PDA

View Full Version : DOJ vs AZ: The Discussion



Pages : [1] 2

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 02:43 PM
so... some of you guys may know that the Department of Justice filed a suit against the State of Arizona this past week, over the state's right to arrest and prosecute illegal aliens.

i would post links, but i'm fucking lazy. so those of you not in the know, please google news "DOJ, Arizona" for details.

i don't understand... how the can DOJ turn on one of its own states? it's madness.

this is one of the worst things that's ever happened to our country!

i'm now thinking that what we're seeing is the first steps toward several states filing for secession. we'll likely plunge into a real depression over the next couple of years as the democrats impose cap and tax and possibly a VAT tax and more. the number of foreclosures will probably skyrocket again, and unemployment will exceed 25%.

i expect rioting and the beginning of a civil revolt.

it's coming... and we're watching it unfold.

elipson
12th July 10, 02:50 PM
I'm a little fuzzy on american constitutional law, but isn't this a constitutional question? As in, the State is over stepping its powers as defined by whatever document in which America defines the powers of the federal government vs. that of ths States?

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 03:02 PM
I'm a little fuzzy on american constitutional law, but isn't this a constitutional question? As in, the State is over stepping its powers as defined by whatever document in which America defines the powers of the federal government vs. that of ths States?

i don't see how it's overstepping its powers, as AZ's law mirrors existing federal law. they're doing what i've been screaming about for years--enforcing the immigration laws that we already have!

here's a list of just a few legal theories of why this shit won't fly. (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDJkMDE0YzU3OTZlZTc2ODJmZjIxNTJlY2ZlMjEwYmE=)

in order to prevail on this retarded, taxpayer financed, pro-illegal shitfuck, Obama will essentially have to take the position that it's not in the government's interest to enforce its own laws. that would be the only position that would support its claim that Arizona prempts federal law.

it's so fucking stupid that i'm embararassed! i'm ashamed!

sumbuddy with better fact checking skills than i: please tell me something... ANYTHING... that will make me believe that the sky is no longer falling!

Cullion
12th July 10, 03:02 PM
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/illegalsplash.jpg

Cullion
12th July 10, 03:04 PM
sumbuddy with better fact checking skills than i: please tell me something... ANYTHING... that will make me believe that the sky is no longer falling!

Yes. The States won't secede because too many of them are going broke and they don't have the power to print their own money. So they'll be queuing up for Federal bailouts left, right and centre and they'll do what they're told.

Hedley LaMarr
12th July 10, 03:22 PM
so... some of you guys may know that the Department of Justice filed a suit against the State of Arizona this past week, over the state's right to arrest and prosecute illegal aliens.

The case "United States vs. Arizona" is not the first time the United States has sued a state. The judicial system is a method to sort out issues in which the federal government thinks a state is not abiding by the Constitution such as US vs Virginia
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u20026

or in which a state argues to US is not abiding by the Constitution, such as in New York vs. the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._United_States.

I believe in US vs Arizona it is being argued that immigration is a federal issue so states do not have the right to pass laws regarding immigration.


i don't understand... how the can DOJ turn on one of its own states? it's madness.

Because in a situation where constitutional law is being argued over, usually the best place to go is the Supreme Court.


this is one of the worst things that's ever happened to our country!

No, it's not.



i'm now thinking that what we're seeing is the first steps toward several states filing for secession. we'll likely plunge into a real depression over the next couple of years as the democrats impose cap and tax and possibly a VAT tax and more. the number of foreclosures will probably skyrocket again, and unemployment will exceed 25%.

I don't think secession is going to happen, mainly because the military is much more centralized and controlled by the federal government than it was during the Civil War, making it much more difficult for states to defend itself after secession.

If secession were to occur, however, I think there are benefits to it. The US has become increasingly polarized ideologically and trying to mesh these together at a federal level leads to never ending political standoffs.

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 03:24 PM
Yes. The States won't secede because too many of them are going broke and they don't have the power to print their own money. So they'll be queuing up for Federal bailouts left, right and centre and they'll do what they're told.

our government is broke too. they can't afford to bail out all the states that spend beyond their means. there's no way they'd take on an assumed ongoing obligation.

it would be cheaper to secede, stop paying the federal government, and let the people keep their money circulating and growing within your own state.

Spade: The Real Snake
12th July 10, 03:28 PM
We aren't going to secede because like, say Texas or Alaska we don't have oil we could drill for if the Feds would only let us.

Fuck we can't even pay for our highway rest stops to stay open

Cullion
12th July 10, 03:33 PM
our government is broke too. they can't afford to bail out all the states that spend beyond their means. there's no way they'd take on an assumed ongoing obligation.

The Federal government can get the Fed to monetise debt, just like they already have. They'd do what they're already doing for bankrupt banks and auto companies and get the Fed to monetize the debt required to bail out the states. Inflation is a 'long term' problem.



it would be cheaper to secede, stop paying the federal government, and let the people keep their money circulating and growing within your own state.

I think that would provoke a fairly frank and firm exchange of views from the kind of Federal employees that make Dick Cheney feel nervous, that would never be mentioned on CNN.

The state representatives in question would probably leave the meeting all like:-

http://www.myptsmail.com/hotdog256/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/DrMartinLutherKingJr.jpg

Feryk
12th July 10, 03:56 PM
Fes, you don't have to worry about secession.

However, you DO have to worry about Obama taxing the hell out of you (VAT or other taxes). He has to. That's the only way to pay for everything you are spending money on right now (including TARP, Afghanistan, the 1.8 trillion in Infrastructure spending he promised).

He's pissed at Arizona because he's all about centralizing decision making and policy at the federal level. Will it fly? We'll see, but I doubt it. However, if he were to let this go, Texas and other states would be lining up to enforce their version of 'Immigration Law'. That is something he absolutely does not want.

Spade: The Real Snake
12th July 10, 04:08 PM
What Obama is pissed at is the potential necessity for additional Federal expenses by needing to increase ICE personnel in Arizona to actually follow through on any additional contacts made by LEO. It isn't where he is wanting the money to flow and he isn't controlling where the money flows to.

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 06:53 PM
The case "United States vs. Arizona" is not the first time the United States has sued a state. The judicial system is a method to sort out issues in which the federal government thinks a state is not abiding by the Constitution such as US vs Virginia
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u20026
they're not really suing the state--they're going after the school. this is simply a rehash of brown v board of education. it's the government's job to ban discrimination against race/gender/sexual orientation, especially when it comes to buildings that accept government money/grants (like schools). separate but equal is not really equal and is unconstitutional. there is nothing in Arizona's immigration law that is in violation of the constitution.


or in which a state argues to US is not abiding by the Constitution, such as in New York vs. the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._United_States.this is a renege on a contract with the US. nothing to do with this thread.


I believe in US vs Arizona it is being argued that immigration is a federal issue so states do not have the right to pass laws regarding immigration. where is the unconstitutionality in this? is this the government's ONLY argument?

i haven't researched this, but i doubt that there is a constitutional clause which states that the sole authority to enforce immigration laws rests with the federal government.

I don't think secession is going to happen, mainly because the military is much more centralized and controlled by the federal government than it was during the Civil War, making it much more difficult for states to defend itself after secession.

If secession were to occur, however, I think there are benefits to it. The US has become increasingly polarized ideologically and trying to mesh these together at a federal level leads to never ending political standoffs.
i don't think there has ever been an instance where the federal government sued an individual state.

i could be wrong though.

but what's to stop this from becoming a trend?

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 07:17 PM
We aren't going to secede because like, say Texas or Alaska we don't have oil we could drill for if the Feds would only let us.

Fuck we can't even pay for our highway rest stops to stay open

your goal would have to be to work with the red states and take the control over tobacco, booze, oil, etc., AWAY from the federal government. if you don't have the resources, help them sell their resources, whether it's shipping, receiving, storage, marketing... turn your state into a business. also, lower corporate taxes in your state--make them much lower than the current federal tax-- and businesses will come to you.

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 07:35 PM
.... However, if he were to let this go, Texas and other states would be lining up to enforce their version of 'Immigration Law'. That is something he absolutely does not want.
weak, dude.

it's not like Arizona made a bunch of new rules. their immigration law basically mimics federal law and it contains no provisions for prosecuting criminal actions on the state level. they turn to the feds for THAT.


What Obama is pissed at is the potential necessity for additional Federal expenses by needing to increase ICE personnel in Arizona to actually follow through on any additional contacts made by LEO. It isn't where he is wanting the money to flow and he isn't controlling where the money flows to.

*facepalm*

he doesn't want to spend money to enforce existing federal laws... but has no problem spending money to sue a state for wanting to actively enforce them.

Hedley LaMarr
12th July 10, 07:53 PM
they're not really suing the state--they're going after the school. this is simply a rehash of brown v board of education. it's the government's job to ban discrimination against race/gender/sexual orientation, especially when it comes to buildings that accept government money/grants (like schools). separate but equal is not really equal and is unconstitutional. there is nothing in Arizona's immigration law that is in violation of the constitution.

The Virginia Military Institute was run by the commonwealth of Virginia, that's why the government sued them.

Regarding the constitutional question of US vs Arizona, look up the 4th Amendment. The US government is asserting that the Arizona immigration law violates this.


this is a renege on a contract with the US. nothing to do with this thread.

It has to do with this thread in that it demonstrates that the federal and state governments do use the judicial system to work out disagreements, which you seemed to be under the impression was completely without precedent.


where is the unconstitutionality in this? is this the government's ONLY argument?

i haven't researched this, but i doubt that there is a constitutional clause which states that the sole authority to enforce immigration laws rests with the federal government.


See 4th Amendment.



i don't think there has ever been an instance where the federal government sued an individual state.

i could be wrong though.

but what's to stop this from becoming a trend?

I just provided an example of it.

HappyOldGuy
12th July 10, 09:06 PM
Fes. Point 1. You need to stop paying attention to FOX news. You're a smart lady repeating shit that makes you look retarded.

Point 2. The DOJ and states sue eachother constantly. There is nothing unusual about it.

Point 3. Arizona courts have no legal power to make a determination as to someones citizenship status. Which the Az law requires them to do. There is no possible chance that Az will win this case.

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 11:05 PM
you're being this guy:

http://www.motifake.com/demotivational-poster/0903/obtuse-demotivational-poster-1238561610.png
The Virginia Military Institute was run by the commonwealth of Virginia, that's why the government sued them.
this isn't about some school finding a loophole to discriminate because of some stupid antiquated state law that the government had to step in and change.

we're talking about CURRENT federal laws that aren't enforced, and whether or not enforcing them to a certain degree on the state level is considered unconstitutional or not.


Regarding the constitutional question of US vs Arizona, look up the 4th Amendment. The US government is asserting that the Arizona immigration law violates this.
yeah? i read the DOJ file. i didn't see anything clear cut about violation of the 4th amendment.

all i saw were a bunch of excuses for the federal government being selective on enforcement of immigration laws. then for some reason, Arizona is in violation of prempting federal law and restricting interstate commerce... which are false claims, BTW.

i'd like you to show me where.... and i've got more to say on this in a bit....



It has to do with this thread in that it demonstrates that the federal and state governments do use the judicial system to work out disagreements, which you seemed to be under the impression was completely without precedent.
they're not working out disagreements. my point is that they're singling out individual states--this is what is unprecedented.

the DOJ is suing one of its own states for enforcing their laws. a case about a state suing the government for canceling a business contract has nothing to do with this thread.


See 4th Amendment.
this is what i wanted to discuss a bit more.

for search and seizure, you need a warrant with "probable cause", right? this is why people are screaming that Arizona's laws are unconstitutional... but let's get constitutional here and look at the local government's authority (which is the channel you go through before contacting the feds, anyway). to stop somebody, a cop needs "reasonable suspicion"... and in the course of his stop, the observations could lead to "probable cause" for further action. a person could be detained for any number of crimes, including being an illegal alien. a cop investigating a person under "reasonable suspicion" cannot and will not search or arrest that person until "probable cause" has been established.

so... how is Arizona in violation of the 4th amendment?

I just provided an example of it.
i fail to see that, but only because of misunderstanding on my part. no problems.

fes_fsa
12th July 10, 11:12 PM
Point 3. Arizona courts have no legal power to make a determination as to someones citizenship status. Which the Az law requires them to do. There is no possible chance that Az will win this case.

your point?

Arizona courts have no legal power to make a determination as to whether somebody wanted for murder in another state is guilty. BUT THEY STILL HAND THEM OVER TO THE FEDS. doh!

HappyOldGuy
12th July 10, 11:31 PM
Wrong. The Az law imposes penalties based on the decision by a state court of someones legal immigration status.

You might find this informative.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/312/52/

MrGalt
12th July 10, 11:58 PM
From what I gather the federal government says that Arizona's assumption of the power to enforce immigration policies (Arizona is NOT trying to form its own policy, that's just bullshit thrown up to obscure the issue) is interfering with the federal government's ability to achieve its own goals.

I hope that in the course of this the federal government is forced to very explicitly spell out exactly what its policies and goals are regarding the enforcement and/or nonenforcement of existing immigration legislation. I can't really see anything more than a bunch of politicians worrying that 12 million illegals might equal a few million votes, but I'd love to be surprised.

For me this seems like if I had a house and somebody were trespassing in my house. I might say, "Hey, get out of my house or I'll drag you to the cop standing outside." If the cop says, "You can't do that, only I have the power to enforce the law and trespassing is a legal matter" that's okay, but the next thing he HAS to do is come get the trespasser. If he then tells the trespasser he can stay, what the hell am I supposed to do? I want him out of my house. It's illegal for him to be in my house, and he's just there.

If the borders are open, then we need it in writing that they're open and have done with it. If they aren't, or they're open to some degree that current legislation doesn't reflect, that needs to be spelled out.

I think Arizona is just trying to say that selective enforcement is not acceptable and they're going to try to reduce it. All they want to do is look a little more closely at the people they already have and if those people shouldn't be in the US, turn them over the INS. Arizona isn't going to be filling mass graves or busing people across the border, and never claimed they were.

HappyOldGuy
13th July 10, 12:06 AM
Wrong, states may not pass their own immigration laws. It's spelled out in black and white in the constitution, in current federal immigration law and in the supreme court case I already linked.

States get no say in the matter.

They passed this law because it was impractical to give blowjobs to that many rednecks, and this was almost as good.

fes_fsa
13th July 10, 12:10 AM
Wrong. The Az law imposes penalties based on the decision by a state court of someones legal immigration status.

You might find this informative.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/312/52/
the supreme court has already decided that states have the right to enforce the immigration act.

YOU might find THIS (http://openjurist.org/722/f2d/468/gonzales-v-city-of-peoria) informative.

gonzales v the city of peoria (9th circuit, 1983)

and THIS is from the INA itself:

Section 287 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides the legal authority for state and local enforcement to investigate, detain, and arrest aliens on civil and criminal grounds.

now... what legal penalties are they enforcing? i thought they were detaining illegals and handing them over to the feds...?

Hedley LaMarr
13th July 10, 12:11 AM
I provided the New York case because I wanted to show that the US and the states have met in court before to demonstrate that the "DOJ turning on one of it's own states" has happened before. The content of the case is irrelevant to prove that point. The important part of this discussion is "Why is the US suing Arizona" not "The US cannot sue Arizona." The US can sue states. That is the point I made because in your original post you wondered how the "doj could turn on one of it's own states" to show that the US has "turned" on it's states many times before. (Look up US vs Texas, US vs Mississippi, US vs Oregon).

That doesn't mean the US has a strong case, though. After looking at the bill myself, I don't really think the US has much of a case here.

Here's the most "offensive" part of this bill I could find.



A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

This allows a police officer to arrest a person if they believe that person has "probable cause" of committing a crime that "makes the person removable from the United States." Being an illegal immigrant is such a crime. An illegal immigrant in Arizona is probably going to be Mexican. This law could be interpreted very easily as "If a cop finds a Mexican with a thick accent, he can arrest them."

I think this is a stretch. The bill is filled with language that makes it clear that the law enforcement officials of Arizona must comply with federal regulations. Had Arizona legislators added text to this section of the bill to the effect of "IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL FEDERAL RULES AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" or something like that, this would not been much of a problem. But unfortunately they did not, and this (at least in theory) leaves the door open for LEOs in Arizona to arrest people for being of Hispanic descent.

It's a pretty weak case, but I can kind of see where the federal government is coming from in pursuing the case. As this issue has hit the public (probably because Keith Olbermann had a slow news night and needed to bitch about something) and now they have to pursue this case lest they piss of the extremes of the ACLU.

HappyOldGuy
13th July 10, 12:39 AM
the supreme court has already decided that states have the right to enforce the immigration act.

YOU might find THIS (http://openjurist.org/722/f2d/468/gonzales-v-city-of-peoria) informative.

gonzales v the city of peoria (9th circuit, 1983)

and THIS is from the INA itself:

Section 287 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides the legal authority for state and local enforcement to investigate, detain, and arrest aliens on civil and criminal grounds.

now... what legal penalties are they enforcing? i thought they were detaining illegals and handing them over to the feds...?
No, you don't even have the basics right. They are making it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona, which means the immigration status will be determined by state courts. This has absolutely nothing to do with enforcing federal laws. Your link is a non sequitor.

Drunken, the feds have an open and shut case. You are focusing on the most offensive aspect of the law, but the most unconstitutional section is the part where they make it a crime to be in Arizona as an illegal immigrant.

