Coming Soon Immigration Reform

**MoeMag** · 04-28-2010, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by crack

ok im not from the states, i don't know any of your laws and i don't have a right to comment on how the country should be run.

but one thing i always liked about America was it was a country built on immigration and anyone was welcome.

i mean what statue features the words Give me your tired your poor your huddled masses? where else in the world could you find that?

would it not be better to go after the people who exploit illegal immigrants and then help then help the immigrants become citizens to better there life's and strengthen the American work force?

You are absolutely correct.

I am in one of those "Phoenix Suburbs"
There is a part of town here called "the Square". It's a large concentration of illegals where its common knowledge ya just don't go there. It's dangerous because they know, and the cops know, they COULDN'T do anything there. Now they can.

I cant tell you how many times I hear the same old story of a car accident involving an illegal, where they A) flee the scene... never to be found B) stay there, but cannot be charged, or held because they are illegals and it WASN'T the job of the local PD to deal with that or C) they get injured and hauled off to the hospital, get treated and released, without paying a cent or showing id. (there is probably one of the biggest problems with insurance and medicare in the country... if not at least Arizona)

I have lived with this my whole life.

The last one is what really annoys me.

true story...Last time I was in the ER after falling off my horse, I had my insurance card, paid my $200 ER Co-pay, signed my life away in documents, and had more medical bills sent to me over the next 6 months than I could shake a stick at. All the while, there was a Hispanic illegal in the next bed, who did not have any documentation who had pink eye... who all but one nurse could understand. He came to the ER because the ER cannot refuse. Did he pay anything!? no. in all honesty he walked out of there with nobody actually knowing who he was. Could they call the cops? no, because the cops wont do anything... they never have here. Does immigration care? no they have bigger things to worry about... calling immigration is about like getting Mulder and Scully FBI agents to show up. Did it cost that hospital a lot of money, which in turn costs us TAX PAYING citizens money? Yeah. All the while there is a 45 minute wait and there was an elderly guy who looked like he was bleeding out in the waiting room, because some illegal had pink eye. Ya... the fact that the ER cannot refuse someone is a VERY good thing... but Illegals are taking advantage of it.

I don't understand how "Illegal alien" has become a benign title. What part of Illegal do we not understand.

Illegals are ILLEGAL=doing something wrong. They are a drain on our society because they do not contribute to the our society (and cost us A LOT OF money).

OH YEAH...
AS an Arizona State University Student... I am VERY ANGRY at the complacency shown by the faculty at ASU to allow Illegals to attend. There was an entire article written by an "anonymous" illegal student and his experiences there in the school paper. THIS along with those who hire day laborers, and pay low wages, should be dealt with harshly, and I can only hope that with this new law that may come to fruition.

I'm sorry, there are a lot of people in this sad little world. I can't blame someone for trying to make their lives better, even if that means breaking the law. but guess what... it's still breaking the law. Do it right... everyone at Ellis island did.

Another thing... don't pull the race card. I don't care. Oops we border Mexico... Yeah, probably gonna be a lot of them here. Along with the few illegal Canadians, and South Africans. (examples I know from personal experience). Then as far as "show me your papers"... "license and registration please", "may I see a form of government issue ID with that", "your birth certificate or a pass port"... all us legal folks have that, and it's on record.

Basically... as an Arizonan, I am very much in support of this law. It's about time we do something. Come here all you want... but do it legally, and contribute to our society. My dad did.

**DevilMan** · 04-28-2010, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by drg

It doesn't matter what the law says, enforcing it requires racial profiling to accomplish anything that was not already accomplished. It creates a situation of de facto discrimination which, even if ultimately found legal, is not ultimately moral.

So someone robs a bank and he's wearing a yamaka and has a full beard... is it racial profiling to look for the suspect in the predominantly jewish part of town?

What do you consider the line to be when "Suspect is caucasian male, about 5'10" with blonde hair" Would you be be looking for that suspect in "ChinaTown"?

Seriously.. when are you going to get over yourselves that you are that much more important than the next person? If someone came in and left a bloodbath in your house and video showed them to be Negro/Black/AfricanAmerican whatever you wanna call em... is it racial profiling to stop a car with a person matching the description in it? Or would you have to wait and see if there was blood smeared all over the inside of the car to make it worthwhile? Really?

DM

**Frizzle Fry** · 04-29-2010, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by MoeMag

, I am very much in support of this law. It's about time we do something.

I've got a handful of friends from Arizona, and every single one echos your sentiment... They've all got stories of incidents and neighborhoods similar to the ones you describe, and often times even scarier. These are guys who are on the relatively liberal side of things too; they're just tired of the violence and the abuse of the system.

It's really easy to look from a distance and say it's a bad idea, or call it "misguided" (who said that, again?). It seems, though, that those comments only seem to come from people with a very vague idea of WHY the law was created and very little understanding of the situation in AZ.

