Judge: Police to enforce Arizona immigration law

reply to post by Southern Guardian


The problem we have always had revolved around ICE and how they did (not) their job. If I have contact with an individual who is detrmined to be in the US illegally I would be required to have local charges pending in order for ICE to actually get of their asses and do something about the immigration violation.

If I had no local / state charges then ICE would not respond, forcing us to relase the individual even though they were in the country illegally.

A persons immigration status is tracked / established by the Federal government, who does not like to share that information with law enforcement. Even more so when they decide not to enforce immigration laws simply because they want to rule via executive order while ignoring laws they dont like.

The few states who have laws where parts have been upheld by the federal court system should be an eye opener for the federal government in terms of the direction this is heading. Eventually we are going to see a state pass a law and then tell the federal court system to screw off while arguing the federal government has completely failed to do its job on protecting our borders.

Personally speaking I think we should be allowed to make an arrest for trespassing and deport based on that if the feds dont want to do their job. If you are here illegally then you are trespassing.

Now, now, boys. I think when we start talking about falsified documents we're getting beyond the scope of this law. In fact, the article in the O.P. was pretty low on facts about the law itself so I went to Wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org...

I was concerned that this might overburden the cops, but I don't see that they're tasked with anything more than they already do when I get pulled over. As for racial profiling, well the law is meant to address social issues caused by a group (illegal immigrants) which is a subset of a larger group (immigrants). If profiling still doesn't make sense, draw it as a Venn diagram.

This is still just a band-aid, but actually fixing the problem would involve more jobs to go around (hey, Arizona, I hear it's sunny there. Be nice if there were a massive solar power infrastructure to harvest that), ending the drug war (no problem :@@ and after all that let's fix Mexico. It's broken.

So, yeah, band-aids it is.

reply to post by MuonSpin

They can falsify it, but it will do them no good. Any DHS case worker is required to verify income information before qualifying anyone for benefits

Sorry, but the illegal ladies that I knew and from what I've read/heard all across the US, illegals are getting away with recieving welfare benefits, food stamps, cheap housing, medical...

I'm talking about women who work and whos spouses/boyfriends work under the table and their combined incomes are well over the poverty limit. They had no right recieving anything! If you believe they are not getting away with this, you are terribly mistaken.

I completely agree with AZ on this.... I believe more states need to follow as this is an ongoing problem throughout this country.
I just hope they are going for deportation and not throwing them into prisons here in America. Everyone knows the money privatized prisons can bring. Arrest them and send them home.

reply to post by MuonSpin


We're in different camps on this issue. That's obvious. You're legal and I'm social. (In this regard at least.) Ask anyone in the state of Arizona if they support this and the majority will say yes. The majority of people who responded here support it as well. More people are concerned with the here and now and the social aspects of this then what this law MIGHT snowball into in the future. In this case, projecting isn't addressing the issue. Action is. And just because you don't agree with that action, it doesn't mean it's wrong. It means you don't agree with it from your vantage point which is obviously from the top of a Federal building taking pot shots at the common folk. Yet I'M the one looking down MY nose......

The same goes for you and I. We don't agree but that doesn't mean either of us are right or wrong. We have different ways of seeing the issue because of our experiences, which are obviously different.

You claim to be on the front lines of this issue but, still, want to side with the Feds. That makes it evident to everyone, exactly who it is that butters your bread. I know we all need a paycheck, but when it blinds you to the reality of a situation, then you've got a problem with it.

The bottom line is this: Illegal immigration is a problem and as long as the Feds have the upper hand in "dealing" with it, it's only going to get worse. When was the last time the Feds did anything positive and constructive from a social standpoint?. ( Other than signing your paycheck of course) You think the big box stores are bad for "killing " the mom and pop stores? They may not be exemplary entities but at at least they haven't outsourced their companies to Oceania to make their bottom line fatter much like hundreds of other companies have done,and then get tax breaks from the Feds for doing so. The Federal Government gives financial incentives to corporations to outsource their businesses which, in turn, makes the unemployment numbers rise.The Box stores actually ADD jobs to the economy which you can upgrade from within without spending thousands on a formal education. But yet people complain that's all that is left is the low wage jobs only the illegals will take. Which is why they come here in the first place, and then think things can get solved from a legal standpoint? The legal standpoint is what got us into this mess to begin with.