A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

Being an illegal immigrant is not a criminal offense, it's a civil matter, and federal law gives sole jurisdiction over determining who is here legally to immigration courts.

FriendlyFire
13th July 10, 12:42 AM
Wrong, states may not pass their own immigration laws. It's spelled out in black and white in the constitution, in current federal immigration law and in the supreme court case I already linked.

States get no say in the matter.

They passed this law because it was impractical to give blowjobs to that many rednecks, and this was almost as good.
Actually, this is just a way to enforce all ready established federal laws, not there own immigration laws. Also, why does no one read the bill before they comment on what is and is not in it? DrunkAnal, looking at you.


C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal
laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and
respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

HappyOldGuy
13th July 10, 12:53 AM
Actually, this is just a way to enforce all ready established federal laws, not there own immigration laws. Also, why does no one read the bill before they comment on what is and is not in it? DrunkAnal, looking at you.
State courts cannot enforce federal laws. Especially not when the federal law in question says in black and white that they can't.

Seriously, if anyone wants to lose money on this, I'm willing to take it.

Spade: The Real Snake
13th July 10, 10:17 AM
The State is showing their ass to the current Administration and daring them to do something about it.

Regardless as to what the Feds do, we win.

Ragout
13th July 10, 11:41 AM
Fuck we can't even pay for our highway rest stops to stay open

I'm sure the GTDA (Gay Truck Drivers Association) is going to be protesting this soon and possibly filing a lawsuit.

fes_fsa
13th July 10, 11:52 AM
No, you don't even have the basics right. They are making it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona, which means the immigration status will be determined by state courts. This has absolutely nothing to do with enforcing federal laws. Your link is a non sequitor.

you're talking through your ass.

first: being an illegal immigrant is ALREADY illegal. it's got ILLEGAL right in the name.

second: they're making it a state crime? that means they can prosecute on the state-level--this means sending them to state prison before moving them to federal (which is NOT happening). SHOW ME THE PROVISIONS IN THEIR STATE IMMIGRATION LAWS THAT SAY THEY'RE DOING THIS.

Ragout
13th July 10, 11:57 AM
By the way, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Missouri has had a very similar law on the books since 2007. It passed with 90% voting in favor. We don't pander to people that speak foreign languages and refuse to learn English. English is the official language of Missouri and the government isn't required to print documents or hold proceedings in any other language. Just wondering why Obama isn't suing us too? Anyways, here is the text of the Missouri Immigration Law.

SB 348 –Missouri Omnibus Immigration Act.

Creates the Missouri Omnibus Immigration Act.

Creates the Division of Immigration Enforcement within the office of the Secretary of State to implement new provisions in the law that deny housing and employment to illegal aliens.

Prohibits the employment of unauthorized aliens, and the mandates that every employer in the state participate in the federal Basic Pilot Program in order to verify an employee’s work authorization status as a condition of employment.

Authorizes the suspension of certificates of incorporation and other business licenses and registrations when an employer employ’s unauthorized aliens.

Enumerates steps for curing violations.

Prohibits renting a dwelling to an illegal alien.

Authorizes the suspension of rental licenses and occupancy permits for those who knowingly or recklessly rent to illegal aliens, and enumerates steps for curing violations.

Creates a process whereby the landlord may, through the Division of Immigration Enforcement, verify the immigration status of any individual.

Requires law enforcement officers to inquire into the immigration status of any individual detained for any violation unless the inquiry would significantly extend the duration of the detention.

Requires law enforcement officers to cooperate with any request from federal authorities regarding detention and custody transfer if the individual is found to be illegal.

Requires the state to enter into cooperative agreements with the federal government to designate state law enforcement officers to help enforce federal immigration law.

Bars illegal aliens from attending all public universities in the state, and from receiving any type of public assistance or benefit.

Authorizes cities, villages, and towns to enact ordinances prohibiting the employment of unauthorized aliens or unlawful workers and may deny business licenses to employers who employ unlawful workers.

lant3rn
13th July 10, 12:06 PM
Why are you having trouble grasping this concept fes.

The State can't decide if your immagration status is legal or not....

Americans who live in New York aren't NY citizens they are American ones...

It still follows i beleive that when your are accepted to work in and live in America, you are legally aloud to work where ever you want in the country regardless of state. The rights granted to Americans by their consitution don't change either across state lines.

Those are the main issues around immigration and the federal government regulates and enforces them. As outlined in the constitution.

lant3rn
13th July 10, 12:13 PM
By the way, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Missouri has had a very similar law on the books since 2007. It passed with 90% voting in favor. We don't pander to people that speak foreign languages and refuse to learn English. English is the official language of Missouri and the government isn't required to print documents or hold proceedings in any other language. Just wondering why Obama isn't suing us too? Anyways, here is the text of the Missouri Immigration Law.

SB 348 –Missouri Omnibus Immigration Act.

Creates the Missouri Omnibus Immigration Act.

Creates the Division of Immigration Enforcement within the office of the Secretary of State to implement new provisions in the law that deny housing and employment to illegal aliens.

Prohibits the employment of unauthorized aliens, and the mandates that every employer in the state participate in the federal Basic Pilot Program in order to verify an employee’s work authorization status as a condition of employment.

Authorizes the suspension of certificates of incorporation and other business licenses and registrations when an employer employ’s unauthorized aliens.

Enumerates steps for curing violations.

Prohibits renting a dwelling to an illegal alien.

Authorizes the suspension of rental licenses and occupancy permits for those who knowingly or recklessly rent to illegal aliens, and enumerates steps for curing violations.

Creates a process whereby the landlord may, through the Division of Immigration Enforcement, verify the immigration status of any individual.

Requires law enforcement officers to inquire into the immigration status of any individual detained for any violation unless the inquiry would significantly extend the duration of the detention.

Requires law enforcement officers to cooperate with any request from federal authorities regarding detention and custody transfer if the individual is found to be illegal.

Requires the state to enter into cooperative agreements with the federal government to designate state law enforcement officers to help enforce federal immigration law.

Bars illegal aliens from attending all public universities in the state, and from receiving any type of public assistance or benefit.

Authorizes cities, villages, and towns to enact ordinances prohibiting the employment of unauthorized aliens or unlawful workers and may deny business licenses to employers who employ unlawful workers.

This law in no way states that the State is aloud to make descisions about who is an illegal immigrant, it also says that the State the must work with the federal government in enforcing it.


it's very different.

FriendlyFire
13th July 10, 12:19 PM
State courts cannot enforce federal laws. Especially not when the federal law in question says in black and white that they can't.

Seriously, if anyone wants to lose money on this, I'm willing to take it.

Are you trying to be an idiot? State courts are not involved. If and when officers find illegal immigrants they transfer them to a federal facility, it is in the bill. This bill helps enforcement of the federal laws by removing many limitations on officers, so they can then enforce them.

Clearly you have not even skimmed the bill, so maybe you should quit talking like you have been studying it?

Cullion
13th July 10, 12:25 PM
Legal dickering aside, this is about a distant metropolitan elite who have been generously lobbied to allow cheap labour to flow into the country on the QT vs the people who live with and pay for the public services that sustain said cheap labour whilst they compete against them in the blue collar job market.

It doesn't really have anything to do with racism or constitutional jurisprudence.

I think if everybody stops googling legal codes and just thinks with their common sense for a second, this will be obvious.

Ragout
13th July 10, 12:28 PM
This law in no way states that the State is aloud to make descisions about who is an illegal immigrant, it also says that the State the must work with the federal government in enforcing it.


it's very different.

No it's not... Did you even read the AZ immigration law? This is from the very first page of the AZ law:

"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(c)."

I also have a hard time digesting your interpretation of the law when you have to sound out "allowed" in your head. I'll give you a pass on "decisions" since you were close.

Ragout
13th July 10, 12:34 PM
It doesn't really have anything to do with racism or constitutional jurisprudence.


I think it's all about Obama and his team going against the will of the people and trying to create their own socialist vision of America. Granted the majority isn't always right, but when 70% or more of the people support legislation you really should listen to the majority.

lant3rn
13th July 10, 12:42 PM
No it's not... Did you even read the AZ immigration law? This is from the very first page of the AZ law:

"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(c)."

I also have a hard time digesting your interpretation of the law when you have to sound out "allowed" in your head. I'll give you a pass on "decisions" since you were close.

My spelling/grammar aside.

Read; "Before the person is released."

Meaning they were already detained for being "probably" illegal.

They should have to check first before detaining.


your bill states this


Requires law enforcement officers to inquire into the immigration status of any individual detained for any violation unless the inquiry would significantly extend the duration of the detention.

Requires law enforcement officers to cooperate with any request from federal authorities regarding detention and custody transfer if the individual is found to be illegal.

Requires the state to enter into cooperative agreements with the federal government to designate state law enforcement officers to help enforce federal immigration law.


Cheking someone's immigration status after they have been arrested for buglary is different than detaining them on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant; For which your bill does not give the power to do.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
13th July 10, 12:51 PM
Isn't it legal to tell a cop to eat a dick when they ask for identification, assuming they don't have any legitimate reason to detain you? How does the Arizona immigration law deal with this? Does saying, "Ey mang," before you tell a cop where he can put it constitute probable cause that you're a beaner?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
13th July 10, 12:52 PM
I think it's all about Obama and his team going against the will of the people and trying to create their own socialist vision of America. Granted the majority isn't always right, but when 70% or more of the people support legislation you really should listen to the majority.

I think you should stop.

fes_fsa
13th July 10, 12:54 PM
I provided the New York case because I wanted to show that the US and the states have met in court before to demonstrate that the "DOJ turning on one of it's own states" has happened before. The content of the case is irrelevant to prove that point. The important part of this discussion is "Why is the US suing Arizona" not "The US cannot sue Arizona." The US can sue states. That is the point I made because in your original post you wondered how the "doj could turn on one of it's own states" to show that the US has "turned" on it's states many times before. (Look up US vs Texas, US vs Mississippi, US vs Oregon).

it was a miscommunication. i probably should've worded my posts better, but i was speaking from my heart... and looking back, i should probably have edited my posts... but i'll leave them as they are. let the people see what an asshole i am. i was implying the uniqueness of this case, when i should've just been straight forward. you're right--the state and federal government go to court all the time. i was in a debate about a DOJ v state case in another forum not too long ago. i was unfairly bitchy to you and i'm sorry for that. please forgive my ego.

i still stand by my opinion that the DOJ turned on one of its own states. this case is not like any other... so i guess i'm still refusing to believe that there is a way to compare it. sorry about that too.


That doesn't mean the US has a strong case, though. After looking at the bill myself, I don't really think the US has much of a case here.

Here's the most "offensive" part of this bill I could find.


This allows a police officer to arrest a person if they believe that person has "probable cause" of committing a crime that "makes the person removable from the United States." Being an illegal immigrant is such a crime. An illegal immigrant in Arizona is probably going to be Mexican. This law could be interpreted very easily as "If a cop finds a Mexican with a thick accent, he can arrest them."

I think this is a stretch. The bill is filled with language that makes it clear that the law enforcement officials of Arizona must comply with federal regulations. Had Arizona legislators added text to this section of the bill to the effect of "IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL FEDERAL RULES AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" or something like that, this would not been much of a problem. But unfortunately they did not, and this (at least in theory) leaves the door open for LEOs in Arizona to arrest people for being of Hispanic descent.

It's a pretty weak case, but I can kind of see where the federal government is coming from in pursuing the case. As this issue has hit the public (probably because Keith Olbermann had a slow news night and needed to bitch about something) and now they have to pursue this case lest they piss of the extremes of the ACLU.

so you understand that they're not operating beyond the realm of their authority.

and here's the thing... AZ is NOT the only state that has done something like this.

i'm a naturalized citizen of the US and this case hits REALLY close to home for me.

i became a citizen in 1986, but i arrived to this country in 1984. my family got their papers just a few months before Reagan granted amnesty, so you could imagine how hard it was for my family, being minorities in white ass Orange County CA, in the 80's.

my father came here with my 3 oldest brothers a few years before i arrived with my mom and youngest brother. in the Philippines, he was a wealthy merchant, who made friends with people from all over the world. his closest friends are ones he met on his travels, who later... and by FATE... met him in an unemployment line here in the US. the only friend my dad met OUTSIDE of the unemployment lines was another merchant of the same level of success as he was.

they would get together and drink every weekend on a regular basis. then they all found jobs and went their separate ways, but still made efforts to get together and drink. the merchant my father met moved far away and he met a nice woman and got married and had his own life, but he would still try to come to the get togethers and bigger family parties.

anyway, we all get our citizenship in 1986. my dad calls this guy to invite him over, because we were going to have a party (yeah--it was so fucking hard on us to get citizenship that we actually CELEBRATED when it was over). his wife answers the phone and my black ass dad goes pale.

i'm sure there's more to this story, but here goes: this guy was stopped for speeding and the cop finds out that he's an illegal alien. the cop detains him and the bureaucrats decide that instead of sending him to prison, it'd be cheaper to deport him (which is true).

my dad met this guy on the docks and thought he was a merchant. this was only a half truth. the whole truth was that he ran a fucking heroin cartel between HK, the Hmong Territories (Cambodia, Thai, Laos, etc.,), the Philippines, and the US.

he was a crime boss that had enough pull with the Philippines to not be shot for his crimes--which is what they would normally do. they, instead, EXILED him.

so... when he was deported, as soon as he arrived to my mother country, there was already a firing squad waiting for him. he was arrested and executed upon landing.

the system works in other states. the DOJ is only doing this because Obama is pandering to the Mexicans.

oh yeah... and the traffic stop that ultimately killed one of my uncles happened in San Francisco. take that, HOG.

Cullion
13th July 10, 01:04 PM
Isn't it legal to tell a cop to eat a dick when they ask for identification, assuming they don't have any legitimate reason to detain you? How does the Arizona immigration law deal with this? Does saying, "Ey mang," before you tell a cop where he can put it constitute probable cause that you're a beaner?

Yes, they're going to fill up their courts with race discrimination cases unless they find a way of getting illegals to admit their status before arrest. They can't really do that unless they make producing ID mandatory in hospitals or to register your kids at school, or something of that nature.

There's probably some bullshit 'anti-terrorism' or 'anti money laundering' clause in one of the Patriot acts they can use.

fes_fsa
13th July 10, 01:05 PM
Why are you having trouble grasping this concept fes.

The State can't decide if your immagration status is legal or not....

Americans who live in New York aren't NY citizens they are American ones...

It still follows i beleive that when your are accepted to work in and live in America, you are legally aloud to work where ever you want in the country regardless of state. The rights granted to Americans by their consitution don't change either across state lines.

Those are the main issues around immigration and the federal government regulates and enforces them. As outlined in the constitution.

show me where they've made provisions to decide a person's immigration status.

i thought they were detaining them and letting the feds handle the rest?

lant3rn
13th July 10, 01:21 PM
show me where they've made provisions to decide a person's immigration status.

i thought they were detaining them and letting the feds handle the rest?

To detain them they have to have reasonable cause about a crime for which they are not supposed to make a judgment on.

Going up to every hispanic person and running their name through the INS migth be a way to get around this. But the problem comes from just singling them out for that special treatment.

"Paper's please" mentality. Which isn't a direction i would want to see you Americans go in.

fes_fsa
13th July 10, 01:31 PM
Isn't it legal to tell a cop to eat a dick when they ask for identification, assuming they don't have any legitimate reason to detain you? How does the Arizona immigration law deal with this? Does saying, "Ey mang," before you tell a cop where he can put it constitute probable cause that you're a beaner?

don't believe the hype, MJS. they're not stopping you for being Mexican. they're stopping people who are in the middle of committing crimes and detaining them for federal investigation if they suspect that the person is an illegal immigrant.

i was reading a story on Liberland a while ago... about this Puerto Rican guy being "unfairly detained". it was 4 or 5 paragraphs about how they held him, because he looks the way he does and has a spanish accent.

then in one small paragraph, they mention that he and some friends were driving around in a car that was reported stolen.

fes_fsa
13th July 10, 01:33 PM
To detain them they have to have reasonable cause about a crime for which they are not supposed to make a judgment on.

Going up to every hispanic person and running their name through the INS migth be a way to get around this. But the problem comes from just singling them out for that special treatment.

"Paper's please" mentality. Which isn't a direction i would want to see you Americans go in.

please see my post above to MJS.

lant3rn
13th July 10, 01:52 PM
please see my post above to MJS.

If they are only goign to check the status of people detained who violated state laws.

Why bother making it?

fes_fsa
13th July 10, 01:56 PM
because it forces the federal government to take a more active approach to our immigration problems.

edit: i'm not saying that ALL illegal immigrants actively engage in illegal activities (you know, apart from being in our country illegally). but a good portion of them do and that's where alot of our drug, violence, and medical problems (which all walk hand in hand) are coming from.

Spade: The Real Snake
13th July 10, 02:13 PM
because it forces the federal government to take a more active approach to our immigration problems.
They weren't doing anything to enforce it so the state is taking a proactive approach to showing this.


edit: i'm not saying that ALL illegal immigrants actively engage in illegal activities (you know, apart from being in our country illegally). but a good portion of them do and that's where alot of our drug, violence, and medical problems (which all walk hand in hand) are coming from.
Day laborers hanging around in front of Lowe's or the Home Depot or a lanscaping nursery are loitering and are breaking the law and a cop can stop and cite them, thus triggering the necessary contact to ask about immigration status.

fes_fsa
13th July 10, 03:20 PM
They weren't doing anything to enforce it so the state is taking a proactive approach to showing this.

exactly. and this wasn't getting the attention it needed, so it was bound to show up in court sooner or later. i just hate that your state has to be SUED in order to bring this major problem to the forefront.


