of housing, insurance, or taxes won't go down
all legal residents will mark their door with the blood of a sacrificed lamb, then cops in riot gear will go door to door and round up all the illegals and rid the land of the sinners, non chosen ones
but hey if and when I win the Lotto I just might move to Mexico
a guy I work with, a white USA citizen, owns a house in Mexico and he and his wife are prepping it for when they retire
another guy I worked with in a restaurant when I waited table during graduate school, a Mexican here illegally, worked 2 jobs about 18 hours a day was also prepping a house in Mexico and once it was done he was moving back.... he told me that for about 20-30K he could build from the ground up a very nice house
PHOENIX – A sheriff's deputy was shot and wounded Friday after encountering a group of suspected illegal immigrants who apparently had been hauling bales of marijuana along a major smuggling corridor in the Arizona desert — a violent episode that comes amid a heated national debate over immigration.
State and federal law enforcement agencies deployed helicopters and scores of officers in pursuit of the suspects after the deputy was shot with an AK-47 on Friday afternoon. The officer had a chunk of skin torn from just above his left kidney, but the wound was not serious and he was doing fine.
The shooting was likely to add fuel to an already fiery national debate sparked last week by the signing of an Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration in the state.
The deputy was found in the desert Friday afternoon — after a frantic hourlong search — suffering from a gunshot wound from an AK-47, Pinal County sheriff's Lt. Tamatha Villar said. He was flown by helicopter to a hospital in Casa Grande, about 40 miles south of Phoenix.
Villar said the deputy had been performing smuggling interdiction work before finding the bales of marijuana and encountering the five suspected illegal immigrants, two armed with rifles.
"He was out on his routine daily patrol in the area when he encountered a load of marijuana out in the desert. He obviously confronted the individuals and took fire," Villar told The Associated Press. "I was speaking with him just a bit ago, and he's doing fantastic."
The deputy was alone about five miles from a rest stop along Interstate 8, about halfway between Phoenix and Tucson. The area is a well-known smuggling corridor for drugs and illegal immigrants headed from Mexico to Phoenix and the U.S. interior.
"Over the past 12 months we've seen an increase in the amount of drugs, and an increase in violence that has been going on in this particular corridor," Villar told KPNX.
"We've had increasing concerns in this area about being outmanned and outgunned, and unfortunately this evening, this is coming true," he said.
The shooting came as Arizona grapples with backlash over its enactment of a tough new law targeting illegal immigration. Civil rights activists, concerned the law will lead to racial profiling, have called for a boycott of the state.
The law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last week is supported by many in the state, which has become a major gateway for drug smuggling and human trafficking from Mexico.
Its passage came amid increasing anger in Arizona about violence, drug smugglers, drop houses and other problems caused by poor border security.
Villar said the search for the suspects involved numerous helicopters from state and federal law enforcement agencies and scores of officers near Interstate 8 and Arizona 84 about 50 miles south of Phoenix.
"The deputy is a search-and-rescue deputy, so its not uncommon for them to work those areas A) looking for drugs and looking for people who need assistance out there," Villar said. "Obviously its a high-traffic area for drug- and human-smuggling."
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Here is a question, if this law is repealed. What should be done with the illegal alien problem?
personally I think that migrant workers should be allowed back into the country. they get a work visa for summers or whenever else needed, they do a job as hired legally by a company, get paid a decent wage and then go back. And if people want to stay here full time then apply for it and work as a migrant worker until they can come through the right channels. If it is truly just about living a better life, or getting paid more money to live I see this as a reasonable solution. It keeps companies honest and makes them responsible for the people they employ. the workers are then subject to the employee protection laws of the United states and cannot relaly be taken advantage of in the same way. That is just my opinion though.
Comments
Since when is Utah a border state?
It is a "boarder" state. See the difference?
"With our thoughts we make the world"
I can't see New Mexico or California doing it. Texas, maybe.
Since you didn't cite your source with this post (I'm not going to quote the whole thing), I'm not sure exactly what who you were quoting, but obviously you posted someone's summary of the law. Here's a link to the whole thing:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
These are the parts with which I take issue (particularly this first part):
Page 1:
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO
24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY
27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE
29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
This says to me that law enforcement is not only allowed, but required, to require anyone they suspect may be here illegally to prove that they are NOT illegal immigrants. This means:
1. Cops MUST assess for each person they encounter whether there is any reason to suspect that the person may be here illegally. How do you propose they make this initial assessment if not by appearance?
