Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law
Jason P
Posts: 19,156
Be Excellent To Each Other
Party On, Dudes!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Jason P
Posts: 19,156
Comments
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law),"
...
If the law was applied EQUALLY... to cover ALL persons stopped (White, Black, Asian, etc...), there wouldn't be a problem. If the law stated that ALL persons in Arizona that had any interaction with law enforcement had to produce proof of citizenship... such as a birth certificate, passport or visa... there wouldn't be a problem.
And if the penatly was the SAME for ALL people (hispanic, white, black, asian)... then, there wouldn't be a problem.
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm saying that is is not applied equally to everyone.
If, for example, you are a blonde caucasian 40 year old soccer Mom and are stopped for a traffic violation and fail to produce valid proof of citizenship... you should be deported to Mexico... just like the Mexican guy in the same situation. Law and penalty should be equal for everyone.
Hail, Hail!!!
One problem with the law is that it doesn't clearly define how an officer SHOULD determine whether a person should be questioned. To its opponents, it probably seems like a "wink wink, nudge nudge, we can't tell you to only check hispanics, but really that's what we mean" kind of thing. To supporters, it probably seems obvious, seems to go without saying, who needs to be checked and who doesn't. In the middle somewhere, we have to find a solution.
Just for dicussion's sake -- could accented speech be a fair answer? It doesn't discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, original nationality, or any of those other big no-no's. All accents, whether European, Central American, Middle Eastern or wherever would be equally "suspect". I would guess that the vast majority of illegals would indeed have accented English, so it would be an effective filter, even if not an ethical one. And it would have the side benefit of encouraging immigrants to improve their english.
On a personal note, God help you if you ever suggested this to my gf, whose entire family speaks heavily accented English and are here legally.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
All American citizens get a chip implanted upon verification of your citizen status.
This way, you will need to scan positively in order to:
Get a job, open a bank account, cash a check, buy groceries, buy a car, buy gasoline, apply for unemployment, recieve welfare, receive medical treatement, enroll in public schools, purchase anything, sell anything... participate in America.
Babies will get implanted at birth... Naturalized Citizens upon completion of their citizen graduation or whatever it is.
Illegals... won't be able to do anything here... so, they won't come here... problem solved.
...
Whadda ya say?
Hail, Hail!!!
Yeah the last two Presidents creeped me out.
Well until it is put into action we won't know, but it is written to not do that.
So what's the real problem?
So just so I understand then you don't think it is against the Constitution?
That's it... they say there won't be profiling... but, does anyone really think the 40 year old blonde soccer mom is going to be asked to produce proof of citizenship papers after being pulled over for talking on the phone while driving?
They are targeting one race of people... the brown ones. And there are a lot of Americans citizens... born and raised here who fit that description. If any of them get arrested... i hope they sue the state of Arizona, county of record, city of record and the police department of the city for $500 million dollars a pop because NO AMERICAN BORN CITIZEN SHOULD EVER BE ARRESTED FOR ANYTHING BASED PURELY ON HIS RACE.
Hail, Hail!!!
Right off the bat? I don't know. I would have to take some time to look it up. When I do... if I decide to spend the time to look it up... I will let you know whether or not I believe it is Constiutional or not.
...
Since you have read the full text of the law... can you please, direct me to it? Specifically the section.paragraph that you say states the law is to be equally applied. That would help.
Thanx.
Hail, Hail!!!
Arizona helped deport thousands without new law
In one county alone, 26,146 immigrants deported since 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38454087/ns/us_news-life/
by SUZANNE GAMBOA
WASHINGTON — Officers from a single Arizona county helped deport more than 26,000 immigrants from the U.S. through a federal-local partnership program that has been roundly criticized as fraught with problems.
Statistics obtained by The Associated Press show that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office was responsible for the deportation or forced departure of 26,146 immigrants since 2007.
That's about a quarter of the national total of 115,841 sent out of the U.S. by officers in 64 law enforcement agencies deputized to help enforce immigration laws, some since 2006, under the so-called 287(g) program.