Day laborers hanging around in front of Lowe's or the Home Depot or a lanscaping nursery are loitering and are breaking the law and a cop can stop and cite them, thus triggering the necessary contact to ask about immigration status.

see... i hope it doesn't come to that. because i actually like those guys. they're the guys that Lady Liberty welcomes to our country. those guys are here because they didn't have the financial resources to go through the legal channels, or they didn't have any friends or family in America to sponsor the naturalization process to become citizens. they work several jobs a day and try to support a quiet life that they've provided for their families. i respect and admire that. they have a right to be here and i believe that amnesty was created because they deserve it.

i want this law to affect actual criminals. the guys who are only here to commit crimes because jail in their country fucking sucks to the point where they don't respect our cops because they feel that the cops are pussies with no power--you can bet your ass that they wouldn't DARE to talk to their own officials the way they do ours. they're the ones that hurt us and cost us so much money.

the cost to take care of a lawful, but illegal alien day laborer and his family is a fucking drop in the bucket when you compare it to what it costs to clean up all the shit that an illegal immigrant criminal's crime spree leaves behind.

and don't get me started on drug cartels. i'm surprised that MJS isn't taking a firmer stand on this case, because he is a fellow medical marijuana afficionada. when they legalize pot in southern CA, the people in the business of supplying pot legally will have to deal with illegals fucking their businesses up. they have to compete with other businesses that obtain their weed through illegal means. this ultimately results in cheap marijuana at the cost of quality.

Spade: The Real Snake
13th July 10, 05:47 PM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs130.snc4/36865_406253796125_173347701125_4918728_7101197_n. jpg

Latest Billboard I saw today

Spade: The Real Snake
13th July 10, 05:50 PM
exactly. and this wasn't getting the attention it needed, so it was bound to show up in court sooner or later. i just hate that your state has to be SUED in order to bring this major problem to the forefront.
truth be told, Bush wasn't doing much of anything either.
The economy is affecting everyone, we are losing businesses, our taxes are going up and people want something done.



see... i hope it doesn't come to that. because i actually like those guys. they're the guys that Lady Liberty welcomes to our country. those guys are here because they didn't have the financial resources to go through the legal channels, or they didn't have any friends or family in America to sponsor the naturalization process to become citizens. they work several jobs a day and try to support a quiet life that they've provided for their families. i respect and admire that. they have a right to be here and i believe that amnesty was created because they deserve it.


i want this law to affect actual criminals. the guys who are only here to commit crimes because jail in their country fucking sucks to the point where they don't respect our cops because they feel that the cops are pussies with no power--you can bet your ass that they wouldn't DARE to talk to their own officials the way they do ours. they're the ones that hurt us and cost us so much money.

the cost to take care of a lawful, but illegal alien day laborer and his family is a fucking drop in the bucket when you compare it to what it costs to clean up all the shit that an illegal immigrant criminal's crime spree leaves behind.

and don't get me started on drug cartels. i'm surprised that MJS isn't taking a firmer stand on this case, because he is a fellow medical marijuana afficionada. when they legalize pot in southern CA, the people in the business of supplying pot legally will have to deal with illegals fucking their businesses up. they have to compete with other businesses that obtain their weed through illegal means. this ultimately results in cheap marijuana at the cost of quality.

While it is unlikely they will, the fact is they can.

Wounded Ronin
13th July 10, 07:13 PM
I think that Washington had more merit when it was going after Night Trap than after the AZ immigration laws.

yCPL3DJ72tM

I guess that I just spend too much time chasing contagious non-compliant illegal immigrants.

HappyOldGuy
13th July 10, 07:43 PM
Are you trying to be an idiot? State courts are not involved. If and when officers find illegal immigrants they transfer them to a federal facility, it is in the bill. This bill helps enforcement of the federal laws by removing many limitations on officers, so they can then enforce them.

Clearly you have not even skimmed the bill, so maybe you should quit talking like you have been studying it?
Actually I've read it quite closely and I cited the relevant section. The law makes it a crime, punishable in arizona courts, for people to violate two specific sections of federal law. However it does not require that they be convicted of that crime in federal court. IOW, arizona state courts are convicting people of federal crimes.

That's one of many constitutional arguments against the law, but it's the one that is most open and shut. The due process, equal protection etc arguments are strong but not clear cut.

The other strong argument is the similar one about the states punishing employers. That one is also likely to fail supreme court challenge, but it's not unique to the arizona law. The court will be ruling in its next term on several similar laws incvluding a previous Az version.

BadUglyMagic
14th July 10, 10:20 AM
Actually I've read it quite closely and I cited the relevant section. The law makes it a crime, punishable in arizona courts, for people to violate two specific sections of federal law. However it does not require that they be convicted of that crime in federal court. IOW, arizona state courts are convicting people of federal crimes.







A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

Being an illegal immigrant is not a criminal offense, it's a civil matter, and federal law gives sole jurisdiction over determining who is here legally to immigration courts.



A person found to be an illegal alien would be charged with trespass. How do you see the DOJ successfully arguing that a person with no legal rights to be in the state is not guilty of trespass?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
14th July 10, 10:27 AM
sumbuddy with better fact checking skills than i: please tell me something... ANYTHING... that will make me believe that the sky is no longer falling!

Proof that the sky is in fact running away from the earth (http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2195)

fes_fsa
14th July 10, 12:10 PM
OH GOD NO.

FriendlyFire
14th July 10, 12:18 PM
Actually I've read it quite closely and I cited the relevant section. The law makes it a crime, punishable in arizona courts, for people to violate two specific sections of federal law. However it does not require that they be convicted of that crime in federal court. IOW, arizona state courts are convicting people of federal crimes.


C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

And to see if they are illegal, they ....


TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

To be clear any jail or fine was from "State or Local law". As soon as they find an illegal, via checking with feds, they hand them over to the feds. No state trials. What if they did not break any other laws?


NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

All roads in this bill lead to sending illegals to federal facilities ASAP.

Spade: The Real Snake
14th July 10, 12:19 PM
But more times then not, the Feds don't really want them.

FriendlyFire
14th July 10, 12:23 PM
That's the plan you see? Give the feds so many illegals that they get pissed off and do something about it.

Spade: The Real Snake
14th July 10, 12:31 PM
That's the plan you see? Give the feds so many illegals that they get pissed off and do something about it.
No, the problem is getting ICE to actually show up and take custody of the illegals.

FriendlyFire
14th July 10, 12:36 PM
No, the problem is getting ICE to actually show up and take custody of the illegals.

That's why the bill allows officers to take illegals out of the jurisdiction to bring them to the federal facilities. They won't wait for ICE to show up, they go to their front door.

Spade: The Real Snake
14th July 10, 12:43 PM
That's why the bill allows officers to take illegals out of the jurisdiction to bring them to the federal facilities. They won't wait for ICE to show up, they go to their front door.
I know.
I live here.

Calls to ICE from local law enforcement officers often go ignored so within the framework of the bill, it allows for us to take them to California.

Enjoy, HOG!

Ragout
14th July 10, 06:59 PM
That's the plan you see? Give the feds so many illegals that they get pissed off and do something about it.

Obama would probably just turn the Rose Garden into an organic farm and put them all to work.

Hedley LaMarr
14th July 10, 07:33 PM
Obama would probably just turn the Rose Garden into an organic farm and put them all to work.
I like this idea.

HappyOldGuy
14th July 10, 08:19 PM
All roads in this bill lead to sending illegals to federal facilities ASAP.
That is an entirely seperate section of the law, and even then you edited out the rather crucial bit that says, "A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE," which proves that this is not a court process.

And it doesn't matter anyways, because no matter what, no matter what you say or believe or convince yourself in your little red state mind. STATES CANNOT IMPOSE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL LAWS.

fes_fsa
14th July 10, 09:31 PM
That is an entirely seperate section of the law, and even then you edited out the rather crucial bit that says, "A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE," which proves that this is not a court process.

And it doesn't matter anyways, because no matter what, no matter what you say or believe or convince yourself in your little red state mind. STATES CANNOT IMPOSE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL LAWS.

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was made law in the United States in 1995 as a result of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsib ility_Act) (IIRIRA). Section 287(g) authorizes the Federal Government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement) (ICE) officers. Under 287(g), ICE provides state and local law enforcement with the training and subsequent authorization to identify, process, and when appropriate, detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_287(g)
so... what penalties are they imposing that are outside their realm of authority?

FriendlyFire
14th July 10, 09:50 PM
That is an entirely seperate section of the law, and even then you edited out the rather crucial bit that says, "A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE," which proves that this is not a court process.

Have you lost it? You have been arguing that state courts cannot convict for federal crimes, I have been trying to show you state courts are not involved. So if I started my quote after the sections that "Proves it's not a court process" why the fuck does that matter?

Also, great god damn post fes_fsa, that ends this ridiculous argument right now. This bill follows every legal guide line it needs to. HappyOldGuy, why are you freaking out about it?

BadUglyMagic
14th July 10, 10:07 PM
Originally Posted by HappyOldGuy
A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

Being an illegal immigrant is not a criminal offense, it's a civil matter, and federal law gives sole jurisdiction over determining who is here legally to immigration courts.





A person found to be an illegal alien would be charged with trespass. How do you see the DOJ successfully arguing that a person with no legal rights to be in the state is not guilty of trespass?



Does anyone have an answer to the above? I am reading it as trespass which would make it a state crime or civil violation disobedience act.

lant3rn
14th July 10, 11:47 PM
Originally Posted by HappyOldGuy
A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

Being an illegal immigrant is not a criminal offense, it's a civil matter, and federal law gives sole jurisdiction over determining who is here legally to immigration courts.








Does anyone have an answer to the above? I am reading it as trespass which would make it a state crime or civil violation disobedience act.

Lol trespassing

So if i take a vacation to Arizona am i considered trespassing as well.

obviously ... well probably no. But why is this different for people who are living without their greencard? Is it based on time spent? Working under the table?

I didn't think federal courts handled trespassing cases either?

I'm thinking along the same lines as you because isn't this just the state attaching their own state crime to a federal matter.... but they aren't aloud to do that.

it's all very convoluted to me

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 12:36 AM
Originally Posted by HappyOldGuy
A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

Being an illegal immigrant is not a criminal offense, it's a civil matter, and federal law gives sole jurisdiction over determining who is here legally to immigration courts.

Does anyone have an answer to the above? I am reading it as trespass which would make it a state crime or civil violation disobedience act.

this is already part of federal law--all it does is make it part of AZ law.

the bill goes on from there:

1 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN
2 ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:
3 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
5 2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED
6 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER
7 PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).


this means that once an illegal alien has been detained, in violation of state and local laws, the State and local authorities can punish for state and local crimes ONLY. anything having to do with their immigration status is handed over to the feds.

BadUglyMagic
15th July 10, 08:48 AM
this is already part of federal law--all it does is make it part of AZ law.


this means that once an illegal alien has been detained, in violation of state and local laws, the State and local authorities can punish for state and local crimes ONLY. anything having to do with their immigration status is handed over to the feds.


The federal govt statute has trespassing as a criminal/civil violation?

You are saying that after bieng detained (for whatever legal reason), a determination of status will be made by the feds or authorized pesronnel, the illegal alien may then be charged with the state crime of trespassing?

WOuld tey actulaay be released to the feds for deprtation or charged and tried for the trespass?

Assuming so, the fallback option if ICE refused to pick them up is to incarcerate them in a state facility for the trespass offense.

BadUglyMagic
15th July 10, 08:52 AM
So if i take a vacation to Arizona am i considered trespassing as well.

If you entered illegally, yes.



But why is this different for people who are living without their greencard? Is it based on time spent? Working under the table?

If you are here illegall, none of the above matters. If you have a visa instead of a green card, it just means your visit is subject to the limitation of the visa.

Spade: The Real Snake
15th July 10, 11:26 AM
We are currently raising hotel taxes to cover the cost of a giant bank deposit tube which runs from Arizona to California to shoot all the detainees over the border into the promised land

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 12:48 PM
The federal govt statute has trespassing as a criminal/civil violation? no.


You are saying that after bieng detained (for whatever legal reason), a determination of status will be made by the feds or authorized pesronnel, the illegal alien may then be charged with the state crime of trespassing?

no.


WOuld tey actulaay be released to the feds for deprtation or charged and tried for the trespass?

they can't be charged for trespassing and won't. trespassing and banishment laws don't work that way.


Assuming so, the fallback option if ICE refused to pick them up is to incarcerate them in a state facility for the trespass offense.they're being brought in for criminal acts already. i think they have to do THAT time before being transfered over to the feds.

it's interesting that you focused on the word "trespassing". it's only one word, but in the grand scheme of things, it ensures that the federal government can't touch AZ for their immigration laws.

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 12:50 PM
We are currently raising hotel taxes to cover the cost of a giant bank deposit tube which runs from Arizona to California to shoot all the detainees over the border into the promised land

you've mentioned AZ sending the illegals to CA a few times in this thread.

is this really gonna happen? like... did you guys strike a deal with our state?

cuz... that IS grounds for kicking the both of us out of the union.

BadUglyMagic
15th July 10, 01:10 PM
fes

the statute says trespassing. I assumed it means the same as in GA. What is the def of trspass in AZ? and how does it apply/what si context interms of this law?


I read it as:

If the original charge/reason for the stop is determined not to be something the illegal alien is to be charged with, they would still be guilty of trespass and subject to state prosecution.

Spade: The Real Snake
15th July 10, 01:22 PM
you've mentioned AZ sending the illegals to CA a few times in this thread.

is this really gonna happen? like... did you guys strike a deal with our state?

cuz... that IS grounds for kicking the both of us out of the union.
It's a reverse boycott.
You guys have sanctuary cities and will provide the needed services we will not. Why stay here and fear arrest when the Golden State awaits.

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 01:26 PM
fes

the statute says trespassing. I assumed it means the same as in GA. What is the def of trspass in AZ? and how does it apply/what si context interms of this law?


I read it as:

If the original charge/reason for the stop is determined not to be something the illegal alien is to be charged with, they would still be guilty of trespass and subject to state prosecution.
many states, including AZ, have VERY specific trespassing laws. you have to be ORDERED by either the property owner, or a law enforcement officer, to vacate the premises. if you continue to stay, THEN you are charged with trespassing and can be arrested and fined.

this is not what is happening here.

"trespass" in this context means who is allowed or not allowed to be in the state of AZ. article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution says that states are allowed to say whether foreign nationals can or can't be within their borders and there is NOTHING federal government can do about it. however, once they're permitted in the state (like if they're arrested and detained), the state has to offer all the state and federal protections that are within their power to give.

BadUglyMagic
15th July 10, 02:19 PM
many states, including AZ, have VERY specific trespassing laws. you have to be ORDERED by either the property owner, or a law enforcement officer, to vacate the premises. if you continue to stay, THEN you are charged with trespassing and can be arrested and fined.


"trespass" in this context means who is allowed or not allowed to be in the state of AZ. .


Thanks.

Slacker that I am, can you post the url or link to the AZ trespass statute?

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 02:30 PM
Thanks.

Slacker that I am, can you post the url or link to the AZ trespass statute?

yeah. i started this thread posting no links for the same reason: laziness.

do your own homework. (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/arizonarevisedstatutes.asp?title=13)

you can find the statutes yourself.

BadUglyMagic
15th July 10, 04:17 PM
yeah. i started this thread posting no links for the same reason: laziness.

do your own homework. (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/arizonarevisedstatutes.asp?title=13)

you can find the statutes yourself.


Fine. Make me work for it.

I believe, a DA could charge an illegal with trespass based on AZ state law. Don't know the precedents. The code is below, the highlighted lines (imo) should be the relevant ones. The main sticking point would be in the definitions section.

13-1501. Definitions
In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Critical public service facility" means:

(a) A structure or fenced yard that is posted with signage indicating it is a felony to trespass or signage indicating high voltage or high pressure and is used by a rail, bus, air or other mass transit provider, a public or private utility, any municipal corporation, city, town or other political subdivision that is organized under state law and that generates, transmits, distributes or otherwise provides natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, electricity or a combustible substance for a delivery system that is not a retail-only facility, a telecommunications carrier or telephone company, a municipal provider as defined in section 45-561, a law enforcement agency, a public or private fire department or an emergency medical service provider.

(b) A structure or fenced yard or any equipment or apparatus that is posted with signage indicating it is a felony to trespass or signage indicating high voltage or high pressure and is used to manufacture, extract, transport, distribute or store gas, including natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas, oil, electricity, water or hazardous materials, unless it is a retail-only facility.

2. "Enter or remain unlawfully" means an act of a person who enters or remains on premises when the person's intent for so entering or remaining is not licensed, authorized or otherwise privileged except when the entry is to commit theft of merchandise displayed for sale during normal business hours, when the premises are open to the public and when the person does not enter any unauthorized areas of the premises.


3. "Entry" means the intrusion of any part of any instrument or any part of a person's body inside the external boundaries of a structure or unit of real property.


4. "Fenced commercial yard" means a unit of real property that is surrounded completely by fences, walls, buildings or similar barriers, or any combination of fences, walls, buildings or similar barriers, and that is used primarily for business operations or where livestock, produce or other commercial items are located.