2. If they do have any suspicion (or if an argument could be made that they should have had suspicion) that a person is here illegally, they MUST require that person to prove otherwise. This DISALLOWS them from using their discretion as public servants. For instance, if they are called to investigate a domestic violence situation or a rape and they think the woman who was assaulted may be undocumented, they are REQUIRED to make her prove that she is legal. If she is not carrying her papers, they are REQUIRED to arrest her. The same goes for people who report crimes, call ambulances, etc. Can you see the negative effects this may have?
3. The burden of proof that one is not committing a crime (the crime of being here illegally) is now on the citizens/residents/immigrants. Anyone who is "suspect" is presumed guilty until proven innocent and is subject to mandatory arrest. Does this not fly in the face of the democracy of which we Americans are so proud?
I was sure to note the part you keep quoting about how they're not supposed to solely consider race. But here's the thing:
1. This only means that they can find a person suspect based on their race if they can identify ANY other pre-judged indicator of illegality. For instance, if someone is Hispanic and wearing certain clothes. If someone is brown and near the border. If someone is Mexican and a victim of domestic violence (if their prejudice tells them that victims of domestic violence are more likely to be here illegally). Does this not, then, allow profiling based on individual prejudices?
2. Just because they're not supposed to solely consider race doesn't by any understanding of reality mean they won't. And what's stopping them? The person being questioned has not only the burden of proof of legality, but also the burden to prove that the cop acted solely based on race. The cop has the benefit of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. And we all know that most regular citizens and legal immigrants don't have the resources to fight this battle against the cops. Plus, if they did fight, they would likely be subject to even more harassment. So how exactly does this one line in this law really protect anyone?
Page 3:
25 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
26 WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLETE OR CARRY AN ALIEN REGISTRATION DOCUMENT IF THE
27 PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
.....
D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL
41 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE
42 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
.....
15 H. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
16 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
17 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
18 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
19 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
20 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF
21 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
22 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
23 13-105.
24 (d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF
25 TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.
26 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:
27 (a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.
28 (b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
29 THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS
30 ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED
31 STATES CODE SECTION 1229c.
This is very clear that this law is not just a repetition of the federal law, as you keep saying, but in fact creates crimes and penalties that are "in addition to" any violation of or penalty prescribed by the federal law. Furthermore, it makes you a felon if you are busted twice.
Page 5:
6 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION A
7 PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE
8 IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION
9 OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW.
This section is about smuggling people into the country. This means a cop can pull anyone over to check them for smuggling if they can think of even the slightest bullshit reason to SUSPECT they may be breaking a traffic law. So this means they just have to say you drifted out of your lane or your muffler was too loud and they are legally allowed to pull you over FOR THE PURPOSE OF enforcing this immigration law. And this section doesn't say anything about not harassing people based on race.
Page 6:
11 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL
12 OFFENSE TO:
13 1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS
14 STATE, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ILLEGAL PRESENCE OF THE ALIEN IN THE UNITED
15 STATES, IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY
16 DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE
17 UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
........
26 B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A
27 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR
28 IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.
29 C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES WORKER
30 ACTING IN THE WORKER'S OFFICIAL CAPACITY OR A PERSON WHO IS ACTING IN THE
31 CAPACITY OF A FIRST RESPONDER, AN AMBULANCE ATTENDANT OR AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL
32 TECHNICIAN AND WHO IS TRANSPORTING OR MOVING AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE PURSUANT
33 TO TITLE 36, CHAPTER 21.1.
34 D. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1
35 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT
36 THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS
37 A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND
38 DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.
So let's see how this might play out: Let's say a bunch of Pearl Jam fans caught a ride with me to a show and someone left a joint in my car. Then let's say I give one of you a ride home from the show, but you have your cousin with you who's not documented. (What am I gonna do, leave your cousin at the venue to fend for herself?) This law means, if I get stopped (maybe for having a couple of brown people in the car with me or for rolling through a stop sign), I am guilty of a crime, I will have to pay at least $1000, and my car will necessarily be impounded, leaving me without the transportation I need to get to work to feed my family (if I had a family). I know this is a very specific scenario and you might say it's unlikely to happen, but there are many more scenarios just this absurd that will play out because of this law. They even recognized how this might affect people in ridiculous ways by noting exceptions for CPS workers and ambulance drivers. If they didn't think these people might be charged under this law, they wouldn't have made such a point to exclude them. Regardless, do you REALLY think someone should be charged with a crime, made to pay $1000, and have their car impounded just for giving someone a ride??