I'm going to be honest; I don't think the President has even read the law, nor do I think he has the slightest idea of what's going on in your home state. For starters, the only people who will have citizenship checked are people who are being investigated for crimes other than just "being illegal"... This does not allow officers walking down the street to just ask people for proof of citizenship. In fact, it doesn't even allow officers to question people who have been reported as illegal; that's still in ICE jurisdiction. This law literally allows officers to look into the citizenship of people commiting theft, vandalism, traffic violations and violent crimes.

Seriously, this law is not even close to what the media has described it as.

With 12 million illegals in a nation of 307 million people, we've got a problem. Add to that the violence in border states and the amount of taxpayer money being spent on non-taxpayers, and the problem grows. For a President who ignores the problem to the point of refusing multiple times to send the National Guard to towns and cities requesting help to turn and basically say "your law is misguided, but I won't bother to read the law or look into the issues or offer alternative solutions" is appalling.

**drg** · 04-29-2010, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by DevilMan

Any idea what it's like to live in a border town?

I can tell you what it's like to live in an immigration hub/gateway with a white minority ... a law like this would never be passed here because its inherent discrimination would potentially affect too many people. It's much more blatantly obvious in a state with demographics like mine. Laws like this only happen in states with big white majorities. You live in the #1 immigration state in the nation -- do you think a law like this would pass in California today?

Originally posted by DevilMan

So someone robs a bank and he's wearing a yamaka and has a full beard... is it racial profiling to look for the suspect in the predominantly jewish part of town?

What do you consider the line to be when "Suspect is caucasian male, about 5'10" with blonde hair" Would you be be looking for that suspect in "ChinaTown"?

Seriously.. when are you going to get over yourselves that you are that much more important than the next person? If someone came in and left a bloodbath in your house and video showed them to be Negro/Black/AfricanAmerican whatever you wanna call em... is it racial profiling to stop a car with a person matching the description in it? Or would you have to wait and see if there was blood smeared all over the inside of the car to make it worthwhile? Really?

DM

Those are not examples of profiling. It is important to understand the difference.

Racial Profiling: Definition | American Civil Liberties Union

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/racial-profiling-definition