5. "Fenced residential yard" means a unit of real property that immediately surrounds or is adjacent to a residential structure and that is enclosed by a fence, wall, building or similar barrier or any combination of fences, walls, buildings or similar barriers.

6. "Fenced yard" means a unit of real property that is surrounded by fences, walls, buildings or similar barriers or any combination of fences, walls, buildings or similar barriers.

7. "In the course of committing" means any acts that are performed by an intruder from the moment of entry to and including flight from the scene of a crime.


13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

2. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on the right-of-way for tracks, or the storage or switching yards or rolling stock of a railroad company.
B. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 05:48 PM
i think those statutes have to do with property that is either privately owned, privately owned but open to the public, publically owned, or publically owned with parts cut off from the public via the public safety commission.

the "trespassing" in question:

A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

public or PRIVATE.

going by the provisions you've just provided, a person is not trespassing if the owner welcomes the person onto his/her property.

but the AZ immigration laws makes it very clear that you're trespassing on both public and private property in the state.

this is so that they could set up provisions to punish those who provide safe harbor for illegal aliens.

HappyOldGuy
15th July 10, 07:56 PM
Have you lost it? You have been arguing that state courts cannot convict for federal crimes, I have been trying to show you state courts are not involved. So if I started my quote after the sections that "Proves it's not a court process" why the fuck does that matter?

Also, great god damn post fes_fsa, that ends this ridiculous argument right now. This bill follows every legal guide line it needs to. HappyOldGuy, why are you freaking out about it?
Are you this fucking daft? Who do you think is going to sentence people for violating this law?

Fes strop being a fucking moron. I know you aren't one, but you are doing an incredible imitation. There is a difference between state officials enforcing a federal law under federal laws that specifically give them that authority and state courts punishing people for violating federal laws that specifically say they can't do that.


this is already part of federal law--all it does is make it part of AZ law.


Which is called preemption.

Fucking google it.

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 08:10 PM
Fes strop being a fucking moron.

JEEPERS, YOU SURE PUT ME IN MY PLACE. LOL


Which is called preemption.

Fucking google it.

you're making the claim. support your own arguments.

SHOW ME WHICH PROVISIONS ARE PREEMPTING FEDERAL LAW.

HappyOldGuy
15th July 10, 08:13 PM
JEEPERS, YOU SURE PUT ME IN MY PLACE. LOL



you're making the claim. support your own arguments.

SHOW ME WHICH PROVISIONS ARE PREEMPTING FEDERAL LAW.
I have multiple times, but horses ass-> water. So fucking google it.

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 08:20 PM
and i have shown you the contrary, but you fail to address my posts.

have you ever even fucking heard of concurrent enforcement?

why don't you google that, asshole.

REPRESENTIN' 9TH CIRCUIT, BITCH NIGGAS!

*holds up 5 fingers on her right and 4 on her left*

HappyOldGuy
15th July 10, 08:26 PM
and i have shown you the contrary, but you fail to address my posts.

have you ever even fucking heard of concurrent enforcement?

why don't you google that, asshole.

REPRESENTIN' 9TH CIRCUIT, BITCH NIGGAS!

*holds up 5 fingers on her right and 4 on her left*

I did address your post. You are talking about law enforcement, I am talking about courts. Concurrent enforcement in regards to immigration only regards law enforcement personel. There is no legal theory that allows a state court to make a determination as to a persons legal immigration status or as to whether a person is guilty of a federal crime which is required for the trespassing part of the arizona law.

I'm familiar with the arguments. I read the same idiot blogs you do. Then I go find out what the actual law says.

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 09:09 PM
I did address your post. You are talking about law enforcement, I am talking about courts. Concurrent enforcement in regards to immigration only regards law enforcement personel. There is no legal theory that allows a state court to make a determination as to a persons legal immigration status or as to whether a person is guilty of a federal crime which is required for the trespassing part of the arizona law.

I'm familiar with the arguments. I read the same idiot blogs you do. Then I go find out what the actual law says.

show me where it says their state courts are making the determination as to a persons legal immigration status.

BOOM! i RULE your WORLD!

HappyOldGuy
15th July 10, 09:10 PM
show me where it says their state courts are making the determination as to a persons legal immigration status.

BOOM! i RULE your WORLD!

How exactly do you expect them to convict someone for being illegal without it?

Blue Negation
15th July 10, 09:17 PM
How exactly do you expect them to convict someone for being illegal without it?

Is it a conviction or a determination?

HappyOldGuy
15th July 10, 09:19 PM
Is it a conviction or a determination?

Per the law, it is a conviction based on a determination by state court that they have violated one of two federal laws.

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 10:52 PM
the final determination of someone's immigration status is not made by the courts. it is made by a federal officer who then presents the determination to the courts. if it's a felony (and repeat EWI's ARE a felony), the case goes to a federal court. if it's a misdemeanor (and it IS a FEDERAL misdemeanor), it goes to the local magistrate, and is then subject to whatever penalties the magistrate decides on, within the state's authority.

the state is NOT punishing illegals--federal provisions for how they're punished have already been made in current federal immigration laws, and it's up to the courts to uphold them and penalize accordingly.

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 10:58 PM
Per the law, it is a conviction based on a determination by state court that they have violated one of two federal laws.

it says NOTHING about the courts making the final determination.

1 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN
2 ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:
3 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN’S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
5 2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED
6 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER
7 PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

HappyOldGuy
15th July 10, 11:00 PM
Noone is arguing the part about the state handing felons over to the feds. So stop talking about it.

The part about the local magistrate is black letter preemption. Besides a fuckton of due process issues.

Edit: Oh wait, your defense is that the cops get to decide guilt or innocence rather than that even being decided in court?

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 11:04 PM
The part about the local magistrate is black letter preemption. Besides a fuckton of due process issues.
tell me how it's preemption. it's federal law and magistrates are the judges who hear the MAJORITY of immigration cases. or are you saying that a magistrate can't call in expert testimony/verification from a federal official?

HappyOldGuy
15th July 10, 11:06 PM
tell me how it's preemption. it's federal law and magistrates are the judges who hear the MAJORITY of immigration cases. or are you saying that a magistrate can't call in expert testimony/verification from a federal official?

No, it's federal judges who here ALL immigration cases, Every single one. Not state judges. Ever. Under any circumstances.

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 11:10 PM
Edit: Oh wait, your defense is that the cops get to decide guilt or innocence rather than that even being decided in court?

you know... you're really reaching now... and being a pompous ass in the process.

i think i'll duck out of this thread and wait until the 29th, when Federal Courts rule in favor of you being WRONG.

you'll probably treat this as a victory and talk about how i ran with my tail tucked between my legs... but i don't care.

anybody reading this thread can see that i schooled your narrow ass.

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 11:13 PM
No, it's federal judges who here ALL immigration cases, Every single one. Not state judges. Ever. Under any circumstances.


Federal district courts handle felony cases, such as human smuggling or illegal reentry. Magistrate courts handle misdemeanors and petty criminal offenses, and other criminal (as well as civil) matters within the district court system. Accordingly, magistrates (judges) hear most illegal-entry cases. Magistrates are appointed by district court judges for eight-year terms, while the president appoints and the Senate confirms district court judges for lifelong terms.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=780

HappyOldGuy
15th July 10, 11:16 PM
FEDERAL magistrates.

Am I wrong about you not being this stupid?

Anyhow. This will not be settled on the 29th.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf

Some light reading till then.

fes_fsa
15th July 10, 11:36 PM
FEDERAL magistrates.

Am I wrong about you not being this stupid?

Anyhow. This will not be settled on the 29th.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf

Some light reading till then.

federal magistrates? LOL

ALL magistrates are appointed by federal judges.

a magistrate is a federal trial judge--this is common knowledge. so i didn't have to say "federal" before "magistrate."

GOD... I WANT TO SLAM YOU DOWN ONTO A TABLE AND HATE FUCK YOU.

THIS IS HOW FLUSTERED YOU'VE MADE ME.

HappyOldGuy
15th July 10, 11:45 PM
a magistrate is a federal trial judge--this is common knowledge. so i didn't have to say "federal" before "magistrate."
How many different ways can you be wrong in one thread? Are you trying for a record? (http://www.georgiacourts.org/courts/fulton/)


We can negotiate on the hate fuck tho.

fes_fsa
16th July 10, 12:12 AM
How many different ways can you be wrong in one thread? Are you trying for a record? (http://www.georgiacourts.org/courts/fulton/)


We can negotiate on the hate fuck tho.

now you're doing it on purpose JUST to get into the panties that i'm not wearing.

ALL magistrates are federal trial judges. the only differences between them and federal judges are tenure and the types of cases they handle.

all your link does is show the people reading this thread what a tapdancing little rube you are

from wikipedia:

In the United States federal courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_courts), magistrate judges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge) are appointed to assist United States district court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_district_court) judges in the performance of their duties. Magistrate judges are authorized by 28 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_28_of_the_United_States_Code) § 631 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/631.html) et seq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_seq).

While district judges are nominated by the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) and confirmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_and_consent) by the United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) for lifetime tenure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifetime_tenure), magistrate judges are appointed by a majority vote of the federal district judges of a particular district and serve terms of eight years if full-time, or four years if part-time, and may be reappointed. As of March 2009 there are 517 full-time and 42 part-time authorized magistrate judgeships, as well as one position combining magistrate judge and clerk of court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_clerk).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge#cite_note-0)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge#cite_note-0)

HappyOldGuy
16th July 10, 12:17 AM
The Magistrate Court of Fulton County is a division of the State Court and has jurisdiction over traffic cases, ordinance and code violations, jail and warrant first-appearance proceedings, and warrant applications. The Court also has jurisdiction in dispossessory/landlord-tenant cases and small-claim actions involving $15,000 or less.
How unclear can that be.

Or for that matter, how unclear is "In the United States federal courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_courts),"

Or do you think that all courts are the united states federal courts, cause that would explain alot.

fes_fsa
16th July 10, 12:29 AM
How unclear can that be.

Or for that matter, how unclear is "In the United States federal courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_courts),"

Or do you think that all courts are the united states federal courts, cause that would explain alot.

of course it's "in the United States federal courts"--that's where they appoint magistrates.

even backwater hillbilly towns have magistrates. this does not change the fact that their magistrate is a federal trial judge who has been appointed by federal judges.

jvjim
16th July 10, 12:45 AM
Then I go find out what the actual law says.
ROFLMFAO. No one, not Barack Obama, not Justice Burger, not Atticus Finch, has any idea what the "actual law" says at any place, at any time, in any way, EVER.

HappyOldGuy
16th July 10, 12:48 AM
of course it's "in the United States federal courts"--that's where they appoint magistrates.

even backwater hillbilly towns have magistrates. this does not change the fact that their magistrate is a federal trial judge who has been appointed by federal judges.

Including the ones in the Fulton county magistrate court?

Let's get back to that hate fuck.:icon_hitit:

fes_fsa
16th July 10, 01:34 AM
Including the ones in the Fulton county magistrate court?

Let's get back to that hate fuck.:icon_hitit:

yeah. you don't seem to understand what a magistrate does. they handle civil cases and misdemeanors that have federal provisions on how much a person can be fined or penalized for their crimes. they work several small cases with the state and local authorities, but because they're appointed to ensure that federal statutes are honored, they're considered federal trial judge.

i think they're an article 1 tribunal court. or is it article 3? anyway, it's the one that has limited tenure.

Jim_Jude
16th July 10, 04:02 AM
Obama would probably just turn the Rose Garden into an organic farm and put them all to work. I like this idea.
Yeah, that sounds great. The first black president taking a bunch of people from another country and putting them to work on a farm (& he can't pay them because it's illegal to employ them, they don't have the same rights as REAL citizens, etc etc...)

Sounds slightly ironical to me...

lant3rn
16th July 10, 11:39 AM
What I'm getting from this discussion is that the american immigration policy is a bad joke, and so is its illegal immigrant policy.

From your discription fes; your father was an afluent buisness man and had to go through alot of crap to move across the pond.
I from what i have read and acounts that i have herd being poor and attempting the same thing is MUCH harder.

So some immigrants commit crimes and others don't, Americans have a check system in place to screen out the good ones from bad. I'm not sure what the criteria is but apparently it's not completely effective since some criminals domanage to land legally anyway.... that aside

AZ makes a law by which their state leo's can go around demanding proof of citenzship in order to punish people who did not go through the proper channels. Maybe the aliens intentions don't count for much but i know that some illegals are there just to make a better lives for themselves. Some probably come here to earn a living subverting the law aswell.

The AZ targets both groups in it's legizlation, you may beleive fes that it will be only used to check status of people who have been detained for buglary or drug dealing. But i'm fairly sure the AZ police could already run names of people detained through the INS before this bill was even thought up.

It's painting all with same brush. And seems to be doing so blantantly and at the cost of civil liberty.

It may just be for show and to illustrate the federal governments inefectiveness in handling their buisness, But i think that's a pretty rose coloured look at it. There are layers of bigotry and fear mongering contained within the ideas presented in the bill that go to the heart of the immigration debate. The bill may be for political theater but i think ultimately it will be inefective because it does nothing to illustrate the deaper issues at the heart of the problem and serves as just a juvenille attempt to take a shot at the federal government.

Hedley LaMarr
16th July 10, 12:22 PM
Yeah, that sounds great. The first black president taking a bunch of people from another country and putting them to work on a farm (& he can't pay them because it's illegal to employ them, they don't have the same rights as REAL citizens, etc etc...)

Sounds slightly ironical to me...
Exactly. The liberals will like it because it's an alternative to prison, the conservatives will like it because it is economical, and the racists will love it because it is racist.

fes_fsa
16th July 10, 04:15 PM
What I'm getting from this discussion is that the american immigration policy is a bad joke, and so is its illegal immigrant policy.

From your discription fes; your father was an afluent buisness man and had to go through alot of crap to move across the pond.
I from what i have read and acounts that i have herd being poor and attempting the same thing is MUCH harder.

it IS hard and we WERE poor. the Philippine peso translates to chump change. on top of that, my parents had 5 children and we all flew here. that means international passports for 7 people, visas and green cards for anybody who could work, waivers for minor children, and naturalization papers that cost around $500 or more per person (including kids). this was alot of money in the 80's.


AZ makes a law by which their state leo's can go around demanding proof of citenzship in order to punish people who did not go through the proper channels. Maybe the aliens intentions don't count for much but i know that some illegals are there just to make a better lives for themselves. Some probably come here to earn a living subverting the law aswell.

The AZ targets both groups in it's legizlation, you may beleive fes that it will be only used to check status of people who have been detained for buglary or drug dealing. But i'm fairly sure the AZ police could already run names of people detained through the INS before this bill was even thought up.

It's painting all with same brush. And seems to be doing so blantantly and at the cost of civil liberty.

so you're saying that this law is unfair because it targets BOTH illegal immigrants that live peacefully and illegal immigrants who break laws.

you're absolutely right that all is painted with a broad brush. that's how it's supposed to be--it's called FAIRNESS.

nothing is being done to these illegal immigrants that isn't already done to LEGAL immigrants that are already in this country.

i was in the country for 2 years before i was naturalized. we had to have a legal citizen sponsor us. my parents and 3 oldest brothers had to report to INS every week and we had an INS agent inspect our home on a regular basis to make sure that we were the only people living there. we were in constant fear of being deported, because all of our resources were put to staying here.

i would say that i expect no less from anybody else who was born on foreign soil and wants to live here, but i do believe in amnesty for people who don't have enough people in their families to provide them with the necessary funds to go through the legal channels. i've already stated this.

however, amnesty and the refusal of the federal government to enforce their immigration laws makes it UNFAIR for those of us who've emigrated here legally and follow the law. that is the reality of this debate.

you talk about the cost of civil liberties--why is it okay to violate a legal immigrant's rights and not okay to violate an illegal immigrants rights?

Ajamil
16th July 10, 08:55 PM
Maybe the aliens intentions don't count for much but i know that some illegals are there just to make a better lives for themselves. Do you think people working illegally in the US is helping or hurting the legal citizens of the US?

HappyOldGuy
16th July 10, 08:59 PM
Obama would probably just turn the Rose Garden into an organic farm and put them all to work.

He did actually turn part of the rose garden into an organic farm.

But the first lady mostly employs child slave labor for it.

Well okay, DC schoolkids, but I like my phrasing better.

Cullion
16th July 10, 09:04 PM
Do you think people working illegally in the US is helping or hurting the legal citizens of the US?

It depends on your socioceconomic class.

If you're competing for a blue collar wage, it will hurt.
If you're an employer of manual workers, it helps.

That's why the divide on immigration tends to be cut across the middle class, with highly educated urban professionals not seeing a problem, and working class people very much seeing a problem.

It's not 'cuz rednecks r stupid bigots', it's people defending their economic interests and then wrapping it up in post-hoc moral justifications.

HappyOldGuy
16th July 10, 09:17 PM
It's not 'cuz rednecks r stupid bigots',
Well, it's not entirely about that. :aetsch:

SFGOON
16th July 10, 09:17 PM
You really shouldn't dignify the reaction of stupid bigots with Latin phases they themselves don't understand. You've got to phrase it in a manner they understand and connect to.

