Arizona immigration controversy

[msjones]

Can anyone provide a somewhat non-biased summary of the Arizona immigration law controversy? I'm surprised to see that my city has boycotted Arizona, and would like more info; most of what I get when I google seems to be from very slanted blogs.

 

A link, or just your own summary would be much appreciated!

[elizabeth]

The power to enter into treaties, intervene in foreign affairs are powers reserved to the federal government. On its face the law is unconstitutional for its abject failure to recognize limitations on the powers of the states. As to whether it is right or just that is another question entirely.

[Ohdanigirl]

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175083

[PiCO]

Can anyone provide a somewhat non-biased summary of the Arizona immigration law controversy? I'm surprised to see that my city has boycotted Arizona, and would like more info; most of what I get when I google seems to be from very slanted blogs.

 

A link, or just your own summary would be much appreciated!

 

What I don't understand is why so many people are commenting on this bill, loudly, who have obviously never read it. So my suggestion to you would be to read it for yourself- here's a link to the bill online on an Arizona gov't website.

 

ETA- by "so many people", I mean celebrities and activists on the new shows. I am not refering to people here.

Edited May 20, 2010 by PiCO

[CLHCO]

What I don't understand is why so many people are commenting on this bill, loudly, who have obviously never read it. So my suggestion to you would be to read it for yourself- here's a link to the bill online on an Arizona gov't website.

 

ETA- by "so many people", I mean celebrities and activists on the new shows. I am not refering to people here.

 

:iagree:

 

LOL. I was going to post something similar. I mean, it's not like it's one of those 2,000 page bills that would take a month to read. :tongue_smilie:

[Cricket]

Here's another link that was interesting. It has some links so you can compare the state law to federal law.

[Momling]

You might try the wikipedia entry... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_Our_Law_Enforcement_and_Safe_Neighborhoods_Act

[Perry]

You might try the wikipedia entry... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_Our_Law_Enforcement_and_Safe_Neighborhoods_Act

I'm curious about this:

A Rasmussen Reports poll done nationally around the time of the signing indicated that 60 percent of Americans were in favor, against 31 percent opposed, of legislation allowing local police to "stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant."[9]

 

 

Does it really require legislation for police to verify someone's immigration status? If someone is here illegally, and the police suspect that, why do they need a separate law to ask for their identification? I'm confused. Seems like they would be able to do that routinely.

[msjones]

Thank you for the links.

 

I'll be reading this tonight after the kids are in bed. (I'll need a glass of wine to go with it...)

 

Just this week I was surprised to learn that our city council has boycotted Arizona over this law. So, I'm interested.

[elizabeth]

I'm curious about this:

 

 

Does it really require legislation for police to verify someone's immigration status? If someone is here illegally, and the police suspect that, why do they need a separate law to ask for their identification? I'm confused. Seems like they would be able to do that routinely.

 

That would be racial profiling . How else would you be able to have reasonable suspicion that someone was here without proper work visa etc. It is certainly not acceptable under the US Constitution to do so based on a visual assesment that you have x, y and z physical characteristics. The city and state police do not have the power to do this as it is considered a federal law enforcement issue with Homeland Security and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

[Parrothead]

I'm curious about this:

 

 

Does it really require legislation for police to verify someone's immigration status? If someone is here illegally, and the police suspect that, why do they need a separate law to ask for their identification? I'm confused. Seems like they would be able to do that routinely.

Immigration law is not something that city/county/state police are normally trained to enforce. Immigration law is a federal law usually enforceable by federal agents - Border Patrol, ICE and Customs.

[Joker]

I'm curious about this:

 

 

Does it really require legislation for police to verify someone's immigration status? If someone is here illegally, and the police suspect that, why do they need a separate law to ask for their identification? I'm confused. Seems like they would be able to do that routinely.

 

 

I worked with a certain company and we hired a lot of warehouse workers. I would have people come in with an obviously faked SS and I was not allowed to do anything. There were some with whiteout on them. My BIL, who works for the INS, said I could get into trouble for trying to verify. I lasted about a year before I couldn't do it anymore and quit. I felt like I was doing something wrong.

