Arizona governor signs immigration bill

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by agzg

Why do we care whether or not Rick Santorum supports the bill? That guys a giant douchenozzle.

what is up with 'douchenozzles' lately?? LOL

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by Kevin

All I know is what I read in the papers... or in this case, the ABA Journal... you know.. Sheriff Joe v. The World. The bottom line is that people are getting hurt, law enforcement is out of control and people's rights are being trampled prior to this law. I'm skeptical about laying that entirely at the feet of illegal immigration. I think that the reactionary nutters in power in those parts should bear some of the blame. Things are bad, no doubt.. and as far as Juarez, Baghdad probably compares favorably with Juarez.



That's a judgment call. The people of Arizona clearly think it's worth it. Whether the state can even do this is up in the air. I'll tell you one thing though -- if this bill gets upheld, a lot of young lawyers are going to be sitting for the Arizona Bar and opening up civil rights practices.

To Kevin: I edited what I quoted, in the interest of space. First, agree with your statement about the "reactionary nutters." And if you want to know how "bad" it is in AZ, do a quick search on the drug wars in Nogales AZ. I used to visit there regularly and never gave a second thought to driving across the line, but no more. Not going to risk getting killed or caught in the cross fire.

Second, the people of Arizona do NOT think it's worth it. At least, not the people I know. It's the crazies in the legislature and the governor (who assumed office when the former governor took a position in the current Federal government) who came up with this measure. There is civil unrest building in AZ; the city governments of Flagstaff, Phoenix and Tucson are all weighing in with opposition to the measure. Yuma hasn't been heard from yet.

I keep telling you all, it just is Not Right. Plain and simple.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

True.

But I was responding specifically to what I understood you to be saying, which was that you saw no big deal in being stopped if, based on your looks, you were mistaken for an illegal immigrant. Did I misunderstand you?

That's what I was talking about as unconstitutional -- not the Arizona law per se, but the claim that it's not a big deal being stopped just because you look like you might be an illegal alien.

Thanks for explaining. You are correct in that I view it as no big deal.

From my prospective: If I am stopped for speeding, broken taillight, running a stop sign etc. I would not care if the officer asked me for my documentation. According to what I have read there must be a mitigating circumstance for the person to be stopped and questioned in the first place. It is also my understanding that all legal immigrants/aliens must have their "green" card/Visa with them at all times as a form of documentation. I know that I have to carry my Passport and Visa with me when I visit other countries. I understand the fear some may have but think it is probably unfounded. We will see.

I sympathize with the border states as the Feds have been negligent in securing our borders. If it wasn't so politicized the Feds would have the border under control and they would be enforcing laws already on the books. Bush pandered to the President of Mexico and Obama is pandering to the illegals for future votes.

Btw, you probably already know this but it is a felony, punishable by 2 years in a Mexican prison, to be in Mexico illegally. I have been there and have seen how they set up road blocks and stop cars to root out the illegal imigrants coming into Mexico from Central America. But isn't it Mexico that is squealing the loudest about our trying to do something about their citizens coming illegally into the U.S.?

Every illegal alien knows that if you are stopped at the border you won't get into the U.S. They also know that once they get into the U.S. they more than likely safe as we do not put alot of time and money into pursuing illegals. That is why they keep trying. Risk vs. reward. How do we stop it if the Feds will not?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That's a judgment call. The people of Arizona clearly think it's worth it. Whether the state can even do this is up in the air. I'll tell you one thing though -- if this bill gets upheld, a lot of young lawyers are going to be sitting for the Arizona Bar and opening up civil rights practices.

Yep - AZ is already a hotbed of first-of-its-kind Constitutional rights trials and awkward social suits . . . the Minutemen have had zero impact on immigration, but have made millions for people who facilitate the "pro bono" suits against them.

It's almost fitting that this law will wind up in front of the 9th Circuit.

The federal government is the only entity which can facilitate immigration. And they need to fix that.

And perhaps I'm not giving AZ enough credit - perhaps this will force the Federal government's hand and cause decisive action to fix a broken system (perhaps by instituting a new "classification" below naturalized, without voting rights etc but with ability to work etc.?).

That could certainly be - but it really just appears to be a bunch of retards like Max who think that a.) this bill will somehow kick millions out of the country and b.) those removed will somehow stay in their home nations. Right - let's add unicorns to the bill, too.

Agreed... and for all practical purposes, the War on Drugs was lost a long time ago.

Yep - and to me, this is identical: a "show of force" mentality for something that doesn't care at all about blunt force. This will require a sea change, and dipshit government officials seem wholly unprepared for it. The answers are actually pretty simple, but who has the balls to go to their constituents and explain "ok - solved the problem by making it easier to get into the country (and easier to send money back)."

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Thanks for explaining. You are correct in that I view it as no big deal.

From my prospective: If I am stopped for speeding, broken taillight, running a stop sign etc. I would not care if the officer asked me for my documentation. According to what I have read there must be a mitigating circumstance for the person to be stopped and questioned in the first place. It is also my understanding that all legal immigrants/aliens must have their "green" card/Visa with them at all times as a form of documentation. I know that I have to carry my Passport and Visa with me when I visit other countries. I understand the fear some may have but think it is probably unfounded. We will see.