Like this;

THEY TERK YER JERBS!

http://img.youtube.com/vi/l8ZJu-f-XOE/0.jpg

Ajamil
16th July 10, 09:48 PM
But then they crowd up the emergency rooms and free clinics, and people start demanding natl. healthcare, and start expecting the top percentage of people to pay for it - the people who are "benefitting" from their presence.

And the lower waged persons are booted out of their jobs and undercut in wages by bosses paying illegals under the table. So they file for unemployment, or default on their loan, and in so many ways turn to taxes for their support - which comes primarily from the rich.

fes_fsa
16th July 10, 09:59 PM
it's easy to solve that problem. just go to the home depot and hire some illegals experienced in the medical field. hospitals won't be understaffed anymore.

think about it... 50 bucks and a case of budweiser for cardiothoracic surgery...

Ajamil
16th July 10, 10:04 PM
I'll stick with the cross-border dentistry.

SFGOON
16th July 10, 10:06 PM
First of all - most of you don't have much of an ability to read "legalese," much less interpret the constitution of the United States. A lot of the wording in the laws posted has been twisted to support the thesis of the poster, when in reality those big and seemingly ambiguous words mean very specific and concrete things in legal jargon.

For example, let me pick on fes a little. One of the laws you posted regarding language in § 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states:


Section 287(g) authorizes the Federal Government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.

There's a boldy bit there. You know what is coming.

A "Memorandum of Agreement" in lay terms, means "A letter from the President saying it's okay." Law enforcement agencies exchange them all the time, for various reasons. It could be to create a local crime suppression task force, to create an agreement to patrol a certain part of the country, or to say something simple, like "Hey, don't hire that SFGOON guy, he is an abject coward and a liar."

In other words, a local law enforcement agency has to have written permission from the INS to enforce immigration law.

With regard to pickin' up Mexicans just for looking Mexican - there's an issue here, too. The cop would have to base that arrest on his 50% suspicion that the guy is illegal. Prima facie (at a glance, instantly obvious) evidence for illegal immigration cannot be based solely off one's ethnicity. There has to be something more.

Also, there exists within the justice system something prosecutorial discretion, and it's evil twin, prosecutorial standards.

This is where a prosecutor sits down with the cops and says "Look guys, I know the law explicity states a value threshold of $500 for a felony theft. But I'm not going to prosecute it unless it's over $1000. So don't bring any thief to my jail unless he's stolen somthing worth over $1000.

Essentially, prosecutors decide what laws to enforce, when and how. As do cops, as do government executives. Laws in and of themselves state what someone can potentially be prosecuted for, not what they have to be prosecuted for. (Corresponding legalese for the italicized terms are "may" and "shall." It's all very specific and complex.)

So, even if the law stands up to constitutional scrutiny, the INS/ICE can just politely say "fuck off" to the cop with the paddy wagon full of beaners when it arrives at their back door. And they are within their right to do so. It happens all the time at a municipal level.

Ajamil
16th July 10, 10:12 PM
With regard to pickin' up Mexicans just for looking Mexican - there's an issue here, too. The cop would have to base that arrest on his 50% suspicion that the guy is illegal. Prima facie (at a glance, instantly obvious) evidence for illegal immigration cannot be based solely off one's ethnicity. There has to be something more. They gotta be poor as well...or looking nervously at the cop.

HappyOldGuy
16th July 10, 10:16 PM
My favorite is gonna be when they pick up some hopi and ask em for their proof of citizenship.

BadUglyMagic
16th July 10, 10:32 PM
Or Iroquois tourist.

SFGOON
16th July 10, 10:33 PM
Or a retard. Or a deaf/mute.

BadUglyMagic
16th July 10, 10:41 PM
.

Essentially, prosecutors decide what laws to enforce, when and how. As do cops, as do government executives. Laws in and of themselves state what someone can potentially be prosecuted for, not what they have to be prosecuted for. (Corresponding legalese for the italicized terms are "may" and "shall." It's all very specific and complex.)

So, even if the law stands up to constitutional scrutiny, the INS/ICE can just politely say "fuck off" to the cop with the paddy wagon full of beaners when it arrives at their back door. And they are within their right to do so. It happens all the time at a municipal level.


Georgia has specific laws regarding illegal aliens. Drive past most GA DOT work crews and the majority are hispanic (subcontracted by bid winners). Many of Atlanta's commerical wholesale/convention/major event facilities have majority hispanic employees or subcontractors. It is extremely rare for any of them to be arrested. Deported even rarer. Unless they committed a criminal offense.

Jim_Jude
16th July 10, 10:52 PM
About Dirty Immigrants and what constitutes "Lawful Contact"...

LINK: Arizona and "Lawful Contact" (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=)
"Brief detentions are known in the law as "Terry stops" — thanks to the famous Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, a police officer may only detain a person if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized suspicion — a cop who says to himself, "Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good," does not make the grade. Instead,the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent..."

fes_fsa
16th July 10, 10:58 PM
First of all - most of you don't have much of an ability to read "legalese," much less interpret the constitution of the United States. A lot of the wording in the laws posted has been twisted to support the thesis of the poster, when in reality those big and seemingly ambiguous words mean very specific and concrete things in legal jargon.

For example, let me pick on fes a little. One of the laws you posted regarding language in § 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states:



There's a boldy bit there. You know what is coming.

A "Memorandum of Agreement" in lay terms, means "A letter from the President saying it's okay." Law enforcement agencies exchange them all the time, for various reasons. It could be to create a local crime suppression task force, to create an agreement to patrol a certain part of the country, or to say something simple, like "Hey, don't hire that SFGOON guy, he is an abject coward and a liar."

In other words, a local law enforcement agency has to have written permission from the INS to enforce immigration law.

they do and have for YEARS. (http://www.ice.gov/partners/287g/Section287_g.htm)


With regard to pickin' up Mexicans just for looking Mexican - there's an issue here, too. The cop would have to base that arrest on his 50% suspicion that the guy is illegal. Prima facie (at a glance, instantly obvious) evidence for illegal immigration cannot be based solely off one's ethnicity. There has to be something more.

they're not picking up mexicans for looking mexican.


So, even if the law stands up to constitutional scrutiny, the INS/ICE can just politely say "fuck off" to the cop with the paddy wagon full of beaners when it arrives at their back door. And they are within their right to do so. It happens all the time at a municipal level.

so... do cops just let them go when this happens?

Spade: The Real Snake
16th July 10, 11:06 PM
My favorite is gonna be when they pick up some hopi and ask em for their proof of citizenship.
Or demand frybread


So, even if the law stands up to constitutional scrutiny, the INS/ICE can just politely say "fuck off" to the cop with the paddy wagon full of beaners when it arrives at their back door. And they are within their right to do so. It happens all the time at a municipal level.
Which they are essentially already doing now, refusing to respond to the station when notified of a non-resident alien who is charged with another crime.
This just gives us a justifiable reason to build the California Express.

SFGOON
17th July 10, 12:49 PM
they do and have for YEARS.

They do indeed, but the officers authorized to do so are specially selected and trained for four weeks via the INS academy is South Carolina. It's not just any cop who can go and take ICE enforcement action.

That function is reserved for the federal government, and delegated by it. AZ is trying to supersede that delegation, hence the lawsuit.

As per the link, 843 officers are authorized to conduct immigration enforcement nationwide, and 63 law enforcement agencies share officers with ICE task forces. Arizona has seven.


they're not picking up mexicans for looking mexican.

No, they can't do that. There's no practicable nexus I can see for finding someone who's otherwise well behaved despite working here illegally and detaining them for illegal immigration.

Point being, in light of current police procedures and case law, as the law is written it's unenforceable.


so... do cops just let them go when this happens?

Yes.

Usually they are given a citation for a court date. Basically it's the same form as a traffic ticket, just with "criminal" instead of "infraction" written across the top.

If they don't show for that, the judge issues a bench warrant for their arrest and next time LE gets them identified they're going to jail until the judge releases them.

The criminal justice system is a sieve.

HappyOldGuy
17th July 10, 03:47 PM
By the way, the stuff Goon is talking about is why if I'm wrong on the immediate federal case, this thing is gonna be in court for a decade. The federal preemption case is only one of many issues that will need to be ruled on. It's just first because most of the other challenges require an actual event for the courts to rule on.

bob
17th July 10, 03:57 PM
Why don't they just roust out every busboy in town and check out their working credentials like normal civilised societies do?

Spade: The Real Snake
17th July 10, 04:00 PM
Why don't they just roust out every busboy in town and check out their working credentials like normal civilised societies do?

Essentially they are doing just that, except they are rousting the business owners and checking employment records for the properly completed and documented I-9 forms

HappyOldGuy
17th July 10, 04:02 PM
They should require either proof that you mow your own lawn or I9's for the people you hire from every citizen in Arizona.

Same for all home improvements.

Spade: The Real Snake
17th July 10, 04:39 PM
They should require either proof that you mow your own lawn or I9's for the people you hire from every citizen in Arizona.

Same for all home improvements.

I think they should do that with the Orange sellers on the 101

Jim_Jude
17th July 10, 04:40 PM
Or demand frybread...

Dude. Frybread tacos are the bomb!

Spade: The Real Snake
17th July 10, 04:44 PM
yahtahey

Jim_Jude
17th July 10, 04:51 PM
yahtahey

Hokahey!

fes_fsa
18th July 10, 04:09 PM
They do indeed, but the officers authorized to do so are specially selected and trained for four weeks via the INS academy is South Carolina. It's not just any cop who can go and take ICE enforcement action.

That function is reserved for the federal government, and delegated by it. AZ is trying to supersede that delegation, hence the lawsuit.

it would be a problem if AZ's laws require that their police act as immigration officers. they're don't. their bill specifically states that people they suspect of being illegals are handed over to federal authorities.

how is what they're doing different from other states with immigration laws?


Yes.

Usually they are given a citation for a court date. Basically it's the same form as a traffic ticket, just with "criminal" instead of "infraction" written across the top.

If they don't show for that, the judge issues a bench warrant for their arrest and next time LE gets them identified they're going to jail until the judge releases them.

The criminal justice system is a sieve.

so... they're not really letting them go.

what was your point?

Cullion
18th July 10, 04:15 PM
Different question for both sides of this debate.

Let's ignore the existing laws for the sake of argument. What would you want Arizona police officers to do, and why ?

Imagine you each have the power to draft state and federal law, and even amend the constitution to your heart's desire. Then just explain why.

SFGOON
18th July 10, 05:13 PM
it would be a problem if AZ's laws require that their police act as immigration officers. they're don't. their bill specifically states that people they suspect of being illegals are handed over to federal authorities.

how is what they're doing different from other states with immigration laws?


so... they're not really letting them go.

what was your point?

The two points are married, in a manner of speaking. You can't force another entity, especially a federal one, to accept prisoners at the behest of Arizona officers. Particularly when the ICE itself is demonstrably uninterested in holding, processing and deporting all but the most troublesome immigrants (and have allocated their resources and budgets accordingly.)

In this manner the law is impracticable. AZ can't make the federal government abide by their laws. The law passed in AZ places an extra burden on the federal government without the authority to do so. As such, they're being sued by Washington D.C.

Cullion - honestly an expedited means for deporting illegal immigrants would be a useful tool for law enforcement to have, one more nexus to putting bad guys in custody.

The funding would have to come from the states themselves, with blanket MOAs extended to those agencies which fulfill the requirements. If the states provided their own detention facilities and paid a per-head service fee to the ICE one-way-bus-back-to-Mexico there wouldn't be a problem.

As far as deterrence goes, I'm in favor of a more robust and harder to forge ID. The system employed today is not scaled beyond ubiquitous technology. In an age where ID is essentially as good as cash, IDs should be printed to the same standards as cash, and perhaps smartcard technology should be employed.

This will deter identity theft as well as illegal immigration.

And yes, my opinion on this matter has changed greatly since my experience as a police officer. It's simply too easy to get away with lying to creditors and government officials about who you are.

Hedley LaMarr
18th July 10, 05:22 PM
Different question for both sides of this debate.

Let's ignore the existing laws for the sake of argument. What would you want Arizona police officers to do, and why ?

Imagine you each have the power to draft state and federal law, and even amend the constitution to your heart's desire. Then just explain why.
The way I figure it, the best way to solve this problem would be take over Mexico. That's unrealistic and would kind of suck, so there's only two things that would really fix illegal Mexican immigration.

1. Building one hell of a fence

and/or

2. Seriously deploying the military to the border and giving your average cop a lot more power than they already have.

Both have serious drawbacks. Number one will require an enormous use of eminent domain, and the second will require a loss of civil rights and burden citizens greatly, probably including a national ID card at the very least. As far as I'm concerned this debate really boils down to what you think are more important: property rights or civil rights.

It's going to take some of both, but I think more of number 1 will help. Forget this border patrol garbage and station a powerful military presence down there on a a real fence.

Cullion
18th July 10, 06:03 PM
Whose property rights do you think are being infringed by illegal immigration?

Hedley LaMarr
18th July 10, 06:22 PM
Whose property rights do you think are being infringed by illegal immigration?
I was referring to the rights of people who own property along the border who would have it taken away by eminent domain so that a fence could go there.

HappyOldGuy
18th July 10, 06:26 PM
Different question for both sides of this debate.

Let's ignore the existing laws for the sake of argument. What would you want Arizona police officers to do, and why ?

Imagine you each have the power to draft state and federal law, and even amend the constitution to your heart's desire. Then just explain why.
The issue isn't law enforcement going after immigrants. It's writing laws that actually are enforceable, and then enforcing them. Illegal immigration has always been a way to have an unprotected group of people who would work for sub standard wages/conditions/etc. And both the current anti-immigration and laissez faire crowds are trying to maintain that in their own ways. Many of the people bankrolling the anti immigration efforts don't actually want to get rid of the immigrants. They just want them to shut up and scrub the fucking floor. And they most especially don't want them to be able to vote.

Enforceable laws require both closing the border and recognizing that we can't logistically or economically just send the ones who are here home. Every president sice reagan has put forward essentially the same plan, but it's never been politically palatable or able to survive the special interests who thrive under the status quo.

cue fes "but illegal means the broke the law. And that makes them bad people."

Spade: The Real Snake
18th July 10, 06:38 PM
Whose property rights do you think are being infringed by illegal immigration?
here's one (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/) to start.
and he is being sued for it.
another has died (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/06/16/20100616krentz0616.html).

both on their own personal property.

Cullion
18th July 10, 06:40 PM
I was referring to the rights of people who own property along the border who would have it taken away by eminent domain so that a fence could go there.

That's not really a competition between civil rights and property rights, that's a competition between stricter anti-immigration measures and property rights.

How many US citizens own land that straddles the US/Mexican border, out of interest ?

Cullion
18th July 10, 06:42 PM
The issue isn't law enforcement going after immigrants. It's writing laws that actually are enforceable, and then enforcing them. Illegal immigration has always been a way to have an unprotected group of people who would work for sub standard wages/conditions/etc. And both the current anti-immigration and laissez faire crowds are trying to maintain that in their own ways. Many of the people bankrolling the anti immigration efforts don't actually want to get rid of the immigrants. They just want them to shut up and scrub the fucking floor. And they most especially don't want them to be able to vote.

Enforceable laws require both closing the border and recognizing that we can't logistically or economically just send the ones who are here home. Every president sice reagan has put forward essentially the same plan, but it's never been politically palatable or able to survive the special interests who thrive under the status quo.

cue fes "but illegal means the broke the law. And that makes them bad people."

Well, what laws would you write? I'm not asking about the viability of current laws.

HappyOldGuy
18th July 10, 06:49 PM
Well, what laws would you write? I'm not asking about the viability of current laws.

Aggressively police the border,
Provide a path to citizenship for people who are already here
Aggressively go after employers in all industries, and people who are still illegal after the amnesty.
Allow more people in legally, but base it on economic needs and get rid of most of the automatic immigration methods. It's fine to let family members go to the front of the line, but they still need to meet the other requirements.
probably some sort of guest worker program

Jim_Jude
18th July 10, 06:58 PM
I was referring to the rights of people who own property along the border who would have it taken away by eminent domain so that a fence could go there.

What about the AZ property owners who find their land invaded, and themselves terrorized or murdered, in their own homes, by illegals?

People around here are acting like the civil rights of law-abiding CITIZENS are less important than those of CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS. It's a fucking joke. & as for racism or profiling, it's not the fault of Law Enforcement that all the Mexican illegal aliens pouring over the border and committing crimes beyond illegal entry decide to be the same or similar color, is it?

Spade: The Real Snake
18th July 10, 07:03 PM
What about the AZ property owners who find their land invaded, and themselves terrorized or murdered, in their own homes, by illegals?

In my above post I referenced such incidents.

Jim_Jude
18th July 10, 07:03 PM
In my above post I referenced such incidents.

Well... good.

Cullion
18th July 10, 07:05 PM
How much cooperation does the US get from Mexican law enforcement?

Spade: The Real Snake
18th July 10, 07:06 PM
The SPLC even has one, a legal immigrant (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/winter/the-nativists-0?page=0,20), on their "watchlist"

Hedley LaMarr
18th July 10, 07:07 PM
What about the AZ property owners who find their land invaded, and themselves terrorized or murdered, in their own homes, by illegals? That isn't what I was referring too. While I admit that is tragic and needs to be stopped, my point was that the federal government would either need to impede upon civil or property rights to effectively deal with illegal immigration. In not making a decision it allows this terrorism and murder you speak of to take place.