Page 6:
41 A. A peace officer may, without a warrant, MAY arrest a person if he
42 THE OFFICER has probable cause to believe:
43 1. A felony has been committed and probable cause to believe the
44 person to be arrested has committed the felony.
I think this provision is too open to interpretation. Let's not forget that being here illegally twice is a felony under this law. So if a cop sees someone they think has already been busted for being here illegally, can they arrest him without a warrant under suspicion of committing a felony?
Page 17:
28 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND IS
29 ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-1051 AND
30 MONIES APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER THE
31 FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND SHALL
32 BE USED FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL
33 REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
I basically just find it offensive that they are lumping undocumented immigrants together with gang members.
Page 18:
6 This act may be cited as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe
7 Neighborhoods Act".
Again, the implication that undocumented immigrants are the cause of our unsafe neighborhoods is offensive and only serves to further demonize immigrants in this country.
Here are couple of articles I found pretty easily about the so-called cost of undocumented immigrants in the US:
Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5090&en=78c87ac4641dc383&ex=1270353600
Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584
I'm sure I've also read a great article that breaks it down one cost and benefit at a time, but I think I got it through work so I may never be able to find it on the internet.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Cops already do this on a daily basis for a lot of things. That is their Job. To assess situations and find out if people are committing crimes. It is a fairly simple concept to understand. They are well trained and do a very good job in assessing situations. Let me give you a situation that actually occurred in the state of MN. A mini van traveling at 81 mph at 2:30 in the morning was pulled over by police. When the officer approached the vehicle he found 15 people inside. The officer asked some questions and found out that the people were in fact here illegally. Were these people racially profiled? was this purely racist behavior on the part of the officer? Absolutely not. There was reasonable suspicion to inquire further. But because the feds were the only ones who were could arrest people for federal crimes the officer called it in and was told that they weren't coming. So the officer had to cite the driver for speeding and let them go. Does that seem right to you? they wouldn't knowingly let a drug dealer go, they wouldn't knowingly let a prostitute go...so why is this law so breakable?
All this law does is give the state and local police the ability to arrest people in violation of federal law.
No it doesn't, they already used their discretion to ask for the id in the first place. They aren't just going to walk down the street and ask people for ID.
So if the cops show up and a prostitute was turning a trick and was claiming a man stole from her, should the cops let her go? It is no different, it is a god damn crime.
No it doesn't. A person who is being questioned by police generally has to prove that they are innocent. It isn't a court of law, if you were being questioned about a murder you would have to prove where you were when it took place or you might have trouble.
None of this is proper cause. and the domestic violence thing is insulting to police officers.
2. Just because they're not supposed to solely consider race doesn't by any understanding of reality mean they won't. And what's stopping them? The person being questioned has not only the burden of proof of legality, but also the burden to prove that the cop acted solely based on race. The cop has the benefit of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. And we all know that most regular citizens and legal immigrants don't have the resources to fight this battle against the cops. Plus, if they did fight, they would likely be subject to even more harassment. So how exactly does this one line in this law really protect anyone?[/quote]
All laws are like that. No law is prohibits racial profiling from actually existing, it is up to the officers. this doesn't make it any easier, they still have to show that in practice it isn't happening.
So if you commit the same crime TWICE you become a felon? Good. Jim Carey said it best in Liar Liar...Quit breaking the law, asshole.
again, all cops can do this now, CLICK-IT or TICKET ring a bell. Many states allow cops to pull people over for not wearing seat belts. once you are pulled over, you are and always have been subject to checking for other crimes. that is why so many people are caught for outstanding warrants when they are pulled over for speeding.
First read the part in bold above
and Yes, you are giving a ride to an illegal immigrant, maybe this person shouldn't let people in their car without knowing who they are and what they have on them. Seems like a good plan to me.
