It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arizona immigration law divides Republicans and conservatives

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Republicans, who have stood together in opposition to Democratic policies like health-care reform, have not yet cobbled together a unified response to Arizona's controversial anti-illegal immigration measure.


It is telling the federal government that they better wake up, buck up, and do their job in securing our borders," Palin said. But Palin's defense followed criticism of the bill by several prominent Republicans.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said the law will most likely be found unconstitutional (law professors interviewed by the Wall Street Journal agree, because states are not allowed to have their own foreign policies).

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman both expressed reservations and Marco Rubio, a conservative darling and Republican Senate candidate in Florida, said that requiring people to carry documentation is "not really something that Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state."

Even former Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a longtime crusader against illegal immigration, thinks it goes too far.


news.yahoo.com...

This is surprising to me...especially Marco Rubio's comments as he is a Tea Party darling. I didn't think there was much of a divide between conservatives or independents on the issue. It may be an issue for Republicans currently holding office...but those who are just conservatives are supporting this.

I don't know how I feel about the whole issue...I truly feel the border needs to be addressed first before anything else can be done...otherwise what is the point?

Another thing that concerns our borders that needs to be done..is enforcement of our ECONOMIC BORDERS...and that is TARIFFS.

We NEED TO JACK THEM UP!!!!!

[edit on 28-4-2010 by David9176]




posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

...said that requiring people to carry documentation is "not really something that Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state."


That's news to me. I take my wallet with me wherever I go, especially when I drive. My wallet contains my driver's license and proof of insurance. And I'm not uncomfortable with carrying it around.

Are they trying to tell me otherwise???



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I am all for addressing the issue... However I am very much against
this Bill, because of the method of choice and the pesky 4th amendment.

My concern is not for illegals, but for brown people who are infact citizens.

My two adopted sisters are half White/Mexican

one looks white
the other brown and illegal looking, poor thing

Anyhow it is unreasonable to expect the other one to be subject to more scrutiny based upon her looks and being anywhere in public, while the other is fine. Both are just as Mexican, MORE IMPORTANTLY 100% AMERICAN

BASED upon the method of the enforcement I cannot support it at all. This is not the
WAY to reduce government power either, when appearance can be ground for an impromptu street trial, we have big fooking problems. May be Mexicans now, but
we all know how FISA turned around, PROTECTING you from terrorists to recording and data basing our PERSONAL phone calls...


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Then there is the constitution of AZ, not my analysis, but compelling

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 28-4-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I'm a bit torn on it, too, David. I think illegal immigration is out of control and needs to be addressed. Also, the border is a huge problem. But this law (which I do think will be found to be unconstitutional) is NOT a good way to address the problems.

Most of the conservative opposition to this bill is probably either that it is unconstitutional OR it's what they think their constituents want to hear.

It does surprise me that the right is divided on it. I think many, like Palin, don't really "get" it. They think it will only affect illegal immigrants, so why should they care? They haven't thought further than their noses. They just see it as a way to 'get the Mexicans out', so they support it. Others don't have a problem with it and are willing to prove their citizenship at any time.

I an NOT comfortable being asked for my 'papers' when I haven't done ANYTHING wrong. That's not what this country is about. That's not freedom. There are much better ways to deal with this issue. Here are my ideas.

Drivers license is NOT prove citizenship, so everyone in AZ would have to carry their BC, passport or some other form of ID.



Documents Serving as Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship

* Previously issued, undamaged US passport
* Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state of birth
* Consular Report of Birth (of U.S. citizen) Abroad or Certification of Birth
* Naturalization Certificate
* Certificate of Citizenship


Source



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

That's news to me. I take my wallet with me wherever I go, especially when I drive. My wallet contains my driver's license and proof of insurance. And I'm not uncomfortable with carrying it around.


You are not required by law to carry identity papers when moving about in the USA. If you choose to that's your prerogative.

Indeed, you can board and fly an airline with no ID. Prior to 2004 you had to be subjected to a secondary search if you chose not to show ID, but that was struck down in this Ninth court of Appeals decision;

JOHN GILMORE, v ALBERTO R. GONZALES, et al.

Ultimately it was decided that you can fly without having to produce ID.

Americans WERE a freedom-loving people, the idea you have to walk around with identity papers at the ready to prove you are "legal" is sickening.

If you want to reduce the flow if illegal aliens into the country you tighten up the border, not turn every citizen into a potential outlaw, "guilty until proven innocent".



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

If you want to reduce the flow if illegal aliens into the country you tighten up the border, not turn every citizen into a potential outlaw, "guilty until proven innocent".


HERE HERE

!!!