That's not really a competition between civil rights and property rights, that's a competition between stricter anti-immigration measures and property rights.

How many US citizens own land that straddles the US/Mexican border, out of interest ?

I disagree. For anti-immigration measures to be effective they would have to impede upon 4th Amendment search and seizure rights. It would require an unprecedented crackdown on human trafficking. And honestly I don't think these measures would nearly be as effective as a more militarized border and an overdue increase in port security.

Spade: The Real Snake
18th July 10, 07:09 PM
How much cooperation does the US get from Mexican law enforcement?
lol

If you believe most of what is written, the Mexican Law Enforcement is in the pockets of the cartels, who are often using the illegal immigrant as a mule system and the "crackdowns" you read about are generally when Mexican LEO is used by one cartel against another.

Jim_Jude
18th July 10, 07:10 PM
How much cooperation does the US get from Mexican law enforcement?

Ha! Fucking none, from what I've heard. In fact, President Calderon himself fully admitted that we treat our illegals like saints compared to how they treat theirs. They profile and behave very racist to all of the central & south Americans who try to get to the U.S. through Mexico. They snatch up their illegals and send them right the fuck back where they came from, with none of the respect that they expect the U.S. to use with their citizens who illegally cross OUR border.
It's a fucking joke, really. Fuck what the Mexican gov't thinks, it's a big stinking double standard.

Spade: The Real Snake
18th July 10, 07:13 PM
That isn't what I was referring too. While I admit that is tragic and needs to be stopped, my point was that the federal government would either need to impede upon civil or property rights to effectively deal with illegal immigration.
You realize the small amount of land which would be seized would likely gladly be given in exchange for having this measure of security?

We aren't talking about acres and acres from each party land owner and it isn't going to be kicking people out of their homes:

http://www.blackstate.com/images/border.jpg

http://a2.vox.com/6a011018101929860e0123ddc0809a860c-320pi

HappyOldGuy
18th July 10, 07:18 PM
Everyone who thinks that these border ranchers have legal farmhands, raise your hands so I can laugh at you.

Cullion
18th July 10, 07:18 PM
I disagree. For anti-immigration measures to be effective they would have to impede upon 4th Amendment search and seizure rights. It would require an unprecedented crackdown on human trafficking. And honestly I don't think these measures would nearly be as effective as a more militarized border and an overdue increase in port security.

That's a bit of a different issue from the one I was responding too, but anti-immigration measures don't have to involve a single set of identity papers linked to a tracking database or street searches.

I don't think a militarised border sounds practical. The US has a lot of coastline a person could land on, and the Canadian border is huge.

Hedley LaMarr
18th July 10, 07:26 PM
You realize the small amount of land which would be seized would likely gladly be given in exchange for having this measure of security?

We aren't talking about acres and acres from each party land owner and it isn't going to be kicking people out of their homes:


It probably wouldn't need to be more than a 2 acre wide stretch of land for the fence, but the US Mexican border is almost 2000 miles long. That's a lot

And I agree: it would not be a huge burden for these people to give up this land (in exchange for reasonable reimbursement.) That's why it is the plan I am backing.

Cullion
18th July 10, 07:28 PM
Why not just take the acres on the Mexican side of the border and then tell the Mexican govt. to reimburse their citizens?

Ajamil
18th July 10, 07:30 PM
What about where the fence buts up right against a town? Or cuts a city in half?

Spade: The Real Snake
18th July 10, 07:38 PM
What about where the fence buts up right against a town? Or cuts a city in half?

how would a wall cut a city in half?

Hedley LaMarr
18th July 10, 07:41 PM
That's a bit of a different issue from the one I was responding too, but anti-immigration measures don't have to involve a single set of identity papers linked to a tracking database or street searches.

I don't think a militarised border sounds practical. The US has a lot of coastline a person could land on, and the Canadian border is huge. It would take a lot more than just a national ID (which really doesn't play well in the US). For example, one of the main employers or illegal immigrants are farms. For anti immigration measures to have any effect it would have to loosen up what probable cause would mean to search these farms for illegals. Even if the search turned up nothing in the way of illegal workers it would still be a great opportunity to ensure that your average family farmer is complying with OSHA requirements (which most family farmers simply cannot comply with.) The family farmer gets shut down, looses his land and it gets bought up by Dole, who exert pressure on the government to crack down on these standards so they can buy up more land. What's more is Dole will probably never get searched for illegals because they have the cash to have lawyers ensure that no one in INS would even think of trying to get a warrant to search the premise so they will continue hiring all the illegals they want.

Nevermind you can crack down all you want but without a real tangible fence down there they will just keep coming. The Law of Diminishing Returns applies to the law as well: the more and more you crack down on a crime the less each crackdown will inevitably do. It's what happening with this Drug War. We crack down and crack down more and more and all it really has caused is an uptick in the amount gangs and cartels spend on weapons and mercenary.

Regarding "coastline": note I said our ports needed an overdue increase in security measures. Our military is spread out all over the world when drugs and human traffic pours through our ports and coastlines. We need to start focusing on the US's safety and security.

And Canada? You know how many Canadians are jockeying to get into the US? There isn't a surge of Canadian immigrants trying to get in. More importantly Canada isn't a borderline 3rd world nation run by drug cartels (unless you count "Big Pharma".)

Ajamil
18th July 10, 07:47 PM
how would a wall cut a city in half?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Mexican-American_border_at_Nogales.jpg

Jim_Jude
18th July 10, 08:08 PM
that wall looks just fine. It's actually manned, so it doesn't have to be so big. outside of town, however, we should be back to this kind of thing:

http://www.un.int/palestine/israeli-wall14.jpg

If we don't cut off Mexico, how will the Mexican people be forced to clean up their own country?

OR...

Mexico is now OURS.
We will do with it what we chose. All Mexican citizens are now American citizens. They will all pay taxes, they don't get welfare or any government aid, and all able-bodied adults under 35yo will serve 4yrs in the US Army in deployable combat units.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th July 10, 10:23 AM
seems to me that town is already split in two OR a town popped up on either side of the wall

BadUglyMagic
19th July 10, 11:45 AM
Mexico is now OURS.
We will do with it what we chose. All Mexican citizens are now American citizens. They will all pay taxes, they don't get welfare or any government aid, and all able-bodied adults under 35yo will serve 4yrs in the US Army in deployable combat units.


Unfortunately, it is currently the opposite. THE US is now theirs. Many current US residents are illegal Mexican nationals who do not want to become citizens. They receive finanicial benefits, free education, free medical care and have no responsibility to the citizens of the US and in some geographic areas may outnumber US citizens.


If they had carried guns crossing the border it would be an armed occupation.

EuropIan
19th July 10, 11:50 AM
rL-kbeZenaE

BadUglyMagic
19th July 10, 11:51 AM
It probably wouldn't need to be more than a 2 acre wide stretch of land for the fence, but the US Mexican border is almost 2000 miles long. That's a lot

.


Not all of the border section is convenient for crossing. Fencing all of the border is not really necessary. And the fencing that is constructed could be used to funnel/divert illegal crossers into convenient (relatively) pickup points by the Border Patrol.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
19th July 10, 12:08 PM
The simple solution would be to annex Mexico.

BadUglyMagic
19th July 10, 01:38 PM
The simple solution would be to annex Mexico.


Not a simple solution.

Annexing Mexico would immediately include all of its peoples as citizens with all of the same rights and access to financial assistance, healthcare, and the right to vote and the right to move into your neighborhood.

That includes the drug cartels, the marxist revolutionaries, the indian separatists, etc.

Of course, they are eligible for affirmative action business programs, tuition assistance, housing loans.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th July 10, 01:51 PM
The simple solution would be to annex Mexico.
According to MEChA (http://www.nationalmecha.org/), you have it backwards

BadUglyMagic
19th July 10, 02:22 PM
MEChA is committed to ending the cultural tyranny suffered at the hands of institutional and systematic discrimination that holds our Gente captive. We seek an end to oppression and exploitation of the Chicano/Chicana community.

As Mechistas, we proclaim that we are the people of Aztlán and that we recognize our indigenous unity with our brothers and sisters of Ixachitzlan (Alaska to Tierra del Fuego). We declare that we are the descendants of El Quinto Sol.


......the basic premises for the Chicana/Chicano Movement in El Plan de Aztlán (EPA). A synopsis of El Plan stipulates:

1) We are Chicanas and Chicanos of Aztlán reclaiming the land of our birth (Chicana/Chicano Nation);

2) Aztlán belongs to indigenous people, who are sovereign and not subject to a foreign culture;

3) We are a union of free pueblos forming a bronze (Chicana/Chicano) Nation;

4) Chicano nationalism, as the key to mobilization and organization, is the common denominator to bring consensus to the Chicana/Chicano Movement;

5) Cultural values strengthen our identity as La Familia de La Raza; and 6) EPA, as a basic plan of Chicana/Chicano liberation, sought the formation of an independent national political party that would represent the sentiments of the Chicana/Chicano community.


---------------------

The above is from http://www.nationalmecha.org/philosophy.html .


Of course the best part is that there were no indigenous brown peoples, or indigenous peoples of any kind.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th July 10, 02:27 PM
Well, to be fair, they call for a bronze-skinned nation, which would include the Inuit and pretty much all "First"/Native Americans

BadUglyMagic
19th July 10, 02:37 PM
A Native American is one who was born on American soil. Not a descendant of a first waver.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th July 10, 02:39 PM
A Native American is one who was born on American soil. Not a descendant of a first waver.

Using the commonly accepted vernacular of American Indian=Indigenous Person = First American or Native American Tribesman....they will get some land in the new Bronzeskinned Nation.

My wife has already told me I can stay and be her manservant.

fes_fsa
19th July 10, 03:17 PM
The two points are married, in a manner of speaking. You can't force another entity, especially a federal one, to accept prisoners at the behest of Arizona officers. Particularly when the ICE itself is demonstrably uninterested in holding, processing and deporting all but the most troublesome immigrants (and have allocated their resources and budgets accordingly.)

In this manner the law is impracticable. AZ can't make the federal government abide by their laws. The law passed in AZ places an extra burden on the federal government without the authority to do so. As such, they're being sued by Washington D.C.

yeah... i already said

in order to prevail on this retarded, taxpayer financed, pro-illegal shitfuck, Obama will essentially have to take the position that it's not in the government's interest to enforce its own laws. that would be the only position that would support its claim that Arizona prempts federal law.
thanks for expounding my point though. we'll see what happens on the 29th.

i agree with HOG that this will be tied up in courts for years to come. good grief, sanctuary cities are being set up in my state... along with boycots for cities who have declared "rule of law".


Different question for both sides of this debate.

Let's ignore the existing laws for the sake of argument. What would you want Arizona police officers to do, and why ?

Imagine you each have the power to draft state and federal law, and even amend the constitution to your heart's desire. Then just explain why.

i would like the police to continue to do their job within their limited jurisdiction.

the 14th amendment is obsolete and forces states to recognize foreign nationals, so i'd repeal it.

then i would make statutes that offer rewards for people who obey the law.

amnesty shall be granted automatically to people who have entered the country legally and have overstayed. you have to have lived in the US for a minimum of 5 years to a maximum of 15 years, depending on your state's immigration laws. you can't apply for amnesty if you have any aggravated felonies, misdemeanors, or have commited any crimes of moral turpitude--your face will be matched up to a national criminal database for proof of lawful conduct and time stamps on an expired visa or green card will provide proof of residency.

to expedite the naturalization process, business owners will be able to employ legal aliens under corporate sponsorship. i mean ANY business--from small family run businesses to major franchises. you just apply for a job in america and if you're accepted, the business will pay for your workers' visa. you will then get sponsorship for your stay here--this means that your paperwork (visas, employment based green cards, work permits, social security cards, and the naturalization itself) will be paid for by the company. you have to agree to work for as long as the naturalization process takes. if you quit or are fired, you will be deported and you can be sued for the cost of any documents the company paid for. if, however, you're laid off due to unfortunate circumstances within the company, you can still stay in the country, but you have find another job.

Cullion
19th July 10, 03:22 PM
How long would you give people after being laid off to find another job before deportation ?

fes_fsa
19th July 10, 03:57 PM
if they continue to renew their visas or green cards, they wouldn't have to. but they'd have to pay for all their paperwork themselves if they don't find another job.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th July 10, 03:59 PM
I would say each state should have their own determination based on that area's current unemployment rate, the job the documented guest worker was employed in and the issuance of a Prevailing Wage Statement, to determine they weren't being hired below fair market value for that job to cut out a US worker.

BadUglyMagic
19th July 10, 04:22 PM
I would say each state should have their own determination based on that area's current unemployment rate, the job the documented guest worker was employed in and the issuance of a Prevailing Wage Statement, to determine they weren't being hired below fair market value for that job to cut out a US worker.


Employer demand doesn't work that way.

Employers would generally hire people (for any given job class) at a rate equal the minimum rate of a "cardholding worker."

If the citizen Taniqua will for for $11.50 per hour but John Paul the cardholder will work for $7.50, the effective local wage will eventually migrate down to $7.50. The problem with a "Prevailing Wage Statement" is that the prevailing wage will eventually migrate down to the lowest amount anyone in the locality is willing to work for. Once in the US and "legal" the cardholder will be able to go anywhere.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th July 10, 04:40 PM
Employer demand doesn't work that way.
with hiring documented foreign labor, it does.



Employers would generally hire people (for any given job class) at a rate equal the minimum rate of a "cardholding worker."
No, there are acceptable parameters which each state holds for hiring documented foreign labor.


The problem with a "Prevailing Wage Statement" is that the prevailing wage will eventually migrate down to the lowest amount anyone in the locality is willing to work for. Once in the US and "legal" the cardholder will be able to go anywhere.
I deleted the fictional anecdotal story.

Not if there is proper parameters and there is local labor pool from which to draw. The state, based on their own unique and individual criteria will create these parameters.

Prevailing Wage is used to bring into the US, a foreign worker, to ensure they aren't being paid below prevailing market value, within that states acceptable parameters. The problem is if supply is in far excess of demand, there is no need for foreign labor and they should return from whence they came, as local labor should be given preferential hiring treatment.

If that foreign worker loses that specific job, they should be required to file another Prevailing Wage Statement for the new job. If local labor supply is sufficient, then obviously they are not needed in the labor pool any longer and should return from whence they came. Unless they can find employment in another state that needs their unique talents.


There are exceptions to this need for a Prevailing Wage Statement within the entertainment industry, medical professionals...and two other classes of worker which escapes me now, it might be sports, I don't remember.

Jim_Jude
19th July 10, 05:54 PM
Unfortunately, it is currently the opposite. THE US is now theirs. Many current US residents are illegal Mexican nationals who do not want to become citizens. They receive finanicial benefits, free education, free medical care and have no responsibility to the citizens of the US and in some geographic areas may outnumber US citizens.


If they had carried guns crossing the border it would be an armed occupation.

Uh... that's why I proposed the complete opposite.

HappyOldGuy
19th July 10, 08:37 PM
Unfortunately, it is currently the opposite. THE US is now theirs. Many current US residents are illegal Mexican nationals who do not want to become citizens. They receive finanicial benefits, free education, free medical care and have no responsibility to the citizens of the US and in some geographic areas may outnumber US citizens.


If they had carried guns crossing the border it would be an armed occupation.

I bolded the bits where you are full of shit.

http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2008/01/post_80.html

http://www.workingimmigrants.com/2006/04/illegal_immigrants_want_to_sta.html

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/illegal-immigrants-paying-taxes-621300.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm

They are actually entitled to a free education through high school.

fes_fsa
19th July 10, 08:45 PM
I would say each state should have their own determination based on that area's current unemployment rate, the job the documented guest worker was employed in and the issuance of a Prevailing Wage Statement, to determine they weren't being hired below fair market value for that job to cut out a US worker.

that's already part of hiring somebody with an employment based green card, but i'm glad you brought that up.

the argument that illegal immigrants make up an important part of the economy, because they do jobs that nobody else will do... is just another way of saying that they're okay with exploiting cheap labor. it's one of the most morally bankrupt pro-illegal arguments that could be made.

they're either racist or too stupid to understand that it's fucking racist and degrading to pay hard working immigrants shit wages.

BadUglyMagic
19th July 10, 09:53 PM
with hiring documented foreign labor, it does.



No, there are acceptable parameters which each state holds for hiring documented foreign labor.


I deleted the fictional anecdotal story.

Not if there is proper parameters and there is local labor pool from which to draw. The state, based on their own unique and individual criteria will create these parameters.

Prevailing Wage is used to bring into the US, a foreign worker, to ensure they aren't being paid below prevailing market value, within that states acceptable parameters. The problem is if supply is in far excess of demand, there is no need for foreign labor and they should return from whence they came, as local labor should be given preferential hiring treatment.

If that foreign worker loses that specific job, they should be required to file another Prevailing Wage Statement for the new job. If local labor supply is sufficient, then obviously they are not needed in the labor pool any longer and should return from whence they came. Unless they can find employment in another state that needs their unique talents.


There are exceptions to this need for a Prevailing Wage Statement within the entertainment industry, medical professionals...and two other classes of worker which escapes me now, it might be sports, I don't remember.




I understand many organizations feel gun control laws work too.

Agian, wages will fall to the minimum. It will be higher with lower unemployment and lower with higher unemployment rates.

Sarcasm aside, can you post a copy of a "Prevailing Wage Statement"?

I follow your logic, which/what state(nation) successfully employs this model/practice now?