[EmilyK]

I tend to agree with Elizabeth on most things legal, but I guess I'm having a hard time separating the law itself from anti-Hispanic-immigrant sentiment. If there were a federal law mandating more state-federal cooperation on some other sort of criminal or administrative matter, it would seem to be pretty unremarkable (and would solve the unconstitutionality issue of a state doing this).

[teamturner]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about since it appears to me (reading the bill summary) that it just reiterates and allows local authorities in AZ to uphold federal law in the area of illegal people in their state. When I first heard about it, I thought a police could just randomly stop anyone that looked Mexican and ask to see their documents. The authorities can only ask for identification during a routine stop or other normal investigation of illegal activities. The bill states that in a few places that it cannot do anything in violation of the U.S. Immigration Law, U.S Constitution, or AZ Constitution.

 

I'm really steamed that the Mexican President stood before our Congress and slammed one of our laws and was applauded. Maybe he should worry less about our laws and care more about making his country one where people had a chance at opportunity. Good grief! :glare:

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about since it appears to me (reading the bill summary) that it just reiterates and allows local authorities in AZ to uphold federal law in the area of illegal people in their state. When I first heard about it, I thought a police could just randomly stop anyone that looked Mexican and ask to see their documents. The authorities can only ask for identification during a routine stop or other normal investigation of illegal activities. Yes, but it is easy for police to make up a reason for a traffic stop and nowthey HAVE a reason: they can use racial profiling. The bill states that in a few places that it cannot do anything in violation of the U.S. Immigration Law, U.S Constitution, or AZ Constitution.

 

I'm really steamed that the Mexican President stood before our Congress and slammed one of our laws and was applauded. Maybe he should worry less about our laws and care more about making his country one where people had a chance at opportunity. Good grief! :glare:

 

 

As previously stated, IT IS RACIAL PROFILING. To me, that makes it inhumane. I have quite a few Hispanic friends, all citizens of the US, but to think that it's okay, even LEGAL to harass them in Arizona, but not here is unthinkable!

[teamturner]

As previously stated, IT IS RACIAL PROFILING. To me, that makes it inhumane. I have quite a few Hispanic friends, all citizens of the US, but to think that it's okay, even LEGAL to harass them in Arizona, but not here is unthinkable!

 

If police fabricate a reason to stop someone, aren't they breaking the law? So in order to not have anyone be tempted to break a law we just let others go around breaking the law? So you're saying there's nothing wrong with the law only that some may not follow the law correctly?

 

I'm hispanic myself and live in a state with plenty of illegal immigrants. If it were to become a law in Texas, I would welcome it. Illegal immigration is a complex issue, but the federal government is doing squat about it and it's hurting cities and states on the border. There are some scary, scary things happening on our side of the border and apparently loss of American lives doesn't register to those in Washington.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

If police fabricate a reason to stop someone, aren't they breaking the law? So in order to not have anyone be tempted to break a law we just let others go around breaking the law? So you're saying there's nothing wrong with the law only that some may not follow the law correctly?

 

I'm hispanic myself and live in a state with plenty of illegal immigrants. If it were to become a law in Texas, I would welcome it. Illegal immigration is a complex issue, but the federal government is doing squat about it and it's hurting cities and states on the border. There are some scary, scary things happening on our side of the border and apparently loss of American lives doesn't register to those in Washington.

 

 

But now with the new law they wouldn't be fabricating a reason to pull someone over. They can just claim, "suspected illegal alien". :glare:

[teamturner]

I've bolded and underlined key lines from the bill that are pertinent to your claims of racial profiling. I understand it to say that during a lawful stop or investigation into a crime, the person being detained in such a lawful stop would need to provide identification. You are saying that the law is bad because some law enforcement will break the law and racially profile. The bill says that they may not. To me it's like saying that because law enforcement officials may occasionally beat a suspect therefore no one should ever be arrested. Are there no law abiding law enforcement officers in AZ? Since law enforcement cannot be trusted, instead we should just let law breaking immigrants enter our country wherever/whenever?

