Arizona bill 1070

[maycocksean]

Related in that the usual crowd of victimology-peddlers, grievance-mongers, ACLU lawyers and community organizers (aka, liberals) now barking so loud about Arizona 1070 reflexively called the Indiana law fascist, racist and discriminatory as well.

Hang in there Arizona. When the Blame America Corps is marching against you it can only mean you're doing the right thing.

"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

 

[Bluer White]

Related in that the usual crowd of victimology-peddlers, grievance-mongers, ACLU lawyers and community organizers (aka, liberals) now barking so loud about Arizona 1070 reflexively called the Indiana law fascist, racist and discriminatory as well.

Arizona's law attempts to mirror the unenforced federal law, right?

Maybe the Holder regime should sue themselves

 

[BVS]

Arizona's law attempts to mirror the unenforced federal law, right?

So is this the reason for the law?

I keep hearing this.

But if this is indeed true, then you have to ask yourself why? Why make it a law? If it mirrors what's there, what's the point of making a whole other law to just restate what's there? Why not just a memo?

Does restating it all of a sudden make Arizona police want to do something about immigration? Why were they doing anything before?

Gosh, this couldn't just be a political move to attract the tea bag vote could it?

I know you won't answer this, and I know INDY and <> have tried but just talked around in rhetoric, but I really wish someone would answer it.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Hang in there Arizona. When the Blame America Corps is marching against you it can only mean you're doing the right thing.

You've GOT to be kidding me. Please tell me you're joking with this.

Angela

 

[INDY500]

You've GOT to be kidding me. Please tell me you're joking with this.

Angela

Well, pardon my usual flair, but "You've GOT to be kidding" is exactly what most Americans think when common sense efforts to insure the integrity of our borders and elections are met with charges of racism and discrimination.

I would hope we could agree that secure borders and elections free of fraud are important in a free society.

 

[martha]

This article in today's LA Times has something for everyone.

Arizona immigration law: Police guidelines underscore law's complexities - latimes.com

For those who dislike the new law, there's this:

The law's various requirements have baffled many lawyers, and the training materials show that even the state government is not certain what some provisions require.

For example, the law requires that all people arrested be held until the federal government verifies their immigration status. But the video says it's unclear whether this applies to arrests for any offense or just those involving possible illegal immigrants.

Additionally, the law allows any legal resident of Arizona to sue if a local agency has a "policy" against enforcing federal immigration laws, but the video warns that no one knows what that means.

A poorly written, vague law that may be unenforceable.

And for those who think every state should have this going on:

Attorney Beverly Ginn warns officers not to use race "at all" in forming a suspicion about someone's immigration status. The first indication should be whether, when stopped for possibly violating another law, a person can provide proper identification.

Other possible factors include whether people flee from police, are traveling in an overcrowded vehicle, dress in a suspicious manner — such as in layers that may indicate they have traveled through the desert — or have difficulty communicating in English. The latter cannot be the sole reason for suspicion.

The training DVD also notes that officers have wide discretion on whether to check someone's status. The law only mandates officers make the inquiry if practical.

Ginn says officers may conclude that their heavy workloads and large number of outstanding calls for help make an inquiry impossible. They also should not ask witnesses or crime victims about their status.

Finally, the video stresses that the law does not require legal residents to carry papers in Arizona, even though it makes it a misdemeanor for illegal immigrants to lack those documents. Much of the criticism of the law has centered on the image of Arizona police demanding papers from people they encounter.

"No officer should ever say, 'Show me your papers,' " Mann [head of the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board] says. "That's just rude."

 

[martha]

I would hope we could agree that secure borders and elections free of fraud are important in a free society.

You would think, huh.

Wait, should we ask Al Gore about that second one?

 

[BVS]

Well, pardon my usual flair, but "You've GOT to be kidding" is exactly what most Americans think when common sense efforts to insure the integrity of our borders and elections are met with charges of racism and discrimination.

But you can't honestly believe this is the case. Wanting to secure the borders does not make one racist, the reason for, and the means to which you do so can make you a racist.