BadUglyMagic
19th July 10, 10:01 PM
I bolded the bits where you are full of shit.

http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2008/01/post_80.html

http://www.workingimmigrants.com/2006/04/illegal_immigrants_want_to_sta.html

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/illegal-immigrants-paying-taxes-621300.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm

They are actually entitled to a free education through high school.



HOG,

Full of shit? I am fairly regular. It is nice to know you care.


How about you do a summary of each point you want to rebut and then post the link. Otherwise you are only proving how to post a link that may or may not have any relevance.

Refute anything in the post. However, please make refute only those statements I actually made. I did not make any comments about not paying taxes as one of the links appears to suggest.

HappyOldGuy
19th July 10, 10:25 PM
HOG,

Full of shit? I am fairly regular. It is nice to know you care.


How about you do a summary of each point you want to rebut and then post the link. Otherwise you are only proving how to post a link that may or may not have any relevance.

Refute anything in the post. However, please make refute only those statements I actually made. I did not make any comments about not paying taxes as one of the links appears to suggest.
Paying taxes is not a responsibility? It's not the antithesis of free? I posted links refuting everything you said. They showed that the vast majority of illegal immigrants would become citizens if they could. That they don't receive financial benefits, etc.

BadUglyMagic
19th July 10, 10:36 PM
Uh... that's why I proposed the complete opposite.


Just posting the flip side. Not meant as detraction.

Doesn't "All Mexican citizens are now American citizens" mean that if they wanted to move north of the former border, they could.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th July 10, 10:45 PM
Sarcasm aside, can you post a copy of a "Prevailing Wage Statement"?

When I go back to work on Wednesday, I will see if I can find one and blot out the particular personal info.

I know there is one in my resumes received file as I was in the process of trying to hire a Canadian citizen who was fully licensed and credentialed in my state in the field in which I work.

I had to get a Prevailing Wage Statement from the Az. Dept. of Labor showing I wasn't knowingly paying him well under the Department's range of salary for this field.

It was determined that there were sufficient labor pool from which I could hire, so they didn't even give permission for me to pursue seeking a work visa for the man.

BadUglyMagic
19th July 10, 10:46 PM
Paying taxes is not a responsibility? It's not the antithesis of free? I posted links refuting everything you said. They showed that the vast majority of illegal immigrants would become citizens if they could.

That they don't receive financial benefits, etc.


Again,

Please show where I wrote they do not pay taxes.

Yes, you posted links. Not statements refuting the comments with links to information supporting those statements.

Education is not free. And property taxes do not pay for all of public school education. At least not here.

Would the vast majority would become citizens to stay here to work and send money home or to become citizens. Major difference.

BadUglyMagic
19th July 10, 10:55 PM
When I go back to work on Wednesday, I will see if I can find one and blot out the particular personal info.

I know there is one in my resumes received file as I was in the process of trying to hire a Canadian citizen who was fully licensed and credentialed in my state in the field in which I work.

.


Sorry S,

Brain fart on my part. For those wanting to know here is the Dept of Labor link with much of the details for foreign workers. Yes, with visas.

http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/wages.cfm Form ETA 9141 is the prevailing wage determination apllication form.

For me, the answer to know is for the question: How do compliance?

HappyOldGuy
19th July 10, 11:01 PM
Again,

Please show where I wrote they do not pay taxes.

Yes, you posted links. Not statements refuting the comments with links to information supporting those statements.
The links are all short, on point, and each one directly refutes a claim you made. I'm not your mommy to cut your food up. You've been lead to water. Only you can decide which end of the horse you want to be.

okay, given that you made the mecha argument that's rhetorical, but it's still your decision.

BadUglyMagic
19th July 10, 11:41 PM
The links are all short, on point, and each one directly refutes a claim you made. I'm not your mommy to cut your food up. You've been lead to water. Only you can decide which end of the horse you want to be.

okay, given that you made the mecha argument that's rhetorical, but it's still your decision.


Bless your little heart!

Read the pages linked to. Please explain how they address or refute any comment made.

Edited for length.


First link: January 25, 2008
Illegal immigrants on welfare: fact or fiction?
Illegal immigrants swarm into our country and quickly jump on the welfare rolls. They cost hard-working U.S. citizens billions and billions of dollars in taxes because of this subsidy.


Second link: (IS A BLOG) Illegal immigrants want to stay, become U.S. citizens
In an earlier posting, I reported that the National Immigration Forum surveyed several hundred Spanish speaking undocumented workers in late 2005, and released the results at the end of March. That posting mainly addressed their use of documentation for work. This posting addresses preparation and desire to become American citizens. In short, the vast majority does wish to stay here and become citizens. A large minority of them is here with their spouses and/or children.
The results:

Survey information: Survey was conducted in Miami, Los Angeles and Chicago; Country of birth: 60% Mexican, the most divided evenly between Central and South America, with a small number of Dominicans; Duration in U.S. less than a year: 3%; 1 – 5 year, 42%; 6- 10 years, 34%; over 10 years, 21%; 74% never go back to home country. 75% work full time.

(Here is the survey of several hundred "undocumented" workers)


With whom do you live?
With spouse 41%
With children 27%
Alone 30%

How do you speak English?
Very well 3%
Well 20%
Not so well 41%
Not at all 36%

Do you want to learn English? 98% yes

Where do you wish to live for the rest of your life?
In the U.S. 81%
In home country 19%

If you could become a legal citizen would you? 90% yes

If your could legalize your status, would you? 98% yes

Thrid and Fourth links deal with taxation. For the third time, where did I mention taxation?

So, none of your links provide refutation. They do seem to show that the authors have a familiarity with bias.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th July 10, 11:46 PM
For me, the answer to know is for the question: How do compliance?
Oddly enough, the answer given to me by an INS employee (in 2003) was:

you would have an easier time getting Visas for 100 Mexicans than 1 Canadian

HappyOldGuy
20th July 10, 12:26 AM
First link: January 25, 2008
Illegal immigrants on welfare: fact or fiction?
Illegal immigrants swarm into our country and quickly jump on the welfare rolls. They cost hard-working U.S. citizens billions and billions of dollars in taxes because of this subsidy.


Wow, that was genius how you said that the article says exactly the opposite of what it actually does. I don't know how anyone will know the truth. It's not like they have a link to click or anything. Or actually three since the third and fourth link also address cash benefits.

Jim_Jude
20th July 10, 12:26 AM
Just posting the flip side. Not meant as detraction.

Doesn't "All Mexican citizens are now American citizens" mean that if they wanted to move north of the former border, they could.

I'd rather that they treat Mexico like PR or Guam, but it'll probably be like you said. However, if they do move up to the US, they MUST pay at least state taxes where they end up and set up residence.
(I'm not a big fan of federal income tax...)

Spade: The Real Snake
20th July 10, 09:25 AM
I'd rather that they treat Mexico like PR or Guam, but it'll probably be like you said. However, if they do move up to the US, they MUST pay at least state taxes where they end up and set up residence.
(I'm not a big fan of federal income tax...)

Well....here's the quandary.

You have all these *fine folk* stating, "WELL, technically they already DO pay taxes *snivel snivel* cuz they are paying sales taxes and stuff and they aren't getting all the services their taxes pay for"

But they aren't paying the full rainbow of the taxes the rest of the citizenry are paying but still get the coverage of essentially most every service that doesn't put their being deported in play

BadUglyMagic
20th July 10, 09:29 AM
Wow, that was genius how you said that the article says exactly the opposite of what it actually does. I don't know how anyone will know the truth. It's not like they have a link to click or anything. Or actually three since the third and fourth link also address cash benefits.


The point is that it is regarding welfare. Welfare was not part of my comments. However, since you want to address tha, below is more of the page with links. Except 1. and it is included for continuity.

These are from your cited materials, the first linked page. So if you have issues with them, its on you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell that to the room full of illegals at the government medical office near Harrisburg/Wayside. Go in there and just sit and look and listen. No one speaks English. I've been in there, and have tried talking to those waiting and they will freely admit they are not here legally.

This is a government aid office for children of illegal immigrants for medical and across the street is the office for receiving food stamps/free food for children.
Really?

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http:

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html)

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html)

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html)

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)



8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html (http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html)



9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)



10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html)



11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht (http://tinyurl.com/t9sht) ">http://tinyurl.com/t9sht>

12. The National Policy Institute "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf (http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf)

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm (http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm)

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ". http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml (http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml)

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR

Hedley LaMarr
20th July 10, 03:24 PM
The point is that it is regarding welfare. Welfare was not part of my comments. However, since you want to address tha, below is more of the page with links. Except 1. and it is included for continuity.

These are from your cited materials, the first linked page. So if you have issues with them, its on you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell that to the room full of illegals at the government medical office near Harrisburg/Wayside. Go in there and just sit and look and listen. No one speaks English. I've been in there, and have tried talking to those waiting and they will freely admit they are not here legally.

This is a government aid office for children of illegal immigrants for medical and across the street is the office for receiving food stamps/free food for children.
Really?

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http:

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html)

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html)

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html)

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)



8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html (http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html)



9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)



10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html)



11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht (http://tinyurl.com/t9sht) ">http://tinyurl.com/t9sht>

12. The National Policy Institute "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."

http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf (http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf)

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm (http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm)

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ". http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml (http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml)

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR Did you just add up all those numbers to get 338.3 Billion? If not please provide a source for that number.

If it is the former, I am almost certain 1, 2, 3 and 8 greatly overlap (if 8 does not completely include 1,2,3). In fact, I did some digging on #8. That source is Lou Dobbs and the person who made that quote was from the Heritage Foundation. Here's the quote:



ROBERT RECTOR, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, assuming that we have about 11 million immigrants in the U.S., the net cost or the total cost of services and benefits provided to them, education, welfare, general social services would be about $90 billion a year, and they would pay very little in taxes. It's important to remember that at least half of illegal immigrants are high school dropouts.
If you want to go with #8 you invalidate ALL the other sources you provided, save for incarceration, which would add another billion or so, and the "suppression of wages", which would be a difficult thing to accurately measure.

EDIT: I just read the other transcript you provided (how much of your information did you get from Lou Dobbs?)

Here's the quote I believe:


DOBBS: That economy, we know the estimates by the most authoritative and recent study put the suppressed wages at $200 billion a year, as a result of immigration, both legal and illegal. We know that the costs, the estimated costs run about $50 billion for services, and I can't tell you, Mr. Chairman, how many people have said to me, typically, open borders activists, in support of illegal aliens, but we provide $7 billion in Social Security taxes every year, as if that is some sort of reasonable offse
Dobbs doesn't cite his source for this. I should also note that he said "both legal AND illegal."

BadUglyMagic
20th July 10, 05:13 PM
Did you just add up all those numbers to get 338.3 Billion? If not please provide a source for that number.

."


They are from HoGs citations. I copied the content from a link to show how they were not related to any comments made by me.

The below is at the top of the post you quoted.

Originally Posted by BadUglyMagic
The point is that it is regarding welfare. Welfare was not part of my comments. However, since you want to address tha, below is more of the page with links. Except 1. and it is included for continuity.

These are from your cited materials, the first linked page. So if you have issues with them, its on you.


Links are on post 185.

HappyOldGuy
20th July 10, 07:41 PM
I love it how the claim is always "I'm only against them because they are here illegaly" but once you push a bit they start spouting off about miscited statistics for benefits that are only given to the legal citizen children.

That's why you always watch for the phrase "households headed by." It's how they hide that fact. Again, illegal immigrants are not entitled to cash benefits. Period.

Spade: The Real Snake
20th July 10, 08:02 PM
I Again, illegal immigrants are not entitled to cash benefits. Period.
"entitled to receive" isn't the same as "actually receive"

Jim_Jude
20th July 10, 08:04 PM
"entitled to receive" isn't the same as "actually receive"

:guyfawkes: Oh! Touche! :guyfawkes:

HappyOldGuy
20th July 10, 10:02 PM
"entitled to receive" isn't the same as "actually receive"
Yeah, it actually is. There is some state leeway, but since welfare reform killed AFDC, cash is pretty much off the table. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that Az doesn't give them more than is federally required.

The parents of course can eat the powdered milk and peanut butter from the food stamp store.

Ajamil
20th July 10, 10:04 PM
Don't be knocking powdered milk and peanut butter.

Zendetta
20th July 10, 10:34 PM
I love it how the claim is always "I'm only against them because they are here illegaly" but once you push a bit they start spouting off about miscited statistics for benefits that are only given to the legal citizen children.

Are you implying that the real reason is the Racism?

:ohyea7qh:


Yo dood. The bazillions of totally legal american citizen children of illegal immigrants wouldn't be here if it weren't for their illegal parents.

This represents a pretty big - although totally legal - burden to the social welfare system. Doubly so for the 'under privileged' ones. (lol?)

An expensive, totally legal burden that wouldn't be present without all those "undocumented" having come here.

HappyOldGuy
20th July 10, 10:39 PM
Are you implying that the real reason is the Racism?

:ohyea7qh:
No, I'm implying that many racists (really xenophobes) are hiding their chickenshit little asses behind "it's just the law breaking."

I've said about umpteen billion times that there are real economic issues and that we need to take control of our borders, but I am totally unwilling to discuss the issue with anyone who won't admit that these folks were invited and bussed in with open arms for decades and it's pretty fucking cheap to expect them to care about laws that we weren't interested in following.

Spade: The Real Snake
21st July 10, 10:24 AM
Yeah, it actually is. There is some state leeway, but since welfare reform killed AFDC, cash is pretty much off the table. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that Az doesn't give them more than is federally required.

The parents of course can eat the powdered milk and peanut butter from the food stamp store.
Do I need to find that story of the Arizona border town of less then 4000 that has over 8000 PO Boxes where Mexican citizens receive their welfare and food stamps?

As for the second commemnt:


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/02/06/20090206foodstamps0206.html

BadUglyMagic
21st July 10, 12:38 PM
Do I need to find that story of the Arizona border town of less then 4000 that has over 8000 PO Boxes where Mexican citizens receive their welfare and food stamps?





Please

Spade: The Real Snake
21st July 10, 12:43 PM
http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1540133&postcount=34

here is the posting I made a few months back with a link to the story.

BadUglyMagic
21st July 10, 01:07 PM
http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1540133&postcount=34

here is the posting I made a few months back with a link to the story.


Thanks.


HoG, Any refutations to what STIFFI posted?

Spade: The Real Snake
21st July 10, 01:32 PM
Happy 17th Anniversary Sheriff Joe! (http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/sheriff-joe-celebrates-17th-anniversary-of-tent-city-07212010)

Jim_Jude
21st July 10, 03:52 PM
No, I'm implying that many racists (really xenophobes) are hiding their chickenshit little asses behind "it's just the law breaking."
Do you know what "xenophobia" actually is? Do you think that Hispanic/Latino people (and their culture) are so unfamiliar and alien to people in the US? I mean, REALLY?
Or are you just talking shit?

Cullion
21st July 10, 04:21 PM
I think it's important to draw a distinction between illegal immigrants and the well-heeled people who've made mass-immigration work (or fail to work) the way it does.

The annoyance ought to be focussed on bribed lobbied well-heeled law makers and the small minority of crank activists who actually hate your culture, rather than those ordinary people looking for a wage.

If you look at HOGs posts in other threads, he's actually well aware that what's going on is about pitting one working class against another. I think he mostly objects to too much invective aimed at people who don't have a lot of power in the situation, and if so, I think his instincts are right in this regard.

HappyOldGuy
21st July 10, 08:07 PM
Thanks.


HoG, Any refutations to what STIFFI posted?
Other than it's 15 years old and therefore about 3 versions of welfare back?

Check the date on the story.

Spade: The Real Snake
22nd July 10, 10:15 AM
Other than it's 15 years old and therefore about 3 versions of welfare back?

Check the date on the story.
and the Food Stamp Story from last year?

HappyOldGuy
22nd July 10, 08:39 PM
and the Food Stamp Story from last year?

I never disputed it. Illegal alien parents can eat the peanut butter and powdered milk that is given to their citizen children. I've also never disputed that illegal aliens can have negative fiscal effects on local governments.

BadUglyMagic
29th July 10, 08:28 AM
Found this in the comments sction of an article on yahoo:



Dear President Obama,

I am planning to move my family to Mexico and I will need your assistance. We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements....

We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:

1. Free medical care for my entire family.

2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.

3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.

4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.

5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.

6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.

7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.

8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.

9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico but I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.

10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.

11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put U. S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.

12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.

13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.

14. I want to receive free food stamps.

15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.

16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.

17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Government pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car.

18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.

I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.

Thank you so much for your kind help.

Regards,
Your name.

nihilist
29th July 10, 08:53 AM
Dear Obama, Please fine people who hire illegal aliens which is why they come here in the first place.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
29th July 10, 10:54 AM
Not a simple solution.

Annexing Mexico would immediately include all of its peoples as citizens with all of the same rights and access to financial assistance, healthcare, and the right to vote and the right to move into your neighborhood.

That includes the drug cartels, the marxist revolutionaries, the indian separatists, etc.

Of course, they are eligible for affirmative action business programs, tuition assistance, housing loans.

Legalise the drug cartels and collect tax......lots of tax....yumm yumm tax....a cocaine tax!!