 

A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373©. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

[asta]

I think some people forget that this is an issue that is much larger than Arizona or Mexico. It is an issue of a sovereign nation (the United States) that has the right to define its borders and decide upon whom it confers citizenship and/or the services of its state.

 

This isn't so much a "human rights" issue as much as it is a "states rights" issue. If it were a "human rights" issue, people would be up in arms about the following countries not providing for their own citizens, such that these people feel their only recourse is to get to the United States by any means possible.

 

Some examples:

 

How have these illegal aliens from the Middle East entered the country? The INS last estimated that 40 percent of all illegal aliens in the United States were persons who arrived on temporary visas such as tourists or students and never went home. The other 60 percent are thought to be those who snuck into the country illegally. One would suspect that since the Middle East does not share a land border with the United States that most illegals from that region are visa overstayers. However, significant smuggling of illegal aliens from the Middle East across our land borders has taken place. For example, in October 2001 Iraqi-born smuggler George Tajirian pled guilty to forging an alliance with a corrupt Mexican immigration officer, Angel Molina Paramo, to smuggle "Palestinian, Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni, and other illegal aliens through Mexico and into the United States."13

 

While persons from the Middle East may stand out more in Mexico than in Canada, which has a large Middle Eastern community, widespread official corruption in Mexico makes that country a useful transit point for those trying to sneak into the United States from other countries, including those from the Middle East. Neither the northern nor southern borders are well defended so it seems likely that while most Mideast illegals are visa overstayers, some portion of illegal aliens from the Middle East entered the United States by crossing the border illegally.

Center for Immigration Studies

 

Proportion of illegals from countries other than Mexico

 

Of course, not all illegal aliens come from Mexico. In 1997, the illegal alien population was 54 percent Mexican.24 The illegal alien population is currently 70 percent Mexican, with 30 percent coming from other countries.24 Latin America, including Mexico, is the source of 90 percent of illegal aliens entering into the United States.26 A 2004 Fox News article stated that "it is not just Mexicans who are flooding into our border states anymore. Along with the Nicaraguans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, and Chileans, agents of the Border Patrol now encounter Chinese, Pakistanis, and Indians. Nationals of countries other than Mexico are known, in Border Patrol parlance, as 'OTMs'" - Other Than Mexicans.10,37

 

Time Magazine reports that "from October 1 of last year [2003] until August 25, the Border Patrol estimates that it apprehended 55,890 OTMs".22 In November, 2006, the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security reported that based on U.S. Border Patrol statistics there were 30,147 OTMs apprehended in FY2003, 44,614 in FY2004, 165,178 in FY2005, and 108,025 in FY2006. Most of them were apprehended along the U.S. Southwest border.37 These numbers represent a distinct undercount since the Border Patrol routinely sanitizes and underreports numbers of illegals.7, 18 It is therefore reasonable to assume that Other Than Mexicans account for at least several hundred thousand illegal entries annually.

 

 

24 Steven A. Camarota, "5 Million Illegal Immigrants: An Analysis of New INS Numbers," Immigration Review #28 (Center for Immigration Studies, Spring 1997).

 

26 John Price, "Tendencias - Latin America Market Report," Info Americas newsletter (June 2001).

 

10 "Bush Amnesty Sparks Surge in Border Crossings," Fox News (February 19, 2004):

 

37 "A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border" (U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Investigations, November, 2006)

 

22 Laura Karmatz and Joan Levinstein, "Who Left the Door Open?," TIME Magazine (September 20, 2004).

 

7 Retired Border Patrol Special Agent John Slagle, Illegal Entries, (2004).

 

18 "Feds Undercount Illegal Aliens," (NewsMax.com, March 16, 2001).

 

Source

[PineFarmMom]

 

I'm really steamed that the Mexican President stood before our Congress and slammed one of our laws and was applauded. Maybe he should worry less about our laws and care more about making his country one where people had a chance at opportunity. Good grief! :glare:

 

Yes, that is angering. The fact that he was ALLOWED to do so is another issue that should cause anger. The fact that our Congress stood up and applauded him is yet another issue. The fact that no one, including our president stood against such nonsense in our own home court is even more reason to be angry. The cowardly acts abound.