Racial Profiling: Definition "Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Criminal profiling, generally, as practiced by police, is the reliance on a group of characteristics they believe to be associated with crime. Examples of racial profiling are the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations (commonly referred to as "driving while black or brown"), or the use of race to determine which pedestrians to search for illegal contraband. Another example of racial profiling is the targeting, ongoing since the September 11th attacks, of Arabs, Muslims and South Asians for detention on minor immigrant violations in the absence of any connection to the attacks on the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. Law enforcement agent includes a person acting in a policing capacity for public or private purposes. This includes security guards at department stores, airport security agents, police officers, or, more recently, airline pilots who have ordered passengers to disembark from flights, because the passengers' ethnicity aroused the pilots' suspicions. Members of each of these occupations have been accused of racial profiling. Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors. Defining racial profiling as relying “solely” on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion can be problematic. This definition found in some state racial profiling laws is unacceptable, because it fails to include when police act on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion in combination with an alleged violation of all law. Under the “solely” definition, an officer who targeted Latino drivers who were speeding would not be racial profiling because the drivers were not stopped “solely” because of their race but also because they were speeding. This would eliminate the vast majority of racial profiling now occurring. Any definition of racial profiling must include, in addition to racially or ethnically discriminatory acts, discriminatory omissions on the part of law enforcement as well. For example, during the eras of lynching in the South in the 19th and early 20th centuries and the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's, southern sheriffs sat idly by while racists like the Ku Klux Klan terrorized African Americans. At times, the sheriffs would even release black suspects to the lynch mobs. A recent example would be the complaint by an African American man in Maryland, who after moving into a white community, was attacked and subjected to property damage. Local police failed to respond to his repeated complaints until they arrested him for shooting his gun into the air, trying to disperse a hostile mob outside his home. Racial Profiling May Be Hazardous To Your Health Many racial profiling victims walk away with traffic tickets, but too often for others the outcome of racial profiling is death. Pennsylvania (Brentwood) - On October 12, 1995, Jonny Gammage, a 31 year-old African American male, was killed after being pulled over while driving the Jaguar of his cousin, Pittsburgh Steelers football player Ray Seals, in a predominately white community. Although police claimed that Gammage initiated the struggle, a tow truck driver said he saw one officer start the fight and the others join in kicking, hitting and clubbing Gammage while he lay on the pavement. Three officers were tried for involuntary manslaughter: John Vojtas was acquitted; Lt. Milton Mulholland and Michael Albert had their charges dismissed after two mistrials. Gammage's family settled a wrongful death civil rights lawsuit against the five officers involved and their police departments for $1.5 million. New York (Bronx-New York City) - On February 4, 1999, Amadou Diallo, an unarmed 22 year-old immigrant from New Guinea, West Africa, was shot and killed in the narrow vestibule of the apartment building where he lived. Four white officers, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss, Edward McMellon and Richard Murphy fired 41 bullets, hitting Diallo 19 times. All four were members of the New York City Police Department's Street Crimes Unit, which, under the slogan, "We Own the Night," used aggressive "stop and frisk" tactics against African Americans at a rate double that group's population percentage. A report on the unit by the state attorney general found that blacks were stopped at a rate 10 times that of whites, and that 35 percent of those stops lacked reasonable suspicion to detain or had reports insufficiently filled out to make a determination. Thousands attended Diallo's funeral. Demonstrations were held almost daily, along with the arrests of over 1,200 people in planned civil disobedience. In a trial that was moved out of the community where Diallo lived and to Albany in upstate New York, the four officers who killed Diallo were acquitted of all charges. Ohio (Cincinnati) - On April 7, 2001, in the early morning hours, Timothy Thomas, a 19 year-old African-American, was shot to death by police officer John Roach. Thomas had 14 outstanding misdemeanor warrants, mostly traffic violations, including failure to wear a seat belt. According to a city councilman, he was running away, holding up his baggy pants, and scaled a fence, landing in a driveway where Roach was approaching and shot Thomas. He became the fifth black male in the city to die at the hands of police in a five-month period and the fifteenth since 1995. Two nights of protests left broken windows at City Hall and fires around the city. Witnesses reported that following Thomas' funeral, six city SWAT team officers shot pellet-filled bags into a peaceful crowd. Two people hit by the pellets filed lawsuits. Under community and city council pressure, both the public safety director and city manager resigned. Officer Roach was indicted on charges of negligent homicide, and obstructing official business, resulting from differences in his version of events. Roach was acquitted in a bench trial characterized by the judge's (a former prosecutor) open admiration for Roach, and blaming Timothy Thomas for “making” Roach kill him. A community coalition, the Cincinnati Black United Front and the ACLU of Ohio filed suit against the city and the Fraternal Order of Police, citing a pattern and practice of discrimination by police, including issuing the type of traffic citations Thomas received to African Americans at twice their population percentage. In April 2002 the case was settled, under terms including the establishment of a civilian complaint review board and the activation of the reporting of collected traffic stop data that had been enacted by city ordinance in 2001. The Department of Justice also intervened and settled with the city, including revision and review of use of force policy. It is significant to note that research confirms the existence of bias in decisions to shoot. A series of University of California/University of Chicago studies recreated the experience of a police officer confronted with a potentially dangerous suspect, and found that: participants fired on an armed target more quickly when the target was African American than when White, and decided not to shoot an unarmed target more quickly when the target was White than when African American; participants failed to shoot an armed target more often when that target was White than when the target was African American. If the target was unarmed, participants mistakenly shot the target more often when African American than when White; shooting bias was greater among participants who held a strong cultural stereotype of African Americans as aggressive, violent and dangerous, and among participants who reported more contact with African Americans. shooting bias was greater among participants who held a strong cultural stereotype of African Americans as aggressive, violent and dangerous, and among participants who reported more contact with African Americans1. The stories above and hundreds of others present a compelling argument that not only does racial profiling exists, but it is widespread, and has had a destructive effect on the lives of communities of color, and attitudes toward police. Asian Racial Profiling Asians, who, according to the U.S. census, number 10 million, or 4 percent of the population, have been victims of racial profiling as well. Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese American was targeted and suspected of espionage on the basis of his race. Memos by high-ranking FBI and Department of Energy officials acknowledged that Lee was singled out because he was Chinese, and eight similarly situated non-Chinese were not prosecuted.2 In Seattle, Washington in July 2001 a group of 14 Asian American youth were stopped by police for jaywalking, claiming that they were kept against the wall for about an hour. The Seattle Times reported that one officer told them he had visited their country while in the army, and asked them repeatedly whether they spoke English. The paper also reported that U.S. Representative David Wu (D-Oregon) was detained entering the headquarters of the Department of Energy, and repeatedly. In 2001, the Asian Freedom Project of Wisconsin issued a report that found the racial profiling of Hmong communities there, and included the testimony of adults, as well as boys and girls. The Garden Grove (CA) Police Department settled a “gang” database racial profiling lawsuit by a group of young Asian Americans who said their civil rights were violated when officers photographed them as suspected gang members based merely on their ethnicity and clothing. Indian Racial Profiling Indigenous people ( Native Americans) call it “DWI,” with a new twist: “Driving While Indian.” According to the National American Indian Housing Council, there are 2.4 million Indians (including Eskimos and Aleuts) in the U.S. Indians complain about stops and searches by local police and sheriffs on roads leading to and from reservations. In South Dakota, widespread reports of racial profiling led to hearings before the state legislature, where Indians testified about their being stopped and searched not only based on race but also on religious articles hanging from rearview mirrors, and regional license plates that identified them as living on reservations. In June 2002 scores of Indians in the state's Bennett County complained to Department of Justice attorneys, alleging racial profiling at the hands of sheriffs there, including vehicular stops in the absence of reasonable suspicion, the administration of breathalyzer tests without reasonable suspicion, warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, and demanding to see drivers licenses and vehicle registrations while inside bars. Walking While Black and Brown Although "Driving While Black/Brown" traffic stops and searches are the form of racial profiling that has received the most media attention, profiling takes place off the roadways as well. Black and Latino pedestrians are regularly stopped and frisked without reasonable cause. In New York City, the December 1999 report of the New York City Police Departments pedestrian "stop and frisk" practices by the state attorney general provided glaring evidence of racial profiling in the nation's largest city. Blacks comprise 25.6 percent of the City's population, yet 50.6 percent of all persons "stopped" during the period were black. Hispanics comprise 23.7 percent of the City's population yet, 33.0 percent of all "stops" were of Hispanics. By contrast, whites are 43.4 percent of the City's population, but accounted for only 12.9 percent of all stops. Blacks comprise 62.7 percent of all persons "stopped" by the NYPD's Street Crime Unit ("SCU"). In precincts in which blacks and Hispanics each represented less than 10 percent of the total population, individuals identified as belonging to these racial groups nevertheless accounted for more than half of the total "stops" during the covered period. Blacks accounted for 30 percent of all persons "stopped" in these precincts; Hispanics accounted for 23.4 percent of all persons "stopped." Finally, precincts where minorities constitute the majority of the overall population tended to see more "stop & frisk" activity than precincts where whites constitute a majority of the population: Of the ten precincts showing the highest rate of "stop and frisk" activity (measured by "stops" per 1,000 residents), in only one (the 10 th Precinct) was the majority of the population white. In seven other precincts, blacks and Hispanics constituted the majority of the population. The remaining two precincts were business districts in Manhattan and Brooklyn in which the daytime racial breakdown of persons within the precinct is unknown. In roughly half of the police precincts in New York City, the majority of the population living in the precinct is white. However, of these 36 majority-white precincts, only 13 were in the top half of precincts showing most "stops" during the period. "Gang" Database Racial Profiling In Orange County California, a database containing the names and photographs of reputed gang members appeared to racially profile.3 Latinos, Asians and African Americans were more than 90 percent of the 20,221 men and women in the Gang Reporting Evaluation and Tracking system, but made up less than half of Orange County's population. The disparity attracted the notice of the California Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights as well as the ACLU. We asked the county district attorney's office to establish a civilian oversight board to monitor what we saw as problems with the list. "Bicycling While Black and Brown" Youth of color have been victims of racially-motivated bicycling stops, " In April, 2001, the ACLU joined a suit against Eastpointe, Michigan , representing 21 young African-American men who were stopped by the police while riding their bikes there. The ACLU argued that the bicyclists were stopped in this predominantly white suburb of Detroit because of their race and not because they were doing anything wrong. In a 1996 memorandum to the Eastpointe City Manager, the former police chief stated that he instructed his officers to investigate any black youths riding through Eastpointe subdivisions. Police searched many of young men and, in some cases, seized and later sold their bicycles. Police logs and reports in Eastpointe have identified over 100 incidents between 1995 and 1998 in which African-American youth were detained. "Bitten While Black and Brown" A throwback to the grainy ‘60's black and white television news footage of vicious police dogs attacking peaceful black civil rights protesters is the continued discriminatory use of canine units by police. These dogs, lethal weapons capable of biting at 2000 pounds pressure per square inch, and their handlers have been implicated in a vicious form of racial profiling that has led to