Spade: The Real Snake
29th July 10, 12:17 PM
Dear Obama, Please fine people who hire illegal aliens which is why they come here in the first place.
Dear President Obama:

Please shoot illegal alieans who use fake or stolen identities to get jobs because they are double criminals.

fes_fsa
29th July 10, 05:55 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law


By JACQUES BILLEAUD and AMANDA LEE MYERS, Associated Press Writers Jacques Billeaud And Amanda Lee Myers, Associated Press Writers – Wed Jul 28, 7:34 pm ET
PHOENIX – A federal judge stepped into the fight over Arizona's immigration law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_immigration#) at the last minute Wednesday, blocking the heart of the measure and defusing a confrontation between police and thousands of activists that had been building for months.
Coming just hours before the law was to take effect, the ruling isn't the end.
It sets up a lengthy legal battle that could end up before the Supreme Court — ensuring that a law that reignited the immigration debate, inspired similar measures nationwide, created fodder for political campaigns and raised tensions with Mexico will stay in the spotlight.
Protesters who gathered at the state Capitol and outside the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City cheered when they heard the news. The governor, the law's authors and anti-illegal immigration groups vowed to fight on.
"It's a temporary bump in the road," Gov. Jan Brewer said.
The key issue before U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_immigration#) in the case is as old as the nation itself: Does federal law trump state law? She indicated in her ruling that the federal government's case has a good chance at succeeding.
The Clinton appointee said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues, including parts that required officers to check a person's immigration status (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_immigration#) while enforcing other laws.
In her temporary injunction, Boltondelayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers.
The judge also blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants for crimes (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_immigration#) that can lead to deportation.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton wrote.
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters, many of whom said they would not bring identification, were planning large demonstrations against the measure.
At least one group had planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Gisela Diaz, 50, from Mexico City, who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989 and who waited with her family early Wednesday at the Mexican Consulate to get advice about the law.
"It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us," she said.
At a Home Depot in west Phoenix, where day-laborers gather to look for work, Carlos Gutierrez said he was elated when a stranger drove by and yelled the news: "They threw out the law! You guys can work!"
"I felt good inside" said the 32-year-old illegal immigrant, who came here six years ago from Sonora, Mexico, and supports his wife and three children. "Now there's a way to stay here with less problems."
Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer asked for Wednesday's injunction.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes, such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.
They said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from a broken immigration system when it has 15,000 officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
In her ruling, Bolton said the interests of Arizona, the busiest U.S. gateway for illegal immigrants, match those of the federal government. But, she wrote, that the federal government must take the lead on deciding how to enforce immigration laws.
The core of the government's case is that federal immigration law trumps state law — an issue known as "pre-emption" in legal circles. In her ruling, Bolton pointed out five portions of the law where she believed the federal government would likely succeed on its claims.
Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system, but added that a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Federal authorities have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate foreign relations. They said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries.
About 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when they learned of Bolton's ruling. They had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer.
"Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!" they chanted.
Mexico's Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinoza called the ruling "a first step in the right direction" and said staff at the five Mexican consulates in Arizona will work extra hours in coming weeks to educate migrants about the law.
"None of this is very surprising," said Kevin R. Johnson, an immigration expert and the law school dean at University of California at Davis. "This is all very much within the constitutional mainstream."
The federal government has exclusive powers over immigration to ensure a uniform national policy that aids in commerce and relations with other countries, Johnson said.
A century ago, differing policies among states led to problems that prompted the federal government to adopt a comprehensive immigration policy for the country, Johnson said.
Supporters took solace that the judge kept portions of the law intact, including a section that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_immigration#). Those jurisdictions are commonly known as "sanctuary cities."
"Striking down these sanctuary city policies has always been the No. 1 priority," said Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, the law's chief author.
The remaining provisions, many of them revisions to an Arizona immigration statute (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_immigration#), will take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The state can appeal Bolton's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Whatever way that court rules, Bolton will eventually hold a trial and issue a final ruling.
Wednesday's decision was seen as a defeat for Brewer, who is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives.
Her opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, pounced.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," the Democrat said. "It is time to look beyond election-year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Some residents in Phoenix agreed.
"A lot of people don't understand the connection between, 'Yes, we have a problem with illegal immigration' and 'We need immigration reform,' which is not just asking people for their papers," said Kimber Lanning, a 43-year-old Phoenix music store owner.
"It was never a solution to begin with."
___
Associated Press writers Bob Christie, Paul Davenport and Michelle Price in Phoenix, Felicia Fonseca in Flagstaff, Ariz., and Olga R. Rodriguez in Mexico City contributed to this report.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_immigration)

it's over. :(

the key provision which would've allowed AZ law enforcement while in their enforcement of their duties to detain and investigate on reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration and then arrest on probable cause of illegal immigration was the key to every other provision of SB 1070. if officers can't perform this provision... then the others are rendered moot.

with this, the Federal Government has successfully imposed its will on the state of AZ... and in effect... has told the state that they have no legal right to protect themselves from the invasion of foreign nationals transiting and occupying the state.

my prediction is... that as this decision reverberates through Mexico and Central America, the message will become clear: AMNESTY IN AMERICA IS COMING--GET IN NOW!!!! there will be a mad dash to get into the country and south west border states are about to be overwhelmed with illegal alien traffic, competing alien and drug smuggling cartels and the violence that accompanies them....

.... and neither AZ or ANY OTHER STATE can do a god damned thing about it.

you were right, HOG. i was wrong.

after getting over the feeling that i'm a fucktard for obeying the law after all these years... i'm gonna house a few FOB relatives in my house. maybe get them a job at a salon, or have them sell drugs... and live on the government dole as their visas expire. then i'll get them amnesty. i mean... fuck it. why sponsor a child when you can just drag its little ass here and BOOM it's a citizen!

afterall... US Citizenship has now been reduced to irrelevance...

and if you're like me... and emigrated here legally... you're a patsy.

SFGOON
29th July 10, 07:15 PM
Aww, you're not a patsy, you're a sucker.

You should have done it for free.

We've had a shortage of people willing to work for minimum wage at hazardous jobs. This will remedy the situation quite neatly.

nihilist
29th July 10, 07:45 PM
It's not that they do 'jobs no one else wants to do', it's that the rich can pay them less than minimum wage while they sponge off social programs paid for by the working poor.

fes_fsa
29th July 10, 07:54 PM
that's already part of hiring somebody with an employment based green card, but i'm glad you brought that up.

the argument that illegal immigrants make up an important part of the economy, because they do jobs that nobody else will do... is just another way of saying that they're okay with exploiting cheap labor. it's one of the most morally bankrupt pro-illegal arguments that could be made.

they're either racist or too stupid to understand that it's fucking racist and degrading to pay hard working immigrants shit wages.

SFGOON
29th July 10, 08:05 PM
It's not racist, not exploiting, it's just the market.

Really, which is more racist; accepting offers of inexpensive labor, or rigging the system so they can't offer it in the first place?

BadUglyMagic
29th July 10, 08:08 PM
It is not really over. The state can still check legal status after an arrest.

Georgia has a number of counties in the 287(g) and a quote from one is "it is still business as usual".

Correcting the problems allowing them to be here is equally important as getting them out.

Ajamil
29th July 10, 08:11 PM
I'm sorry to make matters worse for you, fes, but no one I've talked to or casually overheard here in Pa seems to understand at all. I got to hear my manager flat out say that he doesn't check the SS# or proof of citizenship for his employees, the lady bartender leaping over logical cliffs to associate immigration papers with stars sewn onto clothing, the phrase "these people just want to work" buzzing in the air like gnats in a swamp, and almost across the board having people not understand what the legal battle is about at all.

I don't understand it. My manager is a 1st generation US citizen. His parents worked hard to be naturalized and get him an education and an opportunity, and now he seems to think all illegal immigrants are the same way and shouldn't be "harassed in this way."

Of course, he somehow turns around and says he doesn't like the idea of people using govt. services without paying taxes...

nihilist
29th July 10, 08:11 PM
People can be cheap bastards without necessarily having a racist agenda. In that case it's more 'classicism' or just plain apathy to any type of human struggle that does not directly affect them or their kin.

fes_fsa
29th July 10, 08:12 PM
It's not racist, not exploiting, it's just the market.

Really, which is more racist; accepting offers of inexpensive labor, or rigging the system so they can't offer it in the first place?

by accepting "inexpensive labor", you're denying them a fair wage.

and you sure don't see white people working for under minimum wage, now do you?

SFGOON
29th July 10, 08:12 PM
Yup. And that's the real kicker. If it weren't so easy to get away with smuggling labor into the US, it wouldn't happen. That's the one thing the government could do to solve the problem almost overnight if they wanted; audit business and levy tax penalties upon those found to be using undocumented labor.

And yet, they don't. Why is this? I wonder. What is stopping politicians from doing this easy, easy thing?

nihilist
29th July 10, 08:13 PM
And what GOON said.

SFGOON
29th July 10, 08:13 PM
by accepting "inexpensive labor", you're denying them a fair wage.

and you sure don't see white people working for under minimum wage, now do you?

White people are too entitled to settle for anything but union wages unless they're on work release.

Who defines what "fair" is?

nihilist
29th July 10, 08:16 PM
A 'fair' wage would be the prevailing one minus the burden they incur on legal citizens.

BadUglyMagic
29th July 10, 08:16 PM
From an article on Judge Bolton - Yahoo

Details of ruling in immigration law challenge

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked the most controversial portions of Arizona's new law from taking effect on Thursday.

Here are the portions that Bolton put on hold:

• A requirement that police, while enforcing other laws, question people's]immigration important status if officers have reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

• A requirement that authorities verify the status of all arrested people before their release from jail.

• A requirement that immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers.

• A ban on illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places.

• A provision that allows for warrantless arrests when people commit crimes that can result in their deportation.

Here are the portions that take effect Thursday:


• A prohibition on state and local government agencies from restricting the enforcement of federal immigration law (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration_ruling#). Any Arizonan can file a lawsuit to challenge agencies that have a policy of restricting such enforcement.

• A ban on state and local agencies from restricting the sharing of information on people's immigration status for determining eligibility of a public benefit, verifying a claim of residence and determining whether an immigrant has complied with federal registration laws.

• A new addition to Arizona's (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration_ruling#) nearly 5-year-old ban on immigrant smuggling that lets officers pull over drivers if officers have reasonable suspicion they have broken traffic laws.

• A ban on blocking traffic when people seek or offer day-labor services on streets.

• A prohibition on driving or harboring illegal immigrants in furtherance of their illegal presence. It also requires impoundment of vehicles when the driver is furthering the illegal presence of an illegal immigrant.

• Two additions to a 2007 state law prohibiting employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Although one change established an entrapment defense for employers accused of knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, it opens up the door for police to use stings to catch violators. The other change requires employers to retain records of employment eligibility checks that state law already requires of new hires.

• The creation of a new state fund for the state police's immigrant squad and for reimbursing county jails for the costs of incarcerating illegal immigrants

fes_fsa
29th July 10, 08:19 PM
White people are too entitled to settle for anything but union wages unless they're on work release.

Who defines what "fair" is?

don't start philosophising on what fairness is. we have minimum wage so that you don't have to do that. but many immigrants don't even make that, because they're illegal.

IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THEM BEING HERE, THEN PAY THEM FAIRLY.

HappyOldGuy
29th July 10, 08:20 PM
relevant to the Goon/Moleculo discussion

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/29/MNPJ1ELBTP.DTL

Ajamil
29th July 10, 08:28 PM
I've known white people who worked under the table for less than minimum wage. I did it while doing house painting. Also servers rarely make more than $3-$4/hour outside of tips. While I was working for tips I completely ignored my hourly wage - it was shit money, and when my tips were so low that my claimed daily amount was too low (as in the company would have had to pay me more to raise my wage to the minimum) I was basically told to lie about how much I was making or get fired.


A ban on blocking traffic when people seek or offer day-labor services on streets.

• A prohibition on driving or harboring illegal immigrants in furtherance of their illegal presence. It also requires impoundment of vehicles when the driver is furthering the illegal presence of an illegal immigrant.
So the cops can sit on the corner across from the day workers and the moment a vehicle stops for them they hit the lights, arrest the dude, and impound his car? Harsh.

nihilist
29th July 10, 08:28 PM
IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THEM BEING HERE, THEN PAY THEM FAIRLY.
The ppl who are a-ok with illegal immigrants are the same greedy bastards who use their obscene amounts of wealth to keep the poor and powerless poor and powerless.

Good luck with your Scrooge makeover.

SFGOON
29th July 10, 09:03 PM
don't start philosophising on what fairness is. we have minimum wage so that you don't have to do that. but many immigrants don't even make that, because they're illegal.

IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THEM BEING HERE, THEN PAY THEM FAIRLY.

I, personally, don't hire Mexicans. I'm not much of a farmer. Hell, I don't even have a veggie garden.

And if they'd demand it, they'd get the wages you want them to. They don't.

If they were being kidnapped across the border, I'd see your point. But their migration is totally voluntary. These aren't Chinese laborers we're talking about, after all.

The real problem is the fact that you can't outsource construction labor. I wonder if there's a way I could bring these guys in by the busload to work for a period of 72 hours. The firm who hired my company would pay my company, then, safely in Mexico, I'd pay the guys myself.

Sort of like an international "labor ready."

That would have the effects of undercutting without all the legal hassles. Anywhere 2 hours north of the border, that wouldn't work though. Lots of missed business.

I should figure this one out, in a hy-po-thetical kind of way.

Ajamil
29th July 10, 09:33 PM
Isn't that called the migrant worker program?

SFGOON
29th July 10, 09:41 PM
That's more for guys who pick fruit, do agrarian type work. It's something that the old-fashioned farmers demanded, and Dole finally got put through.

But, if it works in that sector of the economy, why wouldn't it work for other labor intensive jobs?

There's obviously a demand, there's obviously a supply, and criminalizing it has resulted in a negative externality. Commerce, like love, laughs at locksmiths.

I'm starting to seriously wonder if there isn't a way I could legitimize this.

BadUglyMagic
30th July 10, 02:12 PM
The real problem is the fact that you can't outsource construction labor. I wonder if there's a way I could bring these guys in by the busload to work for a period of 72 hours. The firm who hired my company would pay my company, then, safely in Mexico, I'd pay the guys myself.

Sort of like an international "labor ready."


Actually, you can outsource construction labor. In Georgia, esp Atlanta it is a given that there will be illegal aliens on the site.

It works just like you would expect: An American firm wins the bid. It may or may not have a core contruction worker pool. It will subcontract out the parts of the contract where the citizen labor costs are too expensive. Sheetrock, plastering, carpentry, site prep etc. or are above the breakeven plus profit margin for that part of the job. The subcontractor sub out to illegals to meet their own costs plus profit.

It is also a huse effector in the janitorial services and works exactly as described above. Many of the actual workers make minimum wage or even lower if taxes are not with held.

The issue for most of the involved companies would be deniablilty. If you have a third party contractor who has provided "verified legal workers" is it not your fault you were taken advantage of. Is it?

BadUglyMagic
30th July 10, 02:19 PM
Isn't that called the migrant worker program?


Cesar Chavez pretty much destroyed the day worker or templabor programs.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9sar_Ch%C3%A1vez

nihilist
30th July 10, 02:23 PM
Actually, you can outsource construction labor. In Georgia, esp Atlanta it is a given that there will be illegal aliens on the site.

It works just like you would expect: An American firm wins the bid. It may or may not have a core contruction worker pool. It will subcontract out the parts of the contract where the citizen labor costs are too expensive. Sheetrock, plastering, carpentry, site prep etc. or are above the breakeven plus profit margin for that part of the job. The subcontractor sub out to illegals to meet their own costs plus profit.

It is also a huse effector in the janitorial services and works exactly as described above. Many of the actual workers make minimum wage or even lower if taxes are not with held.

The issue for most of the involved companies would be deniablilty. If you have a third party contractor who has provided "verified legal workers" is it not your fault you were taken advantage of. Is it?

The general contractor is only required to keep records of all subs, but not the documents of the sub's workers. the responsibility would be on the sub who directly employs the illegal worker.
IOW, if you directly employ anyone without proper license, workmen's comp, etc, then you are liable for any and all legal penalties.

BadUglyMagic
30th July 10, 02:32 PM
The general contractor is only required to keep records of all subs, but not the documents of the sub's workers. the responsibility would be on the sub who directly employs the illegal worker.
IOW, if you directly employ anyone without proper license, workmen's comp, etc, then you are liable for any and all legal penalties.


The bigger issue for some of the major construction companies (national or major regional presence(es)) is that some/many have/may have union contracts that require a certain percentage or type of jobs to be done by union members. Avoiding problems with the unions in these cases takes fancy dancing.

Spade: The Real Snake
30th July 10, 03:02 PM
The general contractor is only required to keep records of all subs, but not the documents of the sub's workers. the responsibility would be on the sub who directly employs the illegal worker.
IOW, if you directly employ anyone without proper license, workmen's comp, etc, then you are liable for any and all legal penalties.
However, the air of impropriety upon the largest of the company could potentially be crippling.

the smaller subs could appeal from the standpoint of "we needed to cut costs to make the bid so our business could stay open an not lose jobs for our workers. the larger contractor wanted to maximized profits and was constantly trying to undercut."

the larger contractor would always wind up the villain.

SFGOON
30th July 10, 05:12 PM
Yeah, but would it still be a crime if I did it using a corporation chartered in Mexico, and paid the employees in Pesos? They wouldn't need a green card in that case, just a limited visa. Right?