 

And, btw, who is Mexico to have ANY anger over how we handle immigration when their laws are harder than ours? It is nonsense!!

Edited May 21, 2010 by Texas T

[Laurie4b]

Cyndi,

 

Did you read through the law? All this applies only to police stops of people already committing crimes including misdemeanors committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer, which includes traffic misdemeanors. Law enforcement is not authorized to pull over someone whom they "suspect of being an illegal alien" which is what a lot of the news sites seem to imply. Pulling someone over because you suspect them of being an illegal alien would indeed involve racial profiling (what else would make you suspect?) but this isn't what the law says.

 

The law is no different than what is already in force in many areas in the country in which there is an agreement between local law enforcement and ICE. In our state, two counties do this.

 

One thing that is different is that a lot of the penalties extend to citizens of Arizona who are employing people without legal authorization papers. To me, that shows that the law is at least honest in its intent. In a whole lot of areas, there is a "see no evil" approach to the fact that local businesses need and hire illegal labor. Every once in a while they deport someone who is here illegally (for show imo) , but never do anything to the employers (which would demonstrate to me that the intent was serious to enforce immigration laws as opposed to hypocritically supporting the economy's need for such workers and tossing a few out of the country to keep up a front.

 

I'm writing this from a position of someone who knows and loves many Latinos who are here illegally. I think our immigration laws are terrible. We bait a trap with jobs and then deport a few people for show. In our state, at least, the business school of our flagship university has published a study showing the huge economic benefit to our state of the presence of people of illegal immigration status. That is, taking into account the drain on the state of education and other services, the income generated by this group outweighs that many times over. We can obviously absorb this population in the economy, so why do we let so few in from Mexico and Central America? The fact is that we tend to favor professionals from those countries rather than working class people--especially unskilled labor, but we have plenty of jobs for working class people --they want those jobs and they work hard at them. Additionally, many are entrepreneurs. (Our unemployment problem in this area, at least, is not for working class people but for professionals , managers, etc.)

 

So we say, "only x can come" on the one hand, yet that number is far, far lower than the number who can actually benefit from work in the US and who can benefit the US by their work. By severely limiting that number, we end up with people who would have otherwise applied to come legally coming illegally . This results in the "good guys" using the same channels as the "really bad guys" who are not only coming here illegally but are bringing other illegal activity as well--like bringing cocaine and marijuana to our consumers of said "imports." This creates a dangerous situation for everyone, including hard working people who cross the border illegally to provide for their families, but who are otherwise law abiding. This is the situation that Az. is facing. For instance, they had a rancher shot in cold blood who was actually compassionate toward people on his land who were crossing illegally . There is an increased danger on the border for both US citizens and illegal immigrants alike. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the US due to drug cartels, Mexican Mafia, etc. having a little side business going of kidnapping illegals (who won't contact law enforcement) and bleeding their families for ransom money. I personally know a woman who was held captive by the people who helped her cross illegally (in TX, not AZ) . Horribly frightening for her and her whole family.

 

So though I would like to see immigration reform that welcomed honest laborers from Mexico and Central America in a legal way but who are now here illegally, and though I understand the concern that the law might not be followed to the letter and in spirit and that individual l.e. officers might engage in racial profiling (who probably do anyway), I do support Arizona in a very difficult situation of trying to assure safety for all their citizens. The fact that there are stiff penalities for employers (who are US citizens and not of one ethncity) gives credence to the spirit of the law not being racial profiling . Additionally the law states explicitly that federal and Az. state civil rights laws must be followed--both of which prohibit racial profiling.

 

Laurie

Edited May 21, 2010 by Laurie4b

[PiCO]

But now with the new law they wouldn't be fabricating a reason to pull someone over. They can just claim, "suspected illegal alien". :glare:

 

No, they can't.

[Laurie4b]

There already is. Stuff like AZ just wrote into statute has been happening in pockets already in cooperative efforts between local LE and ICE. AZ's law as it pertains to checking immigration status of those arrested is a snooze, really, except that it has been hyped to be something that it is not. What is actually different about it is the significant penalites against AZ citizens who hire or transport people who are here without legal authorization. No one is talking about that.