But I think you're bright enough to understand that.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Well, pardon my usual flair, but "You've GOT to be kidding" is exactly what most Americans think when common sense efforts to insure the integrity of our borders and elections are met with charges of racism and discrimination.

No, what bothered me was the insinuation that everyone who's against this law is part of some "Blame America First" group-you don't like people assuming things about your side, probably best not to do it to others, eh? That and the idea that Arizona's going about this the right way. You really think this is a good idea?

Of course wanting a secure border doesn't automatically make somebody a racist. I want our borders to be safe and secure as much as the next person, and anyone who thinks that simply wanting a safe border automatically means you're racist is incredibly simplistic and stupid. But like BVS said, some of the means people use to go about doing that can be seen as racist, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

And I'm sorry, but there IS some racism inherent in this Arizona law (again, we have similar problems on the northern end of our borders and nobody's calling for a fence or demanding "Papers, please!" THERE. Nah, seems in some people's eyes only Mexicans are capable of being illegal immigrants. Not white people. Nope). Some of the "secure the border" folks ARE racist. Some of them don't want immigrants here at all. This law affects all sorts of people negatively, not just illegals. There are plenty of fair, legitimate ways to deal with illegal immigration and keeping the borders safe. This isn't one of those ways.

I would hope we could agree that secure borders and elections free of fraud are important in a free society.

That you will get no argument from me on.

Angela

 

[PhilsFan]

Well, pardon my usual flair, but "You've GOT to be kidding" is exactly what most Americans think when common sense efforts to insure the integrity of our borders and elections are met with charges of racism and discrimination.

I would hope we could agree that secure borders and elections free of fraud are important in a free society.

What does this law do other than encourage racial profiling? Does it serve any other purpose? I'm curious. Everything I've read about it makes me think it's just trying to free up racial profiling.

 

[U2387]

What does this law do other than encourage racial profiling? Does it serve any other purpose? I'm curious. Everything I've read about it makes me think it's just trying to free up racial profiling.

Well not so much that.

The law in and of itself changes nothing when it comes to the original police encounter- they still need a traffic violation or a suspicious dude walking on the street. In other words, you're doing 55 in a 40 or loitering in a high drug area to get stopped in the 1st place.

The only thing the law changes is where the cops check on your status, its no through a federal database, but thats quite technical. Bottom line, they can find out now, they will still be able to find out.

But you are not entirely wrong.

There are most certainly some racial elements to the quite political reason for the passage of this law. The right wing base in this country does have a significant racist/nativist element to it, that has always been true. This is who people like Brewer and Palin play to, its their target audience.

This is why BVS' question that he has kept asking throughout this thread has not gotten anything resembling an intelligent answer. The motivation is clearly political only- the last time this was a big issue was the 2006 election season- and since then, a good amount of illegals have gone home. 2 million less than in 2006 by most counts. So why the media blitz to make this look like a brand new problem that developed yesterday?

As Moonlit Angel said, there are ways to secure the border, punish illegals, put them in line behind the rest of us and get the problem under control.
Can they break through in this climate where the Republican Party has taken their scorched earth play to the extreme base strategy further than any party in the history of America?

Say what you want about the far from perfect Democrats, but they are not playing to the extreme left. There was no single payer, no knee jerk pull outs in Afghanistan, no go too far and control the entire economy financial regulatory reform(and no bailouts dont cout, they are not chosen Democratic or Republican policies), etc. And the Democrats could have done ALOT MORE with 58-60 Senators than they did. Pelosi is personally probably a lot more liberal than the agenda she has set for the house, but she realizes she is leading a caucus that comes from all over the spectrum and represents all kinds of districts. Anyone seen a Democrat play to the gun control lobby and push a handgun ban? Quite the opposite, over 100 Congressional Democrats signed a supreme court brief in support of the Chicago ban being overturned. How about playing to the environmental lobby with a carbon tax? Not there.

The few moderates left in the Republican Party have no influence within the caucus, their influence comes from the possibility that they will swing and break a fillibuster. They are not watched because they have Mitch McConnel and John Boehner's ears.