Dude, if you can't see the cycle and how people like you help perpetuate it and keep it from being understood by the majority of Americans by spinning the facts, I'm sorry. Maybe that's why you're focusing on the legal aspect of it all and numbers on pieces of paper "explaining" the social aspects.

It's something you can actually understand.

And yes, am I being nice about this. In this case you're either ignorant or bad. I'll opt for ignorant and be nice about it.

Well, It's been real, but I've got legal "things" of my own to take care of.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by Vitruvius
Now, now, boys...........

Leave me alone, I'm on a roll. Give me a few more days and OWS gets it next.

Actually, I'm working on a short story, for one of my resume's, that I'm going to post here .....and a few more things on this side of the keyboard. But anyway, you're right. It's a band-aid and it is a step in the right direction. You're also right in that it doesn't give the police more then they can handle, it just makes what they were doing to begin with technically legal. And IMO, that's all the Feds are good for anyway. Taking someone else's idea and calling it their own because they're "Daddy". They take plagiarism to a whole new level, I swear.

www.youtube.com...

And solar farms? We have a few but they're mostly smaller operations, like APS. It's a good idea but they make it very hard for private individuals to do it for their own homes.

Fix Mexico? Sorry, they need to fix themselves and the only way to make them do that is to tighten the immigration laws.........a lot..........to where even the thickest of them get the point that they're not welcome here if all they want to do is walk across the border. Let them have a civil war. A good enema job to flush out the garbage at the top

But really, I HAVE to go. I'll call.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The problem we have always had revolved around ICE and how they did (not) their job.

Not sure if there's a growing problem, rather rightwing political activists claiming there's a growing problem. Our borders should be improved in my opinion, I have no issue with increasing border agents, but deportations are up, they've nearly doubled over the last 10 years:
www.mercurynews.com...

Even if there is or was a continued growing issue of illegal border crossings, this still wouldn't justify laws that overstep one's property, one's ability to function in life without harassment. I shouldn't need to show you my passport or licence to walk down to the grocery store, once we start enforcing laws of that nature, we create a society where many citizens get treated like foreigners by law enforcement. I don't see the justification for this law, sorry.

If I have contact with an individual who is detrmined to be in the US illegally I would be required to have local charges pending in order for ICE to actually get of their asses and do something

You're talking about the response and processing time of ICE toward local reports of illegal immigrants, I fail to see where the "papers please" law comes into play in this argument. You will find that most people have no issue with giving law enforcement more power to deal with illegal immigrants they find during busts of illegal activity. The issue here is that proponents of the law like yourself here fail to justify where the papers please law comes into play, it's not needed to give law enforcement more power and resources to deal with illegal immigrants. You won't change the response time of ICE by giving LEOs authority to ask anybody at anytime for identification, for no reason or accountability.

Even more so when they decide not to enforce immigration laws

You say there's a fire, I don't see any. Deportations are up, there is improvement, there is also room for improvement. You claim that the Federal government refuses to enforce their immigration laws, this is your personal opinion, it's a way for you to excuse the "papers please" law.

The thing about it is, the papers please law may end up doing more harm to the police officers themselves than to illegal immigrants. If you grant LEO's carte blanche over regulating what ID a person must have to move freely in this country, over requesting such ID even on private property, pretty soon somebody is going to overstep the line with such power, and it's going to cause a mess, both legally and socially. It doesn't do anything to improve our border security, it doesn't do anything to improve cooperation in communities, it doesn't do anything to hold those business owners accountable for hiring illegals. What it does do is to satisfy the bigots about the fact brown people will be treated like second class citizens. If there was a papers please law on guns, there would be a different attitude, because we know this law would more so target a different demographic.

federal court system to screw off

feds dont want to do their job.