My position to the T

S'ed



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
What i don't understand is....why was the law needed in the first place? If you can only be checked if doing something else wrong....wouldn't the person be checked anyway to see if they were legal on regular terms?

Racial profiling will happen...I don't think it's possible for it not too...no matter what the law states and innocent people will likely be jailed...REAL American citizens....unfairly.

I police officer can simply state that a driver was "swerving" to pull them over if they want to and then be able to check someone for any reason. Racial profiling already happens. It happened in the county I grew up in.

Some think this will actually scare voters away who are minorities for fear of being put in jail if they can't provide proof they are a citizen.

For example, right now I couldn't tell any of you where my birth certificate is. That's probably not a good thing...but I'll bet I"m not the only one who would say that. Fortunately, since I am white, I don't have to worry about anyone asking me for proof I'm a citizen.

I'm not really sure what to do on the matter. I definitely think anyone they find (by any means) to be a former criminal should instantly be deported...no questions asked.

This law may also create more problems for surrounding states as illegals will now avoid arizona and flood their own....which would increase the likelyhood of it happening in other states.

It would have been nice if we had done something about the border YEARAS ago so we wouldn't have to be discussing this.

Both parties are too blame. No specific party can be blamed alone for this mess.

And I certainly don't want to see another Trail of Tears like we did to the American Indians.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
What i don't understand is....why was the law needed in the first place? If you can only be checked if doing something else wrong....wouldn't the person be checked anyway to see if they were legal on regular terms?

Racial profiling will happen...I don't think it's possible for it not too...no matter what the law states and innocent people will likely be jailed...REAL American citizens....unfairly.

I police officer can simply state that a driver was "swerving" to pull them over if they want to and then be able to check someone for any reason. Racial profiling already happens. It happened in the county I grew up in.

Some think this will actually scare voters away who are minorities for fear of being put in jail if they can't provide proof they are a citizen.

For example, right now I couldn't tell any of you where my birth certificate is. That's probably not a good thing...but I'll bet I"m not the only one who would say that. Fortunately, since I am white, I don't have to worry about anyone asking me for proof I'm a citizen.

I'm not really sure what to do on the matter. I definitely think anyone they find (by any means) to be a former criminal should instantly be deported...no questions asked.

This law may also create more problems for surrounding states as illegals will now avoid arizona and flood their own....which would increase the likelyhood of it happening in other states.

It would have been nice if we had done something about the border YEARAS ago so we wouldn't have to be discussing this.

Both parties are too blame. No specific party can be blamed alone for this mess.

And I certainly don't want to see another Trail of Tears like we did to the American Indians.



I agree the FED has completely %$#%# up, not taking action sooner

However I actually think the Dem politicians have perpetuated this one more, based upon demographics and all... But that is just my view

Some other posters made the point that maybe we (honks) are the ones who are going to see a trail of tears, interesting point



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I have a hard time taking this AZ immigration bill seriously. It looks to me as just GOP pandering to their base to shore up and reestablish their conservative ideology or it's an attempt at creating a scapegoat instead of policies and run on a paranoid platform.

The borders do need to be fixed.



[edit on 28-4-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 





Some other posters made the point that maybe we (honks) are the ones who are going to see a trail of tears, interesting point


It's just a horrible situation. Mexico is in horrible shape and I can completely understand why they would want to get the hell out of there. Illegals are important for their economy as well as many of them send their money back home to Mexico....which actually HURTS our economy.

Something has to be done....and I agree that we absolutely HAVE to step up border patrols. A simple fence isn't going to stop it. It needs to be a large effort.

Cripes...why can't they shut down one of our 700 military bases and use those funds to help the states (who are all hurting financially) to use the National Guard along the border?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Janky Red
 





Some other posters made the point that maybe we (honks) are the ones who are going to see a trail of tears, interesting point


It's just a horrible situation. Mexico is in horrible shape and I can completely understand why they would want to get the hell out of there. Illegals are important for their economy as well as many of them send their money back home to Mexico....which actually HURTS our economy.

Something has to be done....and I agree that we absolutely HAVE to step up border patrols. A simple fence isn't going to stop it. It needs to be a large effort.

Cripes...why can't they shut down one of our 700 military bases and use those funds to help the states (who are all hurting financially) to use the National Guard along the border?


Thank you, can we get another star for this man?

We need to close down a couple of bases, USE technology, OUR TROOP TO DEFEND OUR LAND, not another land and fund it up, how about a bound drive to build the physical infastructure? You donate, no raise in taxes, no more political beef patties
for the politicians...