I sympathize with the border states as the Feds have been negligent in securing our borders. If it wasn't so politicized the Feds would have the border under control and they would be enforcing laws already on the books. Bush pandered to the President of Mexico and Obama is pandering to the illegals for future votes.

Btw, you probably already know this but it is a felony, punishable by 2 years in a Mexican prison, to be in Mexico illegally. I have been there and have seen how they set up road blocks and stop cars to root out the illegal imigrants coming into Mexico from Central America. But isn't it Mexico that is squealing the loudest about our trying to do something about their citizens coming illegally into the U.S.?

Every illegal alien knows that if you are stopped at the border you won't get into the U.S. They also know that once they get into the U.S. they more than likely safe as we do not put alot of time and money into pursuing illegals. That is why they keep trying. Risk vs. reward. How do we stop it if the Feds will not?

See that's where you are wrong. The new law says that all they need is suspicion that the person is an illegal immigrant. If all this law said was that law enforcement could check immigration status on someone accused of a crime, I don't think I'd have an issue, but that's NOT what this is saying. Police can stop someone presumably minding their own business on a street corner just for seeming to be an illegal immigrant. Now ask yourself what would make someone suspicious as an illegal immigrant then ask yourself how that won't result in racial profiling.

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

See that's where you are wrong. The new law says that all they need is suspicion that the person is an illegal immigrant. If all this law said was that law enforcement could check immigration status on someone accused of a crime, I don't think I'd have an issue, but that's NOT what this is saying. Police can stop someone presumably minding their own business on a street corner just for seeming to be an illegal immigrant. Now ask yourself what would make someone suspicious as an illegal immigrant then ask yourself how that won't result in racial profiling.

Yes. Thank you. Perfect explanation. Dumb law, no, WRONG Law.

As an aside to this discussion: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Does that sound familiar? "unreasonable search and seizure..." or am I confused?

No one seems able or willing to define "seeming to be an illegal immigrant" in constitutional terms. When that happens, I'll listen.

Or is it (the definition) like pornography ("I can't tell you what it is but I know it when I see it" - and I'll send a Starbucks gift card to the first GCer who tells me the source of that quote)?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AzTheta

Yes. Thank you. Perfect explanation. Dumb law, no, WRONG Law.

As an aside to this discussion: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Does that sound familiar? "unreasonable search and seizure..." or am I confused?

No one seems able or willing to define "seeming to be an illegal immigrant" in constitutional terms. When that happens, I'll listen.

Or is it (the definition) like pornography ("I can't tell you what it is but I know it when I see it" - and I'll send a Starbucks gift card to the first GCer who tells me the source of that quote)?

Oh I know about that...Congress had a long inquiry into the porn industry at the behest of the religious right in the early 80s, but the RR was disappointed when they didn't outlaw pornography. Lots of congressmen did spend lots of time "researching" by watching porn!

[AOII Angel]

Nope...apparently, that quote is from Jacobellis vs. Ohio in 1964.

[AZTheta]

We have a winner! Angela, the gift card is YOURS! you AOII women, smarty smarties!

[agzg]

Originally Posted by AzTheta

Or is it (the definition) like pornography ("I can't tell you what it is but I know it when I see it" - and I'll send a Starbucks gift card to the first GCer who tells me the source of that quote)?

Wasn't it Brennan? Seems like it would be. His decisions are a hoot to me.

Ha. Apparently not. There was something to do with something pron he had a decision in though and I remember giggling at what someone wrote about it.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by agzg

Wasn't it Brennan? Seems like it would be. His decisions are a hoot to me.

Ha. Apparently not. There was something to do with something pron he had a decision in though and I remember giggling at what someone wrote about it.

It was Potter Stewart. I looked it up on Google! Love Google! That's how I look up medical information, too!

[agzg]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

It was Potter Stewart. I looked it up on Google! Love Google! That's how I look up medical information, too!

I'm thinking of Miller v. California where the "Contemporary Community Standards" test (or Roth test) was applied - "taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest" really makes me giggle.

I'm having a hard time remembering why we were talking about that in a counter-terrorism class...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AzTheta

No one seems able or willing to define "seeming to be an illegal immigrant" in constitutional terms. When that happens, I'll listen.

Answer: Brown.

[DrPhil]

Kevin, I apologize for ever doubting you.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The people of Arizona clearly think it's worth it.

Oh Kevin. Surely after all you've said about the Oklahoma legislature, you know that just because of majority of legislators want it =/= the people wanting it.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Thanks for explaining. You are correct in that I view it as no big deal.

From my prospective: If I am stopped for speeding, broken taillight, running a stop sign etc. I would not care if the officer asked me for my documentation.

Under those circumstances, I would not either. I'm sorry if I read more into your ealier statement than you intended -- I understood you to be saying you would not mind being stopped and asked for documentation just because you look like you could be an immigrant.