Dedicated to Arizona Lawmakers

Boxes&Books

bigdvs wrote:

tonifig8 wrote:

My apologies - it was a typo, thanks for pointing it out.
I will research this further.... one number that is appearing is a contribution of 9 billion per year towards Social Security....

how do you figure? how are undocumented paid in cash illegals having SS money taken out of their pay?

this is according to the FEDS.

False documentation. That's only the few that use false documents.

FiveB247x

The figures will never be exact, but between taxes that are reported and goods and services which taxes are levied, these people add an awful lot to a system they will never guaranteed anything to get back from. Also, another dirty little secret - a vast majority of jobs they have are jobs American workers have never wanted. If they become "legit on the book" jobs, the costs of so many goods and services for America would skyrocket beyond belief.

_

FiveB247x wrote:

The figures will next be exact, but between taxes that are reported and goods and services which taxes are levied, these people an awful lot to a system they will never guaranteed anything to get back from. Also, another dirty little secret - a vast majority of jobs they have are jobs American workers have never wanted. If they become "legit on the book" jobs, the costs of so many goods and services for America would skyrocket beyond belief.

I keep saying this but no one will really address it.

michelleelise

prfctlefts wrote:

michelle822 wrote:

That phrase is often tossed around by certain racists and white supremacists. When they're being "polite" about their views they'll say that it's not that they want African-Americans and Hispanics to leave the country because they hate them, it's just that they want to preserve their white-European culture, heritage, blah blah blah.

Please spare me with this crap. I don't care who comes here as long as they do it LEGALLY.. WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES to understand this ?? All of you are showing ignorance of the ongoing, overwhelming crime due to illegal immigrants

Good, but I didn't say "you", I said it's a phrase used by racists and supremacists. I'm not even the one who brought it up, you did when you plagiarized Levin.

And it's not a matter of opinion, it's fact. David Duke uses it in his video endorsement ("we in America have the right to preserve our heritage, language, and culture,") and all you have to do is Google white supremacists websites and you can see them using those words to state their objection to illegal immigration: "preservation of our culture and heritage ". They use that phrase all the time so if you're going to use it, too, then that's who you're going to sound like.

aerial

michelle822 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

michelle822 wrote:

That phrase is often tossed around by certain racists and white supremacists. When they're being "polite" about their views they'll say that it's not that they want African-Americans and Hispanics to leave the country because they hate them, it's just that they want to preserve their white-European culture, heritage, blah blah blah.

Please spare me with this crap. I don't care who comes here as long as they do it LEGALLY.. WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES to understand this ?? All of you are showing ignorance of the ongoing, overwhelming crime due to illegal immigrants

Good, but I didn't say "you", I said it's a phrase used by racists and supremacists. I'm not even the one who brought it up, you did when you plagiarized Levin.

And it's not a matter of opinion, it's fact. David Duke uses it in his video endorsement ("we in America have the right to preserve our heritage, language, and culture,") and all you have to do is Google white supremacists websites and you can see them using those words to state their objection to illegal immigration:



Tea Party = violence, racism, bigotries, low IQ

if your against Illegal immigration.....you’re a racist hating all people that are not white

you are KKK if you use the words....the right to preserve our heritage, language, culture

WaveCameCrashin

michelle822 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

michelle822 wrote:

That phrase is often tossed around by certain racists and white supremacists. When they're being "polite" about their views they'll say that it's not that they want African-Americans and Hispanics to leave the country because they hate them, it's just that they want to preserve their white-European culture, heritage, blah blah blah.

Please spare me with this crap. I don't care who comes here as long as they do it LEGALLY.. WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR YOU LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES to understand this ?? All of you are showing ignorance of the ongoing, overwhelming crime due to illegal immigrants

Good, but I didn't say "you", I said it's a phrase used by racists and supremacists. I'm not even the one who brought it up, you did when you plagiarized Levin.