legal action: California (Los Angeles)- The ACLU of Southern California compiled reports on the hundreds of mostly blacks and Latinos who were bitten by Los Angeles Police Department dogs from 1990-1992, charging that the dogs trained to "attack and maul," were routinely sent out in non-violent situations. In 1997, California state highway patrol canine units stopped almost 34,000 vehicles. Only 2 percent were carrying drugs. Maryland (Prince Georges County) - The Washington Post reported that in May 2001 federal prosecutors charged a county police officer with releasing her police dog on an unarmed Mexican immigrant as part of a pattern of using and threatening the use of the dog on people of color. Despite being the subject of four lawsuits, twice being guilty of making false statements to a supervisor, and five prior instances of releasing the dog on suspects who weren't resisting, and being flagged by a departmental "early warning" system, the officer remained undisciplined in any substantive way. In 1999 the Post reported that thirteen police dog excessive force suits had been filed in Prince Georges circuit and federal courts, in addition to five others that ended in judgement for plaintiffs or settlement. Of the total, ten alleged repeated bites of suspects once under police control, or while cuffed or on the ground. South Dakota (Wagner)- While not involving the use of physical canine force, the issue reached a new low when school officials and police led a large German shepherd drug dog through classrooms in suspicionless drug searches of Yankton Sioux K-12 students, some as young as six years old. In July 2002, the ACLU filed suit in federal court. Washington (Seattle) -In 1992 the ACLU alleged that police dog handlers used excessive force on suspects. Dogs were trained to attack and bite suspects regardless of their actions, even against alleged shoplifters, gasoline siphoners and jaywalkers. They also reported that in that year, 40 percent of police dog attacks were against African Americans, and that 91 people had received police dog bite injuries requiring hospitalization. The following states appear to require independent reasonable suspicion for dog searches: Alaska,4 Illinois,5 Minnesota,6 New Hampshire, New York,8 Pennsylvania,9 and Washington.10 "Shopping While Black and Brown" The targeting of shoppers/business patrons of color for suspicion of shoplifting by private security and other employees has disproportionately affected both working and prominent African-American women. TV talk show host Oprah Winfrey said she was refused buzz-in entry to a store even after seeing white women admitted and making a second attempt. After calling from a pay phone and being assured the store was in fact open, a third try failed as well (New York City) . U.S, Congresswoman Maxine Waters said she was followed around a store and required to show her key at a hotel, unlike whites who entered before her ( New York City) . Professional basketball player and Olympic medalist Sheryl Swoopes was kept waiting to be seated for almost an hour at a restaurant, while whites who arrived after her were seated before her (Houston, Texas). Pauline Hampton and her niece, both African-Americans, were shopping at the Dillard Department Store in Overland Park, Kansas , a suburb of Kansas City, with their children. After making several purchases, they went to the cosmetics counter to redeem a coupon. A white security guard accused Hampton of shoplifting, took her shopping bag, and, without consent, searched it, emptying the bag onto the counter. After finding the receipt for the items, he shoved the goods and the empty bag back to her. When she complained about his actions, the guard ordered them to leave, and threatened to call the police and have them forcibly removed. Hampton eventually called her husband to the scene and the situation escalated. They sued, and were awarded a $1.2 million judgement; the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Dillard's appeal. The store chain, based in Arkansas has also faced dozens of racial profiling lawsuits, claiming harassment and false arrest, in other states including Arkansas, Iowa, and Texas. Evidence produced in one case showed that although 16 percent of its shoppers were African American, 87 percent of the false arrest claims were made by them. In Texas, Dillard settled and paid money to the family of an African American customer who died at a store after being beaten and hog-tied while being detained, and has also settled discrimination suits by employees in Kansas and Missouri. Other companies sued for racial profiling include Eddie Bauer, Avis Rent A Car, Denny's Restaurant, The Children's Place, and Holiday Spa. Worksite Racial Profiling The Immigration and Naturalization Service has had a history of disproportionately targeting ethnic groups of color for undocumented labor violations. Like all law enforcement, INS agents must have sufficient evidence of wrong doing to establish probable cause or reasonable suspicion to arrest or detain. They may not carry out their duties in a racially or ethnically discriminatory manner. While ethnicity or nationality are obviously critical elements in immigration violations by themselves, without additional facts there is insufficient basis for law enforcement action. The New York Times reviewed files of INS raids released as part of the settlement of a garment workers union selective enforcement suit against the agency in New York City. The settlement included a summary that Latinos were 96 percent of the 2,907 people arrested in the 187 worksite raids carried out by the INS in the district, fat greater than their representation in the city's legal or illegal population. This occurred even where the INS acknowledged that half the workers were not Latino but Asian, including undocumented immigrants. And while some raids were based on informant information, 80 percent were initiated by agents who cited as primary evidence subjects' appearance or language without evidence of wrongdoing. Included were skin color, speaking Spanish or English with a Spanish accent, appearing to be of South or Central American descent and wearing clothing “not typical of North Americans.” Such characterizations in major American cities are common to born and naturalized citizens alike. Undocumented workers were discovered and arrested in all but a few of the reviewed raids, but nearly everyone arrested was Latino. Suits have also been filed in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Ohio claiming racial profiling by the INS. A federal court in Ohio found violations of the rights of Latinos by that states highway patrol's practice of stopping Latino drivers to question them about their immigration status, including officers even confiscated the green cards of legal migrant workers claiming they were counterfeit. In California, federal courts have found Fourth Amendment violations of Latinos in the stopping of Latinos on the basis of appearance and foreign sounding names. The Supreme Court has held that INS agents working near the Mexican border may use Spanish ethnicity as a basis for detaining a person, but that it may not be the only basis. A related issue is the targeting by police, first reported by the ACLU in Florida, of Latinos waiting on public sidewalks for labor employers to appear and select them for work, under the offense of being "visual clutter."