Sounds like a whole lot of personal anger against the Federal government and federal officials rather than the actual issue at hand, or actual solutions.

reply to post by joyride0187


didn't they do this to the jews?? asking for papers?

When the federal govt has bungled the protection of our borders, the states are forced to act. Arizona has/had no choice in the matter.

Entire counties are, by all accounts, going broke dealing with the influx of illegal aliens. My own state of Washington has its own issues, though not to the magnitude of Arizona and California, in dealing with the problem of illegals.

Fraud in state programs is endemic. Especially as regards the EBT (foodstamp), and WIC programs.

The federal govt has all but refused to, other than token gestures, do anything about the issue...that leaves it to the states.

Don't be surprised if several states join with Arizona in telling the feds to butt out.

Which, of course, will result in threats to take away highway funds, or other means of coercion, in an attempt to force compliance.

Something is going to give, as this issue comes to a head over the next few years...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Not sure if there's a growing problem, rather rightwing political activists claiming there's a growing problem. Our borders should be improved in my opinion, I have no issue with increasing border agents, but deportations are up, they've nearly doubled over the last 10 years:
www.mercurynews.com...

Except for the fact Obama tweaked the numbers of deportations in order to make it appear that way. In reality, deportations are way down -
Obama Plays Shell Game with Hispanic Deportations
www.theblaze.com... t-worry-we-are-not-actually-deporting-more-illegals-than-bush/

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Actually what happened if you look at the statistics, two things happened. Number one is, is that there was a much greater emphasis on criminals rather than non-criminals. And there’s been a huge shift in terms of enforcement. And that began as soon as I came into office, that change has taken place. Secondly the statistics are actually a little deceptive because what we’ve been doing is with the stronger border enforcement we’ve been apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back. That is counted as a deportation even though they may have only been held for a day, or 48 hours sent back. That’s counted as a deportation.

Please read article for remainder of discussion on this topic.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Even if there is or was a continued growing issue of illegal border crossings, this still wouldn't justify laws that overstep one's property, one's ability to function in life without harassment. I shouldn't need to show you my passport or licence to walk down to the grocery store, once we start enforcing laws of that nature, we create a society where many citizens get treated like foreigners by law enforcement. I don't see the justification for this law, sorry.

So its ok for New York City PD to stop and frisk but not if it comes to hispanics?

Contrary to the tripe the left likes to throw out there law enforcement does NOT have to have any legitmate reason to make a voluntary contact (this does not include traffic stops / detentions). If I am walking down the street as a police officer and randomly ask a person for their ID 1 of 2 things can occur. They comply because they dont know the law or they dont comply and keep walking / decline because they do know the law.

When it comes to traffic stops we only need reasonable suspciion, not probable cause, in order to make a stop. The driver is required by law to produce identification upon request and we can ask people in the vehicle to produce ID but cannot force them to. IF THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION going on outside of a traffic violation they are required by law to identify themselves.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You're talking about the response and processing time of ICE toward local reports of illegal immigrants, I fail to see where the "papers please" law comes into play in this argument. You will find that most people have no issue with giving law enforcement more power to deal with illegal immigrants they find during busts of illegal activity. The issue here is that proponents of the law like yourself here fail to justify where the papers please law comes into play, it's not needed to give law enforcement more power and resources to deal with illegal immigrants. You won't change the response time of ICE by giving LEOs authority to ask anybody at anytime for identification, for no reason or accountability.

Immigration laws are Federal and can only be enforced by Federal Agents. Immigration status is a Federal issue and they cotnrol the database for it. The immigration law is specifric in terms of if this person is here illegally they are violating the law and should be arrested and deportation process started.

That is the job of the federal government and they are NOT doing their job. Because of their illegal status they are not legally elligible for benefits / education grants v/ etc etc etc.