And it's not a matter of opinion, it's fact. David Duke uses it in his video endorsement ("we in America have the right to preserve our heritage, language, and culture,") and all you have to do is Google white supremacists websites and you can see them using those words to state their objection to illegal immigration: "preservation of our culture and heritage ". They use that phrase all the time so if you're going to use it, too, then that's who you're going to sound like.

So please tell me what is wrong with trying to preserve our heritage and language and our culture ? Why and how is that racist ? I guess I can see where you are coming from if that is coming from an anti semite,but most americans are not racist and most americans are proud of our culture and our Heritage What the hell are they teaching in college these days ?
Don't try twist this shit either .. I have no problem with other peoples culture,language ect. If anyone wants to learn about other cultures,learn another languge than go ahead. I have no problem with people from other countries coming here either and they can bring what ever they want. But our laws and our soughvernty should be respected.
You make it sound like we are some horrible country.

markin ball

scb wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

The figures will next be exact, but between taxes that are reported and goods and services which taxes are levied, these people an awful lot to a system they will never guaranteed anything to get back from. Also, another dirty little secret - a vast majority of jobs they have are jobs American workers have never wanted. If they become "legit on the book" jobs, the costs of so many goods and services for America would skyrocket beyond belief.

I keep saying this but no one will really address it.

Maybe...or maybe Acme Tomato, Inc. just makes less profit. The market will bear wjat the market will bear,

FiveB247x

Sounds very easy on paper but in reality, most of these jobs are one's US citizens do not want, and the practical repercussions would be beyond normal comprehension. I highly doubt any american citizen would be complaining about immigrant workers once they had to pay like $4-5 per piece of fruit/vegetable. The discussion would merely then transform into security and taxes.. ie, legal reform for workers to keep track of people and get a cut of taxes without making the industry overwhelming.

markin ball wrote:

scb wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

The figures will next be exact, but between taxes that are reported and goods and services which taxes are levied, these people an awful lot to a system they will never guaranteed anything to get back from. Also, another dirty little secret - a vast majority of jobs they have are jobs American workers have never wanted. If they become "legit on the book" jobs, the costs of so many goods and services for America would skyrocket beyond belief.

I keep saying this but no one will really address it.

Maybe...or maybe Acme Tomato, Inc. just makes less profit. The market will bear wjat the market will bear,

_

markin ball wrote:

scb wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

The figures will next be exact, but between taxes that are reported and goods and services which taxes are levied, these people an awful lot to a system they will never guaranteed anything to get back from. Also, another dirty little secret - a vast majority of jobs they have are jobs American workers have never wanted. If they become "legit on the book" jobs, the costs of so many goods and services for America would skyrocket beyond belief.

I keep saying this but no one will really address it.

Maybe...or maybe Acme Tomato, Inc. just makes less profit. The market will bear wjat the market will bear,

I don't see that happening. Well, maybe to some extent, but not much. The only alternative I see to raising prices is outsourcing, which would mean we'd have even fewer jobs here in the U.S. But since this wouldn't happen across the board, I still think the cost of goods will increase. Do you think it won't at all?

The question, I guess, is how much more we're willing to pay.

WaveCameCrashin

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....

South of Seattle

prfctlefts wrote:

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....

Since when is Utah a border state?

markin ball

South of Seattle wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

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....

Since when is Utah a border state?

It is a "boarder" state. See the difference?

_

prfctlefts wrote:

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 can't see New Mexico or California doing it. Texas, maybe.

_

prfctlefts wrote:

LOOK HERE IT IS.....

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.

_

Godfather. wrote:

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:

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.

Dirtie_Frank

Here is a question, if this law is repealed. What should be done with the illegal alien problem?

mikepegg44

scb wrote:

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.

scb wrote:

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.

scb wrote:

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.

scb wrote:

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.

scb wrote:

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.

scb wrote:

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.

scb wrote:

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.

scb wrote:

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.

scb wrote:

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.

mikepegg44

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

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.

mikepegg44

prfctlefts wrote:

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

Jason P

mikepegg44 wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

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.