 

The issue is that their law now authorizes their LE to check immigration status of people they've already arrested for something else. So if someone gets arrested for a domestic dispute, shoplifting, etc. then they can check their immigration status. They can also do it when pulling someone over for a traffic violation. That is where they will nab a lot of otherwise decent people here without authorization.

 

A good bit of the law is directed at citizens of Arizona who hire or transport people who are here without legal authorization. To me, that gives credence to what the AZ governor and others are saying when they say this is not about racial profiling.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Laurie4b

[Perry]

 

That would be racial profiling . How else would you be able to have reasonable suspicion that someone was here without proper work visa etc. It is certainly not acceptable under the US Constitution to do so based on a visual assesment that you have x, y and z physical characteristics. The city and state police do not have the power to do this as it is considered a federal law enforcement issue with Homeland Security and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

I was thinking of something like a routine traffic stop, where someone didn't have a valid license and didn't speak English. I think you'd have to be brain dead not to *wonder* if they were here illegally, and since that's against the law, I'd think the police would have the ability to ask for documentation.

[msjones]

But now with the new law they wouldn't be fabricating a reason to pull someone over. They can just claim, "suspected illegal alien". :glare:

 

Although this seems to have been implied by many upset folks interviewed on television, I don't believe that is correct...

[msjones]

The fact that there are stiff penalities for employers (who are US citizens and not of one ethncity) gives credence to the spirit of the law not being racial profiling . Additionally the law states explicitly that federal and Az. state civil rights laws must be followed--both of which prohibit racial profiling.

 

Laurie

 

I was glad to see this.

[teamturner]

Cyndi,

 

Did you read through the law? All this applies only to police stops of people already committing crimes including misdemeanors committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer, which includes traffic misdemeanors. Law enforcement is not authorized to pull over someone whom they "suspect of being an illegal alien" which is what a lot of the news sites seem to imply. Pulling someone over because you suspect them of being an illegal alien would indeed involve racial profiling (what else would make you suspect?) but this isn't what the law says.

 

The law is no different than what is already in force in many areas in the country in which there is an agreement between local law enforcement and ICE. In our state, two counties do this.

 

One thing that is different is that a lot of the penalties extend to citizens of Arizona who are employing people without legal authorization papers. To me, that shows that the law is at least honest in its intent. In a whole lot of areas, there is a "see no evil" approach to the fact that local businesses need and hire illegal labor. Every once in a while they deport someone who is here illegally (for show imo) , but never do anything to the employers (which would demonstrate to me that the intent was serious to enforce immigration laws as opposed to hypocritically supporting the economy's need for such workers and tossing a few out of the country to keep up a front.

 

I'm writing this from a position of someone who knows and loves many Latinos who are here illegally. I think our immigration laws are terrible. We bait a trap with jobs and then deport a few people for show. In our state, at least, the business school of our flagship university has published a study showing the huge economic benefit to our state of the presence of people of illegal immigration status. That is, taking into account the drain on the state of education and other services, the income generated by this group outweighs that many times over. We can obviously absorb this population in the economy, so why do we let so few in from Mexico and Central America? The fact is that we tend to favor professionals from those countries rather than working class people--especially unskilled labor, but we have plenty of jobs for working class people --they want those jobs and they work hard at them. Additionally, many are entrepreneurs. (Our unemployment problem in this area, at least, is not for working class people but for professionals , managers, etc.)

 

So we say, "only x can come" on the one hand, yet that number is far, far lower than the number who can actually benefit from work in the US and who can benefit the US by their work. By severely limiting that number, we end up with people who would have otherwise applied to come legally coming illegally . This results in the "good guys" using the same channels as the "really bad guys" who are not only coming here illegally but are bringing other illegal activity as well--like bringing cocaine and marijuana to our consumers of said "imports." This creates a dangerous situation for everyone, including hard working people who cross the border illegally to provide for their families, but who are otherwise law abiding. This is the situation that Az. is facing. For instance, they had a rancher shot in cold blood who was actually compassionate toward people on his land who were crossing illegally . There is an increased danger on the border for both US citizens and illegal immigrants alike. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the US due to drug cartels, Mexican Mafia, etc. having a little side business going of kidnapping illegals (who won't contact law enforcement) and bleeding their families for ransom money. I personally know a woman who was held captive by the people who helped her cross illegally (in TX, not AZ) . Horribly frightening for her and her whole family.