But in practice what will happen is, the cops will ask a bunch of questions and most likely, because you had no idea that this was going on they will let you go with a warning and the illegal immigrant will be arrested. But keep in mind that if an illegal immigrant is in the car with a bunch of people from the states it is far less likely that the cops will have a suspicion that some isn't from the united states. Jesus christ, it isn't always a worst case scenario.
[/quote][/quote]
This is what they do now! They can arrest you without a warrant if they have reason to believe you have committed a felony. It is called probable cause, and if you want to get rid of that, well then there are going to be a lot more criminals on the streets.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
personally I think that migrant workers should be allowed back into the country. they get a work visa for summers or whenever else needed, they do a job as hired legally by a company, get paid a decent wage and then go back. And if people want to stay here full time then apply for it and work as a migrant worker until they can come through the right channels. If it is truly just about living a better life, or getting paid more money to live I see this as a reasonable solution. It keeps companies honest and makes them responsible for the people they employ. the workers are then subject to the employee protection laws of the United states and cannot relaly be taken advantage of in the same way. That is just my opinion though.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It makes so much sense that it will never happen.
The problem is that people who say the wealth of our nation will be sucked away by people taking there 150 pay checks to other country's to spend. Yet the fact that tons of Jobs are being shipped outside of our country, to take advantage of cheap labor, doesn't affect anyone....
your right it wont happen, if all migrant workers got citizenship here in the us they could not afford to work at the current wage they work for now,it sounds kinda funny but ya gotta wonder why thing's happen the way they do...in your I idea if soon enough most migrant workers become legal that will drive up the wage for day labors and in turn drive up the cost of produce,beef or whatever or as you say "go back home and support their familys".....with very little contrubited to the US economy.
Godfather.
I would much rather have a little higher prices for food than wonder every day who is sneaking in today. This won't secure the border, it just manages it a little better. And I promise you they will spend money while they are here. There is no one saying it isn't going to be minimum wage that they are working for. I am not talking about getting them citizenship, just decreasing the incentive to do it illegally. What is a contribution to the us economy? they will have to feed themselves while they are here, they will have to cloth themselves, they will be entertained somehow...i think they will contribute plenty to the US
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
How much higher would you be willing to pay?
Thanks for the thoughtful response to my other post. I'll have to reply later, when I have more time.
tonifig8, i'm not sure i understand this statement. what do you mean by "doesn't affect anyone?"
great, I like discussing with you as you seem to not take it soooooooooooo personally and just like the discussion.
And too be honest I would pay as much as it took to make sure that anyone in the US legally gets treated fairly by their employer. I really don't think that the costs will go up all that much, things like orange juice and other things that are more hand picked would increase a little bit, but things like corn and wheat would more than likely stay pretty close to where they are at. Especially if it meant more secure borders. I think too often secure is confused with impenetrable. I still want people to be able to come here, just legally so we can make sure that anyone wanting to harm us at the very least has to work extremely hard to get here undetected.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Yes, cops, on a regular basis, assess situations and find out whether crimes are being committed. The difference is that this law requires them to assess every situation for THIS PARTICULAR crime. And it REQUIRES action based on SUSPICION, not based on probable cause. If there were similar laws that said every time you saw someone you thought might be a stoner, for instance, you were required to have them prove they weren't in violation of any law, then people probably wouldn't have such a problem with this law. But there aren't other such laws, and this country would never stand for it if someone tried to enact one.
As for your example, I have no idea if those people were racially profiled or not. Part of the problem with racial profiling is that, though it does happen, it's hard to prove. Your example highlights the difference between this law and other laws though. That cop had to have probably cause to pull them over. Legally, he couldn't have pulled them over if they weren't already breaking another law. (Though we all know he could have just lied and said they were breaking another law if he wanted to.) In this AZ law, however, cops don't need any reason to pull someone over other than that they "suspect" that they are here illegally. The requirement of probably cause is gone. Can you imagine if cops could just pull you over for no real reason, when you're not breaking any laws, just because they suspect that you might be breaking a law but don't have probably cause? Don't you see the problem here? This is a total infringement upon our freedom. And if it were happening to us...... well, it wouldn't happen to us. (Actually, it has happened to me and I can tell you it's really horrible, but that's a whole other story.)