 

[INDY500]

INDIANAPOLIS — Starting today, gray hair or wrinkles are no longer enough to prove you're old enough to buy a six-pack of beer.

Because of a new state law, bartenders and liquor store clerks must now ask everyone, regardless of age, to see photo identification.

Photo IDs to vote. Photo IDs to open a bank account or board a plane. And now photo IDs to buy alcohol regardless of age.

Gee, Indiana is turning into a regular police state.

You can't even take your kid out for ice cream without being harassed around here.

 

[maycocksean]

Photo IDs to vote. Photo IDs to open a bank account or board a plane. And now photo IDs to buy alcohol regardless of age.

Gee, Indiana is turning into a regular police state.

You can't even take your kid out for ice cream without being harassed around here.

I hear you. Just say no to Big Government, right?

 

[Irvine511]

You can't even take your kid out for ice cream without being detained and waterboarded around here.

fixed that for ya.

 

[bigjohn2441]

So is this the reason for the law?

I keep hearing this.

But if this is indeed true, then you have to ask yourself why? Why make it a law? If it mirrors what's there, what's the point of making a whole other law to just restate what's there? Why not just a memo?

Does restating it all of a sudden make Arizona police want to do something about immigration? Why were they doing anything before?

Gosh, this couldn't just be a political move to attract the tea bag vote could it?

I know you won't answer this, and I know INDY and <> have tried but just talked around in rhetoric, but I really wish someone would answer it.

ok ill try.

yes, it could be a political move to get "tea bag votes". the same way the democrats want "immigration reform" to get the "minority vote."

the truth is when it boils down to it, both parties really dont give a shit about illegal immgrants or what the people think about it. they are only interested in getting votes and making themselves and their big business and banker friends richer. they really dont give a fuck about you or the illegal immigrant next door. as long as you keep PRODUCING.

 

[BVS]

ok ill try.

yes, it could be a political move to get "tea bag votes". the same way the democrats want "immigration reform" to get the "minority vote."

the truth is when it boils down to it, both parties really dont give a shit about illegal immgrants or what the people think about it. they are only interested in getting votes and making themselves and their big business and banker friends richer. they really dont give a fuck about you or the illegal immigrant next door. as long as you keep PRODUCING.

I understand what you're trying to say, and I won't say you're a 100% wrong, but they really are apples and oranges.

This law doesn't really do much. In fact the Republican defence is that it just mirrors what's already the law of the land. If that's the case than why another law? This is the question no one will answer.

Immigration reform, which might be designed partly to get votes, actually does something. That's the difference. Reagan gave ammnesty, why? Because he got it, he knew there was not reason or means to get rid of all the hard working producers who's only problem was they didn't have the means or time to follow the process.

 

[bigjohn2441]

This law doesn't really do much. In fact the Republican defence is that it just mirrors what's already the law of the land. If that's the case than why another law? This is the question no one will answer.

i can answer that too.

because they know the feds arent doing a goddamn thing as far as enforcing current immigration law. and i can speak from first-hand experience working in the field.

 

[BVS]

i can answer that too.

because they know the feds arent doing a goddamn thing as far as enforcing current immigration law. and i can speak from first-hand experience working in the field.

But how is this going to change anything?

This law doesn't force them to check status.

They still have to report them to the Feds, correct?

What has this changed?

 

[bigjohn2441]

But how is this going to change anything?

This law doesn't force them to check status.

They still have to report them to the Feds, correct?

What has this changed?

nothing as of yet. i guess we'll have to wait a while to see what the results of this law are, if it does more harm than good or more good than harm.

i've said before how it COULD work and that would be a great system, but it'll never work that way in a million years. it'll be a clusterfuck, just like everything else.

i guess maybe it was one of those "take matters into our own hands" type of things. (while getting votes from the right of course).

 

[BVS]

Thanks for at least being honest about it...

 

[Bluer White]

You can't even take your kid out for ice cream without being detained and waterboarded around here.

Notice on what grounds the Justice Dept filed suit,

and on what grounds they did not file (racial profiling).

 

[INDY500]

YouTube - Gibbs Stumped on Immigration Question

I wouldn't count on "some answer