 

So though I would like to see immigration reform that welcomed honest laborers from Mexico and Central America in a legal way but who are now here illegally, and though I understand the concern that the law might not be followed to the letter and in spirit and that individual l.e. officers might engage in racial profiling (who probably do anyway), I do support Arizona in a very difficult situation of trying to assure safety for all their citizens. The fact that there are stiff penalities for employers (who are US citizens and not of one ethncity) gives credence to the spirit of the law not being racial profiling . Additionally the law states explicitly that federal and Az. state civil rights laws must be followed--both of which prohibit racial profiling.

 

Laurie

 

This is an excellent explanation! I think too many people are believing the hype and falsehoods being attributed to this law through the news outlets. Also, by our own government officials who are quick to make judgements without reading the law first.

[WagsWife]

But now with the new law they wouldn't be fabricating a reason to pull someone over. They can just claim, "suspected illegal alien". :glare:

 

You should probably read the actual bill. The police can not do that. At. All!

[WagsWife]

Yes, that is angering. The fact that he was ALLOWED to do so is another issue that should cause anger. The fact that our Congress stood up and applauded him is yet another issue. The fact that no one, including our president stood against such nonsense in our own home court is even more reason to be angry. The cowardly acts abound.

 

And, btw, who is Mexico to have ANY anger over how we handle immigration when their laws are harder than ours? It is nonsense!!

 

I totally agree. I am livid, that our elected officials allowed him to give a set down to a state in our union...without *anyone asking him to articulate Mexico's laws on illegal immigration.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

You should probably read the actual bill. The police can not do that. At. All!

 

 

I have read the actual bill. While some see this as very clear cut and "well, the police would NEVER pull someone over just for being a suspected illegal"....we all know that not only did it happen BEFORE the bill, it will continue AFTER and now yes, it DOES seem to have even more justification.

 

It IS racial profiling. I understand that we disagree on that fact.

 

I was particularly appalled by this line:

 

"It's not about human rights, it's about state sovereinty". Reminds me of another time.....

[Wendi]

But now with the new law they wouldn't be fabricating a reason to pull someone over. They can just claim, "suspected illegal alien". :glare:

 

No, they can't. The consideration of whether the person is in the country legally can only come after police have LAWFULLY stopped, detained, or arrested the person. They cannot ask random people for i.d., or pull you over because you look Mexican.

 

Wendi

[teamturner]

I

"It's not about human rights, it's about state sovereinty". Reminds me of another time.....

 

I don't see how you can equate sending an illegal immigrant back to their native country (who has broken our laws) to slavery. :confused: Really?

[Debora R]

What I find amusing about the whole controversy is that the Arizona statute is basically the same as existing California law, the only difference is that AZ intends to enforce it (?) .....

 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=833-851.90

 

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. © Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

 

:001_rolleyes: Go Figure....

[teamturner]

What I find amusing about the whole controversy is that the Arizona statute is basically the same as existing California law, the only difference is that AZ intends to enforce it (?) .....

 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=833-851.90

 

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. © Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

 

:001_rolleyes: Go Figure....

 

Thanks for pointing this out. The very fact that AZ law is trying to enforce Federal law with their own law and there's a big outcry is really strange. It's as if we just want everyone to ignore our immigration laws. The feds just say it needs to be overhauled but no one will touch it. So instead the states are just supposed to deal with the problems, violence, and economic effects and hope it gets better. Where does that get us?

[asta]

I have read the actual bill. While some see this as very clear cut and "well, the police would NEVER pull someone over just for being a suspected illegal"....we all know that not only did it happen BEFORE the bill, it will continue AFTER and now yes, it DOES seem to have even more justification.