The tens of thousands of immigrant arrests show local officials already have a significant amount of authority to enforce immigration laws and help remove illegal immigrants from the country.
Arizona wanted more of its officers to be able to ask people to prove they are legally in the U.S. under its law that was to take effect Thursday. But a U.S. district court judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of the law from taking effect.
Among parts of the law blocked is the a section requiring officers to ask for a driver's license, passport or other identity document if they reasonably suspect a person is not allowed to be in the U.S. The immigration checks were to be made by officers while enforcing other laws or ordinances.
Controversial measure, sheriff
The federal government already is under fire for doing a poor job of keeping watch on local officers enforcing immigration laws and ensuring safeguards for protecting civil rights are in place. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is the top law officer among all those deputized. He is under federal investigation on allegations of civil rights violations, which he denies.
The government had argued that the Arizona law usurps its authority. The Justice Department said in its suit challenging the law that the 287(g) federal-local partnerships are one way Congress allowed states to assist in enforcing immigration laws.
"At the pragmatic level, if local police are already allowed to do this and are allowed to do this with federal cooperation with the state, then why do they need the (new Arizona) law?" said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the New York office of the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration think tank.
There are several other ways local officials can assist, including Secure Communities, a more widely used program that allows local officials to check the fingerprints of anyone they book into their jails against FBI and Homeland Security Department databases.
But the 287(g) program gives officers the most direct authority to stop people on the street, in their cars or in their communities and check whether they are in the country illegally. Federal watchdogs have been critical of the job the Homeland Security Department has been doing in running the program.
The department's inspector general reported in March that the 287(g) program was poorly supervised and provided insufficient training to officers, including on civil rights law.
Training deputies for task
Local officers have operated outside their agreements dictating the limits of their authority, the report said. In all, the inspector general made 33 recommendations for overhauling the program, some of which have not yet been resolved. It was the second critical report for the program. The Government Accountability Office had criticized the program in July 2009.
Complaints about Arpaio's immigration enforcement tactics led the federal government last October to yank his authority to enforce immigration laws during patrols. That month, the Obama administration rewrote all agreements with local partners in attempt to address complaints of racial profiling and civil rights violations.
Even so, the federal government continues to allow the sheriff and deputies to check their jails for deportable inmates.
Arpaio has denied the allegations and says he is a target because of his tough immigration enforcement. His office has continued to do immigration sweeps. Arpaio said he is enforcing state anti-smuggling and anti-illegal immigrant hiring laws.
Arpaio said about 100 of his deputies were trained over five weeks to act as federal agents under the 287(g) program. They were trained on racial profiling and other civil rights laws, he said.
The federal government does not pay for local officers to participate in the 287(g) program. U.S. taxpayers pay the federal cost, which has grown from $5 million in 2006 to $68 million in 2010, according to the DHS inspector general. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reimburses some of the local agencies for housing immigrants in their jails. The immigrants can be in the country illegally or legally present but have committed a crime that makes them eligible for deportation.
'Rogue sheriffs'
Joanne Lin, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said it is alarming that one Arizona county is responsible for a disproportionate share of deportations.
The Los Angeles County's Sheriff's Office, a distant second to Maricopa, helped find 13,784 immigrants who were later deported or left the country. The Sheriff's Office's agreement with the federal government allows it to check its jails for deportable immigrants, but not to enforce immigration laws during street patrols. A renewal of the agreement is under negotiation.
An estimated 10.8 million people, about 26 percent of the state's population, are living illegally in California, compared with 460,000, about 12 percent, in Arizona.
"These statistics bear out that you have rogue sheriffs in certain counties that are bent on targeting immigrants," Lin said.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Typical liberal activist judge....
Oh wait....
She was recommended to Clinton by none other than Jon Kyl and confirmed unanimously....
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
you are proposing a system that would make your girlfriend suspect, in an arena she apparently does not have access too...as much as that says about you.....
you would have one's ability to speak a foreign language become the test?
You know its flawed yet you propose it....can i just say wake the fuck up...