In case you did not notice the people of the states did give their law enforcement the ability to enforce immigration laws. In the end the federal government challeneged it and won because its a federal power and not state.

When the fEderal Government refuses to enforce a law that has adverse consequences on the state resources there is a problem and people are not understanding that. Its like when the PResident visits cities during a campaign event. The DNC / RNC is required to pay for the extra law enforcement protection and often they refuse to pay. That means those officers poay for that non offical visit comes out of the city tax dollars and usually involve amounts most cities do not budget for.

Originally posted by Southern GuardianYou say there's a fire, I don't see any. Deportations are up, there is improvement, there is also room for improvement. You claim that the Federal government refuses to enforce their immigration laws, this is your personal opinion, it's a way for you to excuse the "papers please" law.

Again please do some research on the deportation numbers and you will see the stat game being played. Its along the same lkines as the jobs created claims.

The papers please law has always been law and is not new. The problem is the federal government refusing to do theiur job and enforce the federal law. By the states demanding access to the database the feds maintain on immigration status it forces the stats out into the public.

The states can say of the 10 people we had contact with, 4k individuals were in the country illegally. Thats 4k people who broke the law that the federal government failed to deal with. That means 4k people are getting benefiets they are not entitled to.

That is a fire... It is a major problem and its NOT my personal opinion but absolute fact.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The thing about it is, the papers please law may end up doing more harm to the police officers themselves than to illegal immigrants. If you grant LEO's carte blanche over regulating what ID a person must have to move freely in this country, over requesting such ID even on private property, pretty soon somebody is going to overstep the line with such power, and it's going to cause a mess, both legally and socially. It doesn't do anything to improve our border security, it doesn't do anything to improve cooperation in communities, it doesn't do anything to hold those business owners accountable for hiring illegals. What it does do is to satisfy the bigots about the fact brown people will be treated like second class citizens. If there was a papers please law on guns, there would be a different attitude, because we know this law would more so target a different demographic.

Again you do not have all of the information.... Identification is required during offical contacts that require an ID, like a traffic stop. There is no law that requires a person to have a government id if they are walking down the street. We request their info and run the info "verbally" through dispatch. During thiose contacts we ask for identifiers (height / wight / hair / eye color etc). If they are not in the system we and they are under arrest for a crime we fingerprint and run the prints through the frederal database as well.

We also have agreements with the Mexican government (as well as Canadian) that allows us to run their nationals and get a return from their home country (and they have access to NCIC and state systems for US citizens in their countries).

You are fixating on the border issue while ignoring the actual problem.. Illegal aliens are getting access to resources they should not be eligable for. They are committing crimes in this country and are not being held accountible for those crimes (separate from immigration).

When we have illegal aliens in this country who have been deported 6-10 times for criminal acts and on their 11th trip to the US they kill a person, its a problem.

If they get drunk and drive and kill a person - its a problem.
If they are part of a gang and commit property crimes - its a problem.

People seem to ignore the fact that regardless of their behavior, entering the US without going through the system is a crime.

Why are we ok with the federal government looking the other direction when a crime occurs and the person is an illegal alien while at the same time holding our citizens accountible to the very same laws nd not granting them the same courtesy?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Sounds like a whole lot of personal anger against the Federal government and federal officials rather than the actual issue at hand, or actual solutions.

You would be wrong on that one.

Its not so much anger as it is the Federal Government catering to a group of people who are attached to the Hispanic vote. They are stating to all US citizens / Lawful alien residents that its ok to break the law when there is policitcally expediency present.

In case you and some others forgot everyone is equal under the law.. except in this case everyone means everyone but those groups that can swing an election. Then again this president thinks its lawful to rule by exeuctive order while bypassing congress and refusing to enforce laws they dont like.

If I did that not only would I lose my license, I would be charged with a crime and possibly civil rights violations depending on the result of the incident in question.

So respectfully dont lecture me on what you think my problem may be. I have been dealing with this mess for a long time now and its only getting worse.