 

It IS racial profiling. I understand that we disagree on that fact.

 

I was particularly appalled by this line:

 

"It's not about human rights, it's about state sovereinty". Reminds me of another time.....

 

It's sovereign.

 

And you took my words completely out of context. What I said was:

 

This isn't so much a "human rights" issue as much as it is a "states rights" issue. If it were a "human rights" issue, people would be up in arms about the following countries not providing for their own citizens, such that these people feel their only recourse is to get to the United States by any means possible.

 

As in, people are suffering all over the world beneath dictatorships, oppressive governments, and corrupt systems. The answer isn't to ditch your own nation's laws, the answer is to work to improve relations with the places from which those people are fleeing. To encourage governments, through trade, sanctions, and whatever diplomatic means are at your disposal to provide for their own citizens.

 

That is what diplomacy is all about: nations working together to (hopefully) improve the conditions of those least able to advocate for themselves. THAT is how one works for human rights. Ghandi didn't tell everyone to leave and go to the United States. MLK didn't tell everyone to move out of the south. You fight for human rights at home, or nothing will ever change.

 

 

a

[Mejane]

I'm really steamed that the Mexican President stood before our Congress and slammed one of our laws and was applauded. Maybe he should worry less about our laws and care more about making his country one where people had a chance at opportunity. Good grief! :glare:

 

Amen, sister.

[Mejane]

I was particularly appalled by this line:

 

"It's not about human rights, it's about state sovereinty". Reminds me of another time.....

 

Apples and oranges. Straw man. Whatever you want to call it, neither has a thing to do with the other.

[PineFarmMom]

I totally agree. I am livid, that our elected officials allowed him to give a set down to a state in our union...without *anyone asking him to articulate Mexico's laws on illegal immigration.

 

 

:iagree: Logic has left the building!! I had really hoped our president would have more backbone in a situation like this, but no. :glare:

 

:cheers2: Here's to AZ and their idea of cutting off the water supply if this boycott AZ thing isn't tossed. It would be interesting to see what occurs then!

[ahousefullofjs]

If police fabricate a reason to stop someone, aren't they breaking the law? So in order to not have anyone be tempted to break a law we just let others go around breaking the law? So you're saying there's nothing wrong with the law only that some may not follow the law correctly?

 

I'm hispanic myself and live in a state with plenty of illegal immigrants. If it were to become a law in Texas, I would welcome it. Illegal immigration is a complex issue, but the federal government is doing squat about it and it's hurting cities and states on the border. There are some scary, scary things happening on our side of the border and apparently loss of American lives doesn't register to those in Washington.

 

:iagree:My family is mexican, they entered this country 3 generations ago through the proper, legal channels. We also live in a border town. We would gladly welcome a similar law here. I think unless people actually live in states where this is happening, they don't understand the drain on the economy, the crime that goes on, and how it really does affect each and every one of us. Our ER's are absolutely packed with illegals, as are our schools. It really is a problem, not just people being mean.

[CLHCO]

As previously stated, IT IS RACIAL PROFILING. To me, that makes it inhumane. I have quite a few Hispanic friends, all citizens of the US, but to think that it's okay, even LEGAL to harass them in Arizona, but not here is unthinkable!

 

I am half Hispanic. My Hispanic mother spends her winters on the boarder of Texas, where she was born. She is for the bill. She waltzes around down there without even the slightest worry that she's being profiled. In many of these areas the legal Hispanic population is very high, owning businesses, running communities, so profiling would be a waste of time. Some of the police who will enforce this are Hispanic. It's behaviors that give away the illegals more often than some physical profiling.

 

Regarding the Mexican president: He's a hypocrite. Mexico is very harsh on illegals from Central America. They're not some pillar of humanity. Speaking the language and having family down there, my mother will not openly travel without watching her back... from the officials.

[PineFarmMom]

:iagree:My family is mexican, they entered this country 3 generations ago through the proper, legal channels. We also live in a border town. We would gladly welcome a similar law here. I think unless people actually live in states where this is happening, they don't understand the drain on the economy, the crime that goes on, and how it really does affect each and every one of us. Our ER's are absolutely packed with illegals, as are our schools. It really is a problem, not just people being mean.