Originally posted by MoeMag

--several anecdotes--

Now this gets a little closer to the heart of the subject. Those problems are not because of lack of laws. There are already laws on the books covering all those situations. The problem is lack of enforcement, and that is an executive, not legislative, issue. Legislative solutions are at high risk of overreach, because the laws on the books were already written to conform to standards of legality.

What is needed is for the executive to adopt policies enforcing these laws, and what will be needed to do that is an increase in resources expended on the enforcement.

So demand for increased enforcement needs to be coupled with a policy of increasing resources -- which means money, which means increased taxation. The problem is that your state is conservative, and will not acquire the resources needed.

That is a conundrum caused by the conservative worldview; the only solution is to adopt a more sensible worldview.

Originally posted by Frizzle Fry

I've got a handful of friends from Arizona

Any of them Hispanic?

**maxama10** · 04-29-2010, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by MoeMag

You are absolutely correct.

-Snip-

Good post. +1

**crack** · 04-29-2010, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by MoeMag

You are absolutely correct.

I am in one of those "Phoenix Suburbs"
There is a part of town here called "the Square". It's a large concentration of illegals where its common knowledge ya just don't go there. It's dangerous because they know, and the cops know, they COULDN'T do anything there. Now they can.

I cant tell you how many times I hear the same old story of a car accident involving an illegal, where they A) flee the scene... never to be found B) stay there, but cannot be charged, or held because they are illegals and it WASN'T the job of the local PD to deal with that or C) they get injured and hauled off to the hospital, get treated and released, without paying a cent or showing id. (there is probably one of the biggest problems with insurance and medicare in the country... if not at least Arizona)

I have lived with this my whole life.

The last one is what really annoys me.

true story...Last time I was in the ER after falling off my horse, I had my insurance card, paid my $200 ER Co-pay, signed my life away in documents, and had more medical bills sent to me over the next 6 months than I could shake a stick at. All the while, there was a Hispanic illegal in the next bed, who did not have any documentation who had pink eye... who all but one nurse could understand. He came to the ER because the ER cannot refuse. Did he pay anything!? no. in all honesty he walked out of there with nobody actually knowing who he was. Could they call the cops? no, because the cops wont do anything... they never have here. Does immigration care? no they have bigger things to worry about... calling immigration is about like getting Mulder and Scully FBI agents to show up. Did it cost that hospital a lot of money, which in turn costs us TAX PAYING citizens money? Yeah. All the while there is a 45 minute wait and there was an elderly guy who looked like he was bleeding out in the waiting room, because some illegal had pink eye. Ya... the fact that the ER cannot refuse someone is a VERY good thing... but Illegals are taking advantage of it.

I don't understand how "Illegal alien" has become a benign title. What part of Illegal do we not understand.

Illegals are ILLEGAL=doing something wrong. They are a drain on our society because they do not contribute to the our society (and cost us A LOT OF money).

OH YEAH...
AS an Arizona State University Student... I am VERY ANGRY at the complacency shown by the faculty at ASU to allow Illegals to attend. There was an entire article written by an "anonymous" illegal student and his experiences there in the school paper. THIS along with those who hire day laborers, and pay low wages, should be dealt with harshly, and I can only hope that with this new law that may come to fruition.

I'm sorry, there are a lot of people in this sad little world. I can't blame someone for trying to make their lives better, even if that means breaking the law. but guess what... it's still breaking the law. Do it right... everyone at Ellis island did.

Another thing... don't pull the race card. I don't care. Oops we border Mexico... Yeah, probably gonna be a lot of them here. Along with the few illegal Canadians, and South Africans. (examples I know from personal experience). Then as far as "show me your papers"... "license and registration please", "may I see a form of government issue ID with that", "your birth certificate or a pass port"... all us legal folks have that, and it's on record.

Basically... as an Arizonan, I am very much in support of this law. It's about time we do something. Come here all you want... but do it legally, and contribute to our society. My dad did.

well to be honest i had no idea it was that much of a problem and really find it mental that the police find it hard to deal with the ones breaking the law, so if this law helps that then yea it could be a gd thing anything that stops violence is a gd thing.

with the health care im sorry i just find this hard to get my head round, mainly because i live in Scotland where we have the NHS and everyone is entitled to free health care and i just grew up thinking this was normal, illegal or not i would never like to see someone go with out the health care they need.

**BigEvil** · 04-29-2010, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by MoeMag

You are absolutely correct.

/thread

**zondo** · 04-29-2010, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by cockerpunk

but using that to defend literally a law straight from nazi germany (sorry, but its true. when have you ever seen a movie with the nazis in it that they didn't yell "show me your papers!"), all the while complaining that the guys complaining about the law are the nazis.

You could have at least given Seth Meyers his due...

I don't think asking for a valid state ID at a traffic stop or other stop for infraction is out of the question. In fact, that's the first question a police officer is going to ask now.