Obama had 2 years where the House and Senate were controlled by the Democrats. Why did they not act then to change the laws instead of just ignoring them down the road?

Originally posted by seagull
When the federal govt has bungled the protection of our borders, the states are forced to act. Arizona has/had no choice in the matter.

I completely agree.. The southern border is a massive issue. Secondly I wish people would so some research when it comes to our southern neighbor and their own immigration laws. The laws on the books in the US are a cakewalk compared to MExican immigration laws.

You want to move to Mexico? You better be able to provide something of value in order to justify your presence.

Originally posted by seagull
Entire counties are, by all accounts, going broke dealing with the influx of illegal aliens. My own state of Washington has its own issues, though not to the magnitude of Arizona and California, in dealing with the problem of illegals.

One of the main complaints I see people make is about illegals loosing access to emergency medical care. What they fail to understand is EMTALA is the protection in place and has been for many years now.

EMTALA - Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act -

It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.

People dont seem to understand why that law is problematic -

There are no reimbursement provisions.

The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government.

Originally posted by seagull
Fraud in state programs is endemic. Especially as regards the EBT (foodstamp), and WIC programs.

I am required to take random drug tests in order to be employed. Why am I required to take drug test yet its discriminatory to ask people receiving those tax dolars to do the same in order to rceive those benefits?

Why are WIC / EBT programs allowed to be used in bars? strip clubs? Why are people able to purchase alcohol / tobacco products on those cards?

Originally posted by seagull
The federal govt has all but refused to, other than token gestures, do anything about the issue...that leaves it to the states.

Unfunded mandate is a term used and I agree with the assessment.

Originally posted by seagull
Don't be surprised if several states join with Arizona in telling the feds to butt out.

Agreed.. I find it contradictory that people think its ok for the Feds to not do something they are reqired to do and yet find fault with a state taking an action that is required.

Originally posted by seagull
Which, of course, will result in threats to take away highway funds, or other means of coercion, in an attempt to force compliance.

In my personal opinion I think if the Feds do that they should force coercion / blackmail / bribery investigations. Even better would be a RICO investigation.

Originally posted by seagull
Something is going to give, as this issue comes to a head over the next few years...

I think we have passed the tipping point and are quickly heading to the breaking point.

New documents reveal Obama administration ‘cooking the books’ to achieve record deportation numbers

Internal documents obtained by the House Judiciary Committee show that the Obama administration has been “cooking the books” in order to reach their “record” number of deported illegal immigrants, chairman Rep. Lamar Smith said Friday.

Based on the internal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) documents, the number of removals are actually down, the opposite of what the administration has been claiming.

According to the committee’s review, in 2011 officials at the Department of Homeland Security began including the number of individuals removed through the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) in its annual removal numbers. ATEP is a program which moves apprehended illegal immigrants to another point along the border.

The committee chair claims that counting those individuals as removals is misleading because there are no repercussions for illegal immigrants who are deported through the program, and they can simply try to re-enter.

“It is dishonest to count illegal immigrants apprehended by the Border Patrol along the border as ICE removals,” Smith explained in a statement. “And these ‘removals’ from the Border Patrol program do not subject the illegal immigrant to any penalties or bars for returning to the U.S. This means a single illegal immigrant can show up at the border and be removed numerous times in a single year — and counted each time as a removal.”

Given the new information, the committee’s Republican majority subtracted the ATEP removals from ICE’s deportation totals.

With the ATEP subtraction, in 2011 the estimated 397,000 deportations become approximately 360,000, and the 2012 removals to date drop from about 334,000 to an estimated 263,000, according to the committee estimates. Projections for number of people to be deported by end of the year drops from 400,000 to 315,000 removals.


Read more: dailycaller.com...