 

:iagree: An issue I hadn't really thought of was Social Security # theft. My oldest ds' ss# was stolen by an illegal and I'm really unsure how it ever got into their hands. We found out because we went to open a bank acct. in ds' name and weren't allowed to because his ss was already being used by someone else. It took all kinds of work to get the thing straightened out...I still wonder if it's clear.

 

We live in a border state (obviously) and it is a big issue here and in every city we've lived in in this state. The line of work my dh used to be in was very negatively affected by it!

[PiCO]

It's as if we just want everyone to ignore our immigration laws.

 

Exactly what I think.

[junepep]

I've bolded and underlined key lines from the bill that are pertinent to your claims of racial profiling. I understand it to say that during a lawful stop or investigation into a crime, the person being detained in such a lawful stop would need to provide identification. You are saying that the law is bad because some law enforcement will break the law and racially profile. The bill says that they may not. To me it's like saying that because law enforcement officials may occasionally beat a suspect therefore no one should ever be arrested. Are there no law abiding law enforcement officers in AZ? Since law enforcement cannot be trusted, instead we should just let law breaking immigrants enter our country wherever/whenever?

 

A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373©. A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

 

FYI - you're working from the law as it was revised by the Governor. The initial outrage and concern were pre-revisions and nobody really paid any attention to the law that was actually enacted (at least that's been my take).

 

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Governor-signs-several-changes-to-Arizona/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx

Edited May 21, 2010 by junepep
I forgot to add my darn link!!! o.O

[teamturner]

Yes, there have already been ammendments so perhaps the outrage is based on the pre-ammended version. Upon the governor signing it, people against it were already protesting outside with signs that said "Stop the Hate!" I don't think hate has anything to do with wanting to uphold federal immigration laws. We may have compassion for those who want a better life here, but there has to be law and order. I just wish the dialog that was going on in the media and our government officials had all the facts as they are now/today, not based on old information. It will be interesting to see how the law is interpreted by the court once it is challenged and has it's day in court. Meanwhile, perhaps fewer illegal immigrants are coming to AZ. I guess they'll choose TX, NM, or CA instead.

[MomLovesClassics]

Some turn a blind eye to imigration law, this sends the message that it is ok to come to the US illegally because nothing will be done. It is my belief that if I were to commit insurance fraud, I would be sent to jail and put on trial. I know of a case where a woman here illegally commits insurance fraud, and nothing is done. She gets away with a crime. I am confused as to how children brought here illegally by their parents are able to put their children into school. Here they want not only identification papers like birth certificate, social security card, but also rental agreements, or mortgage agreements and power bills. They want to make certain you don't try to enroll in the wrong district. So how are illegals allowed bo bring children and enroll them into school? Here a 21 yr old was featured on the news, her parents brought her here illegally as a child. She breaks the law and is told she can stay in the country and be deported at another time. She has hid from police once already, it is doubtful she will just show up to be deported. We may have laws, but their is evidence they are not being enforced very well. I would be afraid for my life to enter another country illegally and get caught.

[RoughCollie]

I am confused as to how children brought here illegally by their parents are able to put their children into school.

 

Forged documents and identity theft pave the way.

[WagsWife]

Forged documents and identity theft pave the way.

 

:iagree: And they do not even try to hide it. My Dh and I were in Kohls a couple of years ago. There was a Hispanic family in front of us. The man wrote a check for their purchases. When he handed it to the cashier, she asked him in English for his birth date. He did not understand, so the other cashier repeated it in Spanish. The man chuckled, took his drivers license out of his wallet, and read off his birthday. Are we supposed to believe that a 40 some year old man does not know his birth date?

[ahousefullofjs]

Forged documents and identity theft pave the way.

:iagree:Yep. Here, the schools need some type of "proof" of residence to enroll a child. Most will present a cable bill, phone bill, or electric bill. Many illegals will steal one of these from a persons mailbox. Dh works for the power company here, it happens A LOT.

Edited May 21, 2010 by ahousefullofjs