As to whether or not what happened in your example seems right to me, I can't really say, especially without all the facts. But I don't think this law was any more breakable than any others. Cops can and do let drug dealers, prostitutes, speeders, etc. go all the time. KDH12 posted a very insightful article about it the other day: http://insideandout.chicagopublicradio.org/content/why-there-divide-juvenile-justice So your argument here seems to be that immigration law is the only one where exceptions are made in favor of leniency, but I would argue that leniency is an option for many laws, but this AZ law singles out immigration for stricter punishment/enforcement.
And, as I pointed out in my original post, it's not true that this law ONLY gives states the ability to arrest people in violation of federal law. It ALSO creates new crimes and punishments and, most importantly, changes the way law enforcement is allowed and required to assess whether or not someone is in violation of federal law.
For one thing, it at least disallows them from using their discretion at this point in the process (the asking for ID part). For another, one could argue that room for discretion in the previous point in the process (the assessing whether you should be suspicious part) is limited since there will certainly be instances where you can't, as a reasonable and intelligent cop, deny that you were suspicious, as in my examples below.
I think discretion is in order. For one thing, we're not just talking about people who are committing the crime of being here illegally. We're also talking about anyone under suspicion of being here illegally - even if she is perfectly legal - who isn't carrying proof of innocence. Are you actually saying a cop should NECESSARILY arrest (or at least harass) a woman who had just been beat up and raped, who they were called to HELP?? Or a person who had called the cops on behalf of someone else? Can you really not see the horribly negative effects this may have? This will allow all women, children, etc. without papers to be assaulted, raped, robbed, etc. at will because they will bee too afraid of being deported if they call for help. At least now they have some hope that the cop will use his discretion. And how would you feel if you were hit by a car or having a heart attack or something and the person witnessing it didn't call for help because he was too afraid of deportation? I know at least some states have laws that actually protect criminals in violation of drug crimes in these circumstances. Why should these criminals be protected but undocumented immigrants shouldn't have even the hope of discretion on the part of the cop?
The difference is that in all other cases the cops must have probably cause. In this law, for this crime, they don't.
How do you know it's not "proper cause"? Proper cause isn't defined here. As a matter of fact, this part of the law is where they list the things that are excluded from being proper cause and only "race, color, or national origin" are excluded. Otherwise, it clearly states that you only need "suspicion" and it provides no guidance or limitations about what should or shouldn't raise your suspicion.
And the domestic violence thing is not insulting to police officers. I didn't suggest that all, most, or even many police officers would have this prejudice. I'm merely acknowledging that some might. You can't really claim that absolutely no law enforcement official in the state of Arizona would have this prejudice. And I'd be willing to bet that at least a few do.
But not all laws are like that because other laws don't provide such leeway to allow racial profiling.
You didn't address my first and main point.
Do you believe, then, that it should be a felony to commit any crime twice?
If this were just a maintenance of the status quo, why did they feel the need to add this clause in there specifically? And can all cops legally do this now FOR THE PURPOSE OF enforcing any other law? Yes, Click It or Ticket rings a bell, but I don't get your point. This law only requires, again, "suspicion" to believe the person is in violation of another law. Regardless, this section, like the rest of the law, just makes whatever harassment may already exist now even more acceptable.
The part about recklessly disregarding that the person riding with you is here illegally? What the hell does that even mean? It could mean anything, really. Sure, you can argue your case that your circumstance doesn't constitute reckless disregard, but your car will be impounded and you'll be charged a fine in the meantime. My aunt's father came here illegally about 50 years ago. He's a wonderful man and great asset to our family. But I have no idea whether or not he ever got papers. And I'm not about to ask him to pull them out before letting him go with me to my grandmother's funeral (which was the last reason we were together). You could say I have reason to believe he's probably illegal, since I know he was at some point and don't know otherwise. So would that count as reckless disregard of his immigration status? Probably.
Give me a break about not letting anyone in your car if you haven't confirmed that they don't have a joint on them! That would basically mean I could never give fans like you a ride to a show.