Mexico’s illegals laws tougher than Arizona’s
Mexico’s Immigration Laws: The Untold Story

CNN Ireport -

Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
# in the country legally;
# have the means to sustain themselves economically;
# not destined to be burdens on society;
# of economic and social benefit to society;
# of good character and have no criminal records; and
# contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:
# immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
# foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
# foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
# foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
# foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
# those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
# Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
# Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
# Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
# The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
# Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
# A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
# A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
# Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
# Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
# Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
# Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
# Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
# "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
# Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
# Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
# A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
# Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

reply to post by Xcathdra


The EBT program is, in reality, a two part program. One is a food only program. Beer, hard liquor, tobacco are forbidden. The second part, however, is where the abuse comes in. That part is, in reality, cash. It's original intent was to aid in the payment of bills: Rent. Electricity. etc... But in actual practise, it's used for beer, tobacco, etc...by many of the abusers, and not just illegals.

I watched a young man slide his EBT card through an ATM and withdraw three hundred dollars, and he spent it all on lottery scratch tickets... I was not impressed. That's our tax money he's wasting...

...and I've lost count of the number of people I've heard call it free money...

Really? REALLY?

Admittedly, the abuse of these things are not limited to illegal aliens, but a large portion of the abuse is done by illegals.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


I am for Freedom, Liberty, Compassion and Mercy.

I am not defending criminals, I'm defending immigrants. Immigrants come here to escape poverty, violence, tyranny, oppression etc. For the very same reason our forefathers came. Criminals, on the other hand, come here to profit from crime. This SB1070 law serves only to infringe on the liberties of the immigrants and those who LOOK like immigrants and cannot provide 'documents' the officer deems they should have. This will not stop criminals. They will keep coming back so long as there is a hungry market for whatever they are peddling. The same reason citizen criminals continue committing crime.

We should not make laws which restrain the many in an effort to restrain a few.

Passing a bill which requires officers of the law to detain someone based on guilt by appearance, before any evidence can be obtained, is a crime against our civil liberties and there is no justification for it.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

"Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty.” -- Samuel Adams

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry, Founding Father

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions, whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." ~GEORGE WASHINGTON

"Happy, thrice happy shall they be pronounced hereafter who have contributed anything, who have performed the meanest office in erecting this stupendous fabric of freedom and empire on the broad basis of Independence, who have assisted in protecting the rights of humane nature and establishing an asylum for the poor and oppressed of all nations and religions." ~GEORGE WASHINGTON

reply to post by Xcathdra


What point is there to compare our immigration laws to those of Mexico? This is the United States. Are we lowering our standards? People flee Mexico to come to USA. Our nation has always been the beacon of hope, liberty, freedom for those seeking to escape oppression and poverty. Even George Washington said of our nation: "...an asylum for the poor and oppressed of all nations and religions..." This is what sets us apart from the rest. We cannot possibly hope to accomplish anything by comparing our laws to those of a land from which people feel they must escape. Certainly we dont want to set our laws by Mexico's standards less we plan to become a nation from which people must escape.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Admittedly, the abuse of these things are not limited to illegal aliens, but a large portion of the abuse is done by illegals.

This is about as official and credible as sources go. And this contradicts your claim.

Can you provide me with a credible source to support your claim?

Of TANF families, 99.5 percent received cash and cash equivalent assistance, with an average monthly amount of $372.

Two of three TANF adult recipients were members of minority groups. Thirty-eight percent of adult recipients were white, 37 percent were African-American, 20 percent were Hispanic, 1.7 percent were Asian, and 1.5 percent were Native American. Most TANF adult recipients were U.S. citizens. There were about 60,000 non-citizens (i.e., 5.9 percent of TANF adults) residing legally in this country.

The racial distribution of TANF recipient children has not significantly changed when compared with FY 2005. African-American children continued to be the largest group of welfare children, comprising about 36 percent of recipient children. Almost 29 percent of TANF recipient children were white, and 29 percent were Hispanic.

www.acf.hhs.gov...

"Obama had 2 years where the House and Senate were controlled by the Democrats. Why did they not act then to change the laws instead of just ignoring them down the road?"