Originally posted by drg

I can tell you what it's like to live in an immigration hub/gateway with a white minority ... a law like this would never be passed here because its inherent discrimination would potentially affect too many people. It's much more blatantly obvious in a state with demographics like mine. Laws like this only happen in states with big white majorities. You live in the #1 immigration state in the nation -- do you think a law like this would pass in California today?

I don't know, but California did pass prop 187 and prop 209.

Originally posted by drg

The problem is lack of enforcement, and that is an executive, not legislative, issue. Legislative solutions are at high risk of overreach, because the laws on the books were already written to conform to standards of legality.

What is needed is for the executive to adopt policies enforcing these laws, and what will be needed to do that is an increase in resources expended on the enforcement.

Doesn't your point answer your point? Where this was a federal issue, the government was woefully behind in backing up promises that were made. Now this is a state executive holding the federal enforcement arms to task by having policies in place for the state law enforcement agencies to ask questions they should have been able to ask and share information that should have been shared. In reading the law, it sounds like the state law enforcement agencies are freed up to deal with minor infractions (breaking traffic laws, etc.) and then, if they have reasonable suspicion, proceed on the immigration status, as the state law and federal law directs . So which executive were you referring to that needs to enforce the laws?

Originally posted by drg

So demand for increased enforcement needs to be coupled with a policy of increasing resources -- which means money, which means increased taxation. The problem is that your state is conservative, and will not acquire the resources needed.

That is a conundrum caused by the conservative worldview; the only solution is to adopt a more sensible worldview.

That's a broad generalization that has too many variables to be used so carelessly, which surprises me that you would use it.

**SCpoloRicker** · 04-29-2010, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by crack

i mean what statue features the words Give me your tired your poor your huddled masses? where else in the world could you find that?

would it not be better to go after the people who exploit illegal immigrants and then help then help the immigrants become citizens to better there life's and strengthen the American work force?

Thanks again, United Kingdom. We are your bastard offspring after all.

This is pretty close to where I am on the issue. If we remove the incentive (available work), then presumably the market will shift away from supporting illegal workers.

**DevilMan** · 04-29-2010, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by SCpoloRicker

This is pretty close to where I am on the issue. If we remove the incentive (available work), then presumably the market will shift away from supporting illegal workers.

I agree... if you make it AND ARE ABLE TO ENFORCE IT illegal to employ illegals then it will help ten fold. But at the same time, what's the big deal about getting rid of the people that aren't supposed to be here anyway?

That's what I don't get... Right, Wrong Or Otherwise... HERE ILLEGALLY!!!! Obviously you failed to get here LEGALLY for a reason. That means we (The US) don't think that you are needed here. You failed to obey 1 law by coming here in the first place.

You know... this would be no different than turning loose all the people in prison because of overcrowding and not worry about keeping tabs on where any of them go. It's no different.

Would you want your local prison to shut down, turn everyone out and walk away from it?

Why don't some of you that have no clue about what goes on in these areas go live there for a year and tell me how you feel about it then. Until then STFU about what Arizona and IT'S PEOPLE have decided to do. No need to hate everyone else in this world who has a spine just because you don't. After all... they are the ones that got you YOUR freedom.

DM

**DevilMan** · 04-29-2010, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by drg

You live in the #1 immigration state in the nation -- do you think a law like this would pass in California today?

Nope... Nor do I care as with most of the other 49 states what in the hell CA ever does. That's the great thing about being from different states. The issue is people in those states who have no clue about the happenings of any other state want to tell those people and that state that they are wrong, stupid, "misguided", etc.

Why don't you keep your nose on your face, and let them run their state the way they want to?

Ahhhhh... so who is trying to oppress whom?

DM

Oh and #1 for LEGAL or ILLEGAL??? And where do you get your "facts"?

**cockerpunk** · 04-29-2010, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by DevilMan

ummmm... really... tell me...

How many times are you ever anywhere with no form of ID present on you?

It's that simple. Answer that one CP. Tell me how many times you leave your house with no form of ID at all on you.

DM

quite often actually. esp since ID in this case is proof of citizenship, which is not a license, its a birth certificate or passport. do you carry around your birth certificate and passport every day? also, unlike a normal traffic stop where you have 24 hours from the time you are stopped to produce ID, they can take you in at the stop, regardless of if you have ID or someone can bring your ID.

the reason we don't answer your questions is that they are pointless and irrelevant. your questions merely expose your own lack of understanding of the legal and ethical issues.

**SCpoloRicker** · 04-29-2010, 02:30 PM

Aimed at noone in particular:

Watch the name calling and personal attacks, guys.

Also, "you THINK x, but I KNOW y" is not really all that helpful.

Back on topic:

I think the biggest challenge is going to be what to do with the large population already living in the States. I don't think many will be able/willing to return to country of origin and apply for citizenship.