I know it's not always the worst case scenario and I'm not suggesting it is. But the issue lies in what the law allows and requires, because it leaves the door open for all kinds of scenarios. When it comes to crafting law, it doesn't matter if you think it probably won't be enforced. Plus, the whole purpose of this law is to make sure these things are enforced. Do you think if one of these bad scenarios happens (and surely at least one will happen somewhere) we should just say, well we figured we'd pass this law knowing you might get fucked because we figured it probably wouldn't happen that often. Sorry you're the one who got fucked, but you have no real recourse because the cop was following the law.
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but I still think there's too much wiggle room here. And since the rest of the law seems designed to allow certain populations to have their rights violated, I don't trust that this part won't be used in the same way.
just as others argue that the price of food won't go up
I argue that if they rounded up all the illegal residents then the cost of housing, insurance, or taxes won't go down
nor will crime
you still did not answer my question about what your point was with the IL comment.
so then we should also crack down on all the people that are legal resident gringos that work under the table....
for the example the waiters at the restaurants that no longer have cooks
I am going to start a new movement..... all 21 year old white waitstaff in the USA need to be jailed for tax evasion
we need to have a modern day Passover
all legal residents will mark their door with the blood of a sacrificed lamb, then cops in riot gear will go door to door and round up all the illegals and rid the land of the sinners, non chosen ones
lets start with you KDH12,go ahead and move your ass to mexico....see ya.
Godfather.
not sure why you have to be a dick....
but hey if and when I win the Lotto I just might move to Mexico
a guy I work with, a white USA citizen, owns a house in Mexico and he and his wife are prepping it for when they retire
another guy I worked with in a restaurant when I waited table during graduate school, a Mexican here illegally, worked 2 jobs about 18 hours a day was also prepping a house in Mexico and once it was done he was moving back.... he told me that for about 20-30K he could build from the ground up a very nice house
doesn't sound bad to me
PHOENIX – A sheriff's deputy was shot and wounded Friday after encountering a group of suspected illegal immigrants who apparently had been hauling bales of marijuana along a major smuggling corridor in the Arizona desert — a violent episode that comes amid a heated national debate over immigration.
State and federal law enforcement agencies deployed helicopters and scores of officers in pursuit of the suspects after the deputy was shot with an AK-47 on Friday afternoon. The officer had a chunk of skin torn from just above his left kidney, but the wound was not serious and he was doing fine.
The shooting was likely to add fuel to an already fiery national debate sparked last week by the signing of an Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration in the state.
The deputy was found in the desert Friday afternoon — after a frantic hourlong search — suffering from a gunshot wound from an AK-47, Pinal County sheriff's Lt. Tamatha Villar said. He was flown by helicopter to a hospital in Casa Grande, about 40 miles south of Phoenix.
Villar said the deputy had been performing smuggling interdiction work before finding the bales of marijuana and encountering the five suspected illegal immigrants, two armed with rifles.
"He was out on his routine daily patrol in the area when he encountered a load of marijuana out in the desert. He obviously confronted the individuals and took fire," Villar told The Associated Press. "I was speaking with him just a bit ago, and he's doing fantastic."
The deputy was alone about five miles from a rest stop along Interstate 8, about halfway between Phoenix and Tucson. The area is a well-known smuggling corridor for drugs and illegal immigrants headed from Mexico to Phoenix and the U.S. interior.
"Over the past 12 months we've seen an increase in the amount of drugs, and an increase in violence that has been going on in this particular corridor," Villar told KPNX.
"We've had increasing concerns in this area about being outmanned and outgunned, and unfortunately this evening, this is coming true," he said.
The shooting came as Arizona grapples with backlash over its enactment of a tough new law targeting illegal immigration. Civil rights activists, concerned the law will lead to racial profiling, have called for a boycott of the state.
The law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last week is supported by many in the state, which has become a major gateway for drug smuggling and human trafficking from Mexico.
Its passage came amid increasing anger in Arizona about violence, drug smugglers, drop houses and other problems caused by poor border security.
Villar said the search for the suspects involved numerous helicopters from state and federal law enforcement agencies and scores of officers near Interstate 8 and Arizona 84 about 50 miles south of Phoenix.
"The deputy is a search-and-rescue deputy, so its not uncommon for them to work those areas A) looking for drugs and
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
and a damn good one at that...
everyone would just overstay their work permits/visas like students do all the time