Not saying I disagree with all you said, but I do this statement. Bush had 6 years where the house and senate were controlled by the Republicans. Why didn't THEY do anything?


EDIT: This is for XCATHDRA: Sorry, I apparently can't use the quote button very well

reply to post by MuonSpin
Ummm.............how about free medical care and food stamps and housing............hmmm? You ever been to a California emergency room, where the "No Habla Englaise", are filling the place and using their shiny new DSS cards to "pay" for services....................been there, seen that............any other stupid questions?

YouSir

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Except for the fact Obama tweaked the numbers of deportations

People on the rightwing dispute those deportation numbers and argue the issue is worse, you had to go to rightwing websites like the Blaze to make this point, I'll rely more so on websites like politifact:

If... you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents.

www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/

The fact that deportations are up doesn't mean that illegal immigration is no longer an issue, but it certainly brings into question the increased fearmongering of those political opportunists to the right.

So its ok for New York City PD to stop and frisk but not if it comes to hispanics?

You're probably speaking of "Stop and Identify" statutes that exist in New York and many other states. The thing about those laws is that they define and set specific guidelines for police and the rights concerning those involved:

At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack “specific and articulable facts”

As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.

Nonetheless, carrying an ID is required when you're driving or flying.

knowmyrights.org...

The law you refer to focuses on police asking questions, it's not about requiring people to carry "I.D" to prove their identity. Do you know what's funny about your explanation? You used the "stop and identify" statute in New York to justify the same thing in Arizona, when Arizona has had an identical law on the same concept in place since 2005:

www.azleg.gov...

So the question is, why justify the current "papers please" law by referencing laws you deem the same, that are already in place in Arizona? Why introduce this law then? Maybe because they aren't exactly the same hmm??

If I am walking down the street as a police officer and randomly ask a person for their ID 1 of 2 things can occur. They comply because they dont know the law or they dont comply and keep walking / decline because they do know the law.

When it comes to traffic stops we only need reasonable suspciion,

But that particular part of the law doesn't specifically refer specifically to traffic stops now does it? It doesn't define any limitations to where police can enforce the law. It is vague for the very reason of giving LEO's the power to ask ID anywhere. SB1070 does not restrict "reasonable suspicion" to traffic stops, all it really refers to is that of suspicion as to whether a person is legally in this country. A police officer can stop an American citizen in a store, and ask them for their birth certificate or passport for example. The law as it had been introduced made no restrictions toward LEO's, just the vague mention of "reasonable suspicion".

Remember, police always had the ability to do backround checks in routine traffic stops, the Arizona law was never needed for this, and this was never the purpose behind the law in the first place. It instead expanded the ability for police to require proof of "citizenship" outside the car itself. It is at core a papers please law as it gives LEO's power to require identification from citizens anywhere, and police may chose to accept that identification or not.

they are NOT doing their job

Again your personal opinion. The Federal government is enforcing the law, you're just not satisfy with the fact they aren't taking it to the point of targeting brown people specifically. This is your issue. If you feel there's not enough being done to secure the borders, fine, but don't use that as an excuse for support towards a law that only serves to treat certian American citizens as foreigners in their own country. Who the hell do you think you are? Why must somebody show their birth certificate for merely walking down the street? I'm sorry but this law oversteps the line. You haven't really established a reasonable case behind the existence of this law, other than to "stick it" to the Obama administration. You're prepared to do this at the expense of rights and dignity of a certain segment of the population. It's disgusting how people allow their petty polical issues to get in the way of others individual rights.

Greetings ALL,
As a first time "poster" I don't wish to rock the boat yet, it seems sad to me that we still have invisible lines dictating who is legally allowed to walk on "our" side of the Earth. Stating economic reasons for this foreboding is a politically perpetrated illusion hiding bigotry. The federal reserve has done enough all on its own to control the wealth without a need to blame "those brown people"... (George Carlin). My puzzle is why in hell would anyone want to immigrate here?