So many flawed premises....
1 - The proposition I put forth for discussion was not language as a test of citizenship, but as an on-the-spot litmus test to determine whether a person should be asked for proof of citizenship.
2 - All solutions to all grown-up problems are flawed in some way. Illegal immigration is no exception to that rule, in fact, it could be the posterboy. Just because it's a tough decision doesn't mean it shouldn't be made, one way or another.
3 - The proposal wouldn't put my girlfriend at risk, but her family. And regardless, they wouldn't be "at risk" because they're all here legally.
4 - Finally, just as a generalization, yes I think the ability to stand for what's right even in the face of personal hardship is a sign of character. Interesting that you see it as the opposite. Frankly, I think people who can't see beyond the ends of their own noses, who base their political and social opinions on whatever is most convenient to them at the moment, are in a much worse moral position. Now, whether this particular proposal is "what's right", that's another story.
Back to the law itself -- NPR ran a story on this topic last night wherein they noted that persons who couldn't produce proof of citizenship would be arrested on the spot. Wasn't clear whether they'd be held in custody until proof was brought forth or what the conditions for release were. Does anyone know the answer to that?
Either way, the more I hear and read about the law, the more I realize there are parts of it I cannot support. I believe we need much stricter enforcement of immigration law and that the AZ law is going down the right path with that, but arresting people off the street who don't happen to have a passport or green card (or whatever counts) may be a bit more draconian than this country of immigrants should be comfortable with. That said, I'm surprised the judge struck down the part about making it illegal to hire illegals. Unless there's something I'm misunderstanding there, that seems like nothing more than common sense to me; a law that should already be on the books. Haven't left-leaning people on this very board proposed that we go after the employers of the illegals as much as the illegals themselves?
CBS reported that at least 100,000 people were fleeing Arizona days before the law would go into effect. In comparison, it took 64 law enforcement agencies over four years to deport 115,000 across the entire United States.
Based on those statistics, it appears that this law could be minimally enforced and still be very effective.
I just want to advise the world that this is a stupid law. It sole purpose is for politicians to approve of it so they can ensure their re-election.
It is kinda ironic that Jan Brewer raised the sales tax for the people of Arizona as she is trying to eliminate 20% (made up number) of the people who pay sales tax (yes illegal immigrants do pay taxes every time they buy food, gas, clothing, etc...)
Enforcing this law is going to put a much higher price tag on our state then the benefits.
There are actually a lot of cheaper and more constitutional ways to enforce our border. How about all the companies that get to make a quick buck by hiring illegals getting fined heavily. The companies that are hiring legal citizens and visa workers are penalized because they have to pay legal wages, SSIC, etc.
It does nothing for border security, and it it is pretty much exactly the same as a federal law already in effect.
If we are going to enforce the border we will require better educated and paid border guards (to help curb corruption), give them special powers (such as RICO) to help bring down the smuggling and kidnapping rings.
How about actively seeking felons with arrest warrants (regardless of national origin) that roam free in our state.
All of our politicians are running on the platform of "building the fence" and I am sure their counterparts in Mexico are running on the platform of "building the ladder or tunnel"
This bill does nothing to enforce the border, give any powers to law enforcement to be able to attack cartels or human smuggling rings.
Basically it's sole purpose is to divert peoples attentions from the real problems and solutions regarding immigration.
Sorry for my little rant. I was a former Republican many years ago who will never be a party to the Democrats or Republicans, ever... Maybe a I'll be a Libertarian, but I'd rather just stay independent as democrats=republicans. As long as they keep us arguing amongst ourselves, we will never notice they are the haves and we are the have-nots...
PJ: 2011-09-03 2011-09-04
PJ: 2011-09-03 2011-09-04
The Supreme Court rebuffed the Obama administration's law suit and upheld a key part of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law on Monday that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops. That part of the law, which never went into effect because of court challenges, will now immediately be enforced in Arizona. Other parts of the law, including a provision that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, will remain blocked.
.......
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-upholds-key-part-arizona-immigration-law-141927514.html