It can't be this hard, AND WE DO NOT have to reduce ourselves to the sight based
detection and sentencing of a certain group 70 years back who were also ridding the land of the leeches upon society. Anything resembling that stuff is NOT AMERICAN IMO.
They also thought it was just at the time, no different, loved the flag, protect the culture... Its just things like this never stop at phase one...

I digress, Dave, you have figured it out, now you just have to get elected.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
NM

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
What i don't understand is....why was the law needed in the first place? If you can only be checked if doing something else wrong....


This bill doesn't require that the person be doing ANYTHING, much less something illegal. If the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is illegally in the country, he can stop the person and ask for POC (proof of citizenship). If a man is standing on the street corner, looking brown, the cop can approach him. They don't need a real reason. That's one of the big problems I have with this legislation.



This law may also create more problems for surrounding states as illegals will now avoid arizona and flood their own....which would increase the likelyhood of it happening in other states.


Tell me about it! And now Texas is talking about trying the same thing!?! I'm in NM, right in the middle of AZ and TX! Ack!


Originally posted by Janky Red
We need to close down a couple of bases,


That's one of my ideas I linked above.
You guys should check them out.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
The border is wide open, and it's the Mexican cartel's drug-runners that are the trail blazers finding all the backdoors into the USA. Border defense literally needs a massive injection of cash and man power to step up their game, or get the army in there!

The war on drugs will ensure that drug-runners from Mexico will do everything in their means to get into the country, and if they can get through then the illegal migrant workers will follow.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by David9176
What i don't understand is....why was the law needed in the first place? If you can only be checked if doing something else wrong....


This bill doesn't require that the person be doing ANYTHING, much less something illegal. If the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is illegally in the country, he can stop the person and ask for POC (proof of citizenship). If a man is standing on the street corner, looking brown, the cop can approach him. They don't need a real reason. That's one of the big problems I have with this legislation.



This law may also create more problems for surrounding states as illegals will now avoid arizona and flood their own....which would increase the likelyhood of it happening in other states.


Tell me about it! And now Texas is talking about trying the same thing!?! I'm in NM, right in the middle of AZ and TX! Ack!


Originally posted by Janky Red
We need to close down a couple of bases,


That's one of my ideas I linked above.
You guys should check them out.


Queen BH!

I agree 100%

I live in California, so when we are not preying to alah, bowing to Obama statues, robbing not lazy people or engaging in large homosexual orgies, we notice we have a problem here too...

I bet you guys we could get this thing (physical structure/s) funded with public money/donations in less than a year



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

This bill doesn't require that the person be doing ANYTHING, much less something illegal. If the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is illegally in the country, he can stop the person and ask for POC (proof of citizenship). If a man is standing on the street corner, looking brown, the cop can approach him. They don't need a real reason. That's one of the big problems I have with this legislation.



Not true. Read below (sorry about the caps, this was copied straight out of the PDF)


B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY 21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS 23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, 24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE 25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).


www.azleg.gov...

The key is the third and fourth word - "lawful contact". I take that to mean when an officer is already checking someone out for committing an offense, like a traffic violation or a jaywalking or littering violation, that they will then make a REASONABLE ATTEMPT, WHEN PRACTICABLE to determine tha immigration status of the person.

"Reasonable suspicion" by your definition would mean that the officer would need to be already checking someone out on suspicion of breaking the law and would need to make a full report to that extent.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by sos37]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by sos37]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
They had a crackdown on illegal immigration a few years ago - remember? They actually backed off when it was harming the migrant farm industry and meat packing plants.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


You might be right about that. I REALLY hope you are. I could support that if the cops were acting with honor. Some will, some won't. Some will find a reason to create "lawful contact" with brown people.

If that's the case, why is this law necessary? Isn't it redundant?



What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."


Source



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Good topic op


In the end I do think the 50 million Latino voters in the states will not be voting Republican anytime soon.
This will further limit broad appeal for the Republican Party all because of them catering to the right.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


Then again, you might be wrong.




According to some very smart lawyers and immigration policy experts I've consulted, proponents of the new law are wrong in asserting that "lawful contact" means lawful detention. According to former assistant U.S. attorney Bill Otis: "As Justice White said in concurrence in Terry v. Ohio: 'There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets.' What limitations there are come almost exclusively from 'reasonable suspicion.'"
...
The bottom line is that this new law places enormous discretion in the hands of local police officers, since there are any number of circumstances in which an interaction between a police officer and a private individual is "lawful contact"; indeed, there are very few in which it is anything other than lawful contact, according to Mr. Otis.


Source

We need some clarification on this before I can support it OR agree that "lawful contact" means what you say it does.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join