I don't think we can "round them up"; but I don't want to have a blanket amnesty.

**DevilMan** · 04-29-2010, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by cockerpunk

quite often actually. esp since ID in this case is proof of citizenship, which is not a license, its a birth certificate or passport. do you carry around your birth certificate and passport every day? also, unlike a normal traffic stop where you have 24 hours from the time you are stopped to produce ID, they can take you in at the stop, regardless of if you have ID or someone can bring your ID.

the reason we don't answer your questions is that they are pointless and irrelevant. your questions merely expose your own lack of understanding of the legal and ethical issues.

My lack of understanding? Dude... You haven't a clue about what I do or don't understand. Wanna talk ethics? How about the ETHICS that every one of the ILLEGALS go by to come here and abuse the system? How about that for ethics. You know you are on the bandwagon and just can't stand to have it pointed out to you that things are far from what you think they are.

And BTW, if you are driving then you are supposed to have a form of ID... It's called a DRIVERS LICENSE... So in the event of a traffic stop, YES you should have some form of ID.

ID is this case is a birth certificate or passport... WHAT??? Can you not read?

Here.. I'll help you...

ummmmm.. so care to tell me where PASSPORT and BIRTH CERTIFICATE are mentioned?

Want to know something else... May want to ponder this one... Do you understand that billions of TAXPAYER dollar was sent to PRIVATE businesses to help them out of their failure? Do you understand that part of the reason that the INSURANCE companies were so jacked up was because of the pay outs that they had to incur due to ILLEGAL people being here and abusing the system in both automobile and health categories? Do you not see any correlation at all? Take off your blinders, open your eyes and try it again.

In 1986, Congress passed The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. Hell you weren't even born then so I'm sure you have no clue what that covered do ya! Look it up, read about it and tell all of us that don't have any knowledge exactly what it is that we are missing. Come on... tell the truth... You've never heard of it have you?

Want some more numbers??? Want to know about what it's really costing? No of course you don't because you can't argue any real facts. You can only ride the wagon and hope that it don't go off the cliff... good luck with that...

According to the Bureau of Justice, twenty-nine percent of the inmates in federal prisons are aliens.

Heather MacDonald, in an article titled, Illegal Alien Crime Wave, for City-Journal said that 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the City of Los Angeles, California and as many as two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants are for illegal aliens.

At this very moment, according to the DEA, major cartels are operating openly in 195 cities in the United states... from sea to shining sea.

According to the House of Representatives, illegal aliens cost state and local governments more than 13,000,000,000.00 dollars per year.

Let me guess.. that is all wrong as well right? 29% of prison inmates!!! 95% of warrants! And you really can't see the forest for the trees.

There is a reason some folks on this orb are called "sheeple" and refuse to actually use the grey matter between the ears for anything productive and beneficial.

And you want to talk about my ethical and legal understanding?

Maybe you don't answer them because you know you can't... it's alright to be wrong... everyone is at some point in time... The difference is when you can admit to it and accept the fact that maybe, just maybe someone had a bit more than you thought you did.

DM

**drg** · 04-29-2010, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by zondo

I don't know, but California did pass prop 187 and prop 209.

Which are much different laws, and 187 was struck down.

Originally posted by zondo

Doesn't your point answer your point? Where this was a federal issue, the government was woefully behind in backing up promises that were made. Now this is a state executive holding the federal enforcement arms to task by having policies in place for the state law enforcement agencies to ask questions they should have been able to ask and share information that should have been shared. In reading the law, it sounds like the state law enforcement agencies are freed up to deal with minor infractions (breaking traffic laws, etc.) and then, if they have reasonable suspicion, proceed on the immigration status, as the state law and federal law directs . So which executive were you referring to that needs to enforce the laws?

State executive. The problem happened when the state legislature passed a law expanding the mandate and creating a de facto requirement for racial discrimination. The real solution was for the governor to resource law enforcement and enact better enforcement policies based on existing laws, which were not discriminatory.

Originally posted by DevilMan

Nope... Nor do I care as with most of the other 49 states what in the hell CA ever does. That's the great thing about being from different states. The issue is people in those states who have no clue about the happenings of any other state want to tell those people and that state that they are wrong, stupid, "misguided", etc.

Why don't you keep your nose on your face, and let them run their state the way they want to?

Ahhhhh... so who is trying to oppress whom?

DM

Oh and #1 for LEGAL or ILLEGAL??? And where do you get your "facts"?

It's not realistic or practical to maintain such a narrow worldview. What happens in other states, especially in areas relating to human or civil rights, affects all states.

#1 immigration period. Both legal, illegal and total. http://www.migrationinformation.org/...tate.cfm?ID=CA

Coming Soon Immigration Reform

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

*Coming Soon* Immigration Reform

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Coming Soon Immigration Reform