|
Post by echnaton on Apr 28, 2010 11:52:19 GMT -4
It appears to give the police the right to detain anyone that cannot provide proof on demand that they are legal. This embodies a presumption of guilt in law. My how I miss Barry Goldwater.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 28, 2010 12:47:19 GMT -4
Good Lord, so do I!
No, the thing is blatantly unconstitutional. Forget financial ramifications; just one lawsuit will get the thing thrown out. It's also a huge embarrassment to the state, I think, or will be. Yes, illegal immigration is a problem which needs to be stopped, but you know, if LO were to move to Arizona illegally, they wouldn't stop him on the street and throw him in jail for not having a green card. And what about my old friends in high school who were citizens but perpetually missing their ID? I understand, however, that there's a loophole which says that a citizen can basically tell the police to bugger off, without showing ID, so I don't know how that makes any sense relative to the rest of it.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Apr 28, 2010 13:25:04 GMT -4
In your heart, you know he's right...vote for Barry Goldwater on November 3rd.Just a random memory from Goldwater's political commercial of the time. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Flagstaff and the surrounding area(s) count as one of my favorite places on the planet...for obvious reasons... Now I have no desire to visit there, and that's a real shame...
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 28, 2010 14:05:44 GMT -4
Another big problem with the law is that it will shut down cooperation with the police by anyone whose status could come under scrutiny. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, even in the heat of an Arizona summer.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 28, 2010 15:20:26 GMT -4
It's already very difficult for the police to get assistance in the prosecution of certain crimes for fear of "Inmi." And since the police now can pretty much stop anyone on the street and arrest them for being illegal immigrants, I suspect a fair number of crimes I consider more serious--rape, burglary, and homicide, for example--will fail to even be reported.
Oh, and I have a mug that I picked up on '08 covered in election slogans. I think it has "In your heart, you know he's right" (far right!), and it definitely has "AuH2O."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 28, 2010 15:33:16 GMT -4
Another big problem with the law is that it will shut down cooperation with the police by anyone whose status could come under scrutiny. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, even in the heat of an Arizona summer. That is a huge problem with the law. But really, Arizona was out of options. They wanted the Feds to enforce the immigration laws and the Feds refused. This little publicity stunt will at least get the issue discussed again.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 29, 2010 9:21:40 GMT -4
And I, for one, welcome our new publicity stunt overlords
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Apr 30, 2010 13:23:21 GMT -4
I was going to post some "problematic quotes" from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano regarding our southern border but she's not a politician. What seems largely lost in this Arizona thing is a lot of folks seem to be saying "I know there is illegal infiltration along the border, but..." There are no "buts." It's a problem many folks seem oblivious to, they'd rather talk about the merits of dealing with those that have already taken advantage of the porous border, usually in a sympathetic manner. The politicization of this issue makes me sick. Fact is, both parties suck on this and the media can't rise above picking a political side and help politicos blur the distinction between illegal and legal immigrants instead of looking at this problem realistically. I think Arizona could have handled this better. Their concerns about cross-border infiltration certainly have merit but their unilateral act has, in addition to not dealing with the core problem, unleashed a political/ideological sidebar. If there is a positive to all this then Jason nailed it as maybe, just maybe, this issue will get people to look at the bigger picture for a welcome change. ---> Our borders have been sieves ad nauseum. If not addressed that will bite us in the rump sooner or later and I'm not talking just about drug-related crime and illegal immigration, which is bad enough. I understand the concerns of those from both sides but wish there was even a fraction of the outrage over the underlying problem - porous borders. Seems many soft-shoe it while beating each other over the head with their Elephant and Donkey banners and catch-phrases. I actually heard someone say "Only the Republicans are racists." That seems to be what much of the media and the drones that watch/read them to form opinions seem to want to talk about. That shouldn't be the real issue folks.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 30, 2010 13:53:33 GMT -4
Congress won't handle it because either party would risk alienate the fastest growing segment of the population. Violating the right of all to catch a lesser number of law breakers is not a good course of action nor can it be dismissed as a "publicity stunt." It is an erosion of the rights of all.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 30, 2010 15:57:36 GMT -4
You know, the idea of "porous" borders is a relatively new one in US history. Most of my ancestors sailed through no problem, because most of them entered the country before quotas. The last one to enter, a hundred or so years ago, had a husband and children turned back--and we don't know why. (Probably too late to ask, too, since they were Gypsies and may well not have survived World War II.) Besides, it's hardly as though drug trafficking is an exclusive issue of illegal immigration. Some of the most notorious drug traffickers--especially if you count bootleggers during Prohibition--were native-born citizens.
The issue of immigration, legal and otherwise, is a complicated one. For example, there's the exploitation of illegal immigrants, which takes place because they don't dare report it. It's not going to be solved easily.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Apr 30, 2010 18:05:02 GMT -4
The wording in the AZ law is being revised as follows:
"Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."
Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.
A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.
The law is constitutional because illegals do not have constitutional rights--only citizens have constitutional rights. Everyone else has human rights and those don't entitle them to jobs, health care, education, welfare, etc. And while most of the illegal immigrants into AZ are Mexican, there are thousands of other illegals from every corner of the globe in this country.
This law may lead to a national ID card and I wouldn't like that to happen. I understand that everyone who is arrested, regardless of race, will have to prove citizenship before being released. It's a pity that Mexico has so abused our open border that we've come to this, but it's about time. We're talking about millions of people--not just a few thousand. Other states are following AZ's lead. If the feds did their job in the first place this wouldn't have happened.
Business won't be able to exploit illegal workers anymore either.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Apr 30, 2010 18:17:28 GMT -4
The law is constitutional because illegals do not have constitutional rights... Learn that from reading the constitution did ya??
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 30, 2010 20:01:36 GMT -4
The law is constitutional because illegals do not have constitutional rights--only citizens have constitutional rights. That's wrong on two levels. The first one is that it is generally agreed that non-citizens are still entitled to Constitutional guarantees, though there is still some legal debate on the subject. Second, and more importantly, I can guarantee that not everyone stopped will actually be a citizen. Therefore, even if the unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply to illegal aliens, which it does, it assuredly applies to the people stopped erroneously.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 30, 2010 21:45:06 GMT -4
Funny thing. I got told by an Military Police officer while I was in the US that I should really be carrying my passport on me at all times because if I was stopped I could be required to prove I was there legitimately, so I thought that this was already possible....
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Apr 30, 2010 23:18:37 GMT -4
Congress won't handle it because either party would risk alienate the fastest growing segment of the population. Violating the right of all to catch a lesser number of law breakers is not a good course of action nor can it be dismissed as a "publicity stunt." It is an erosion of the rights of all. Police the borders properly and the problem is resolved. If turning a blind eye to infiltration via Mexico is considered politically expedient then those politicos must go. There's no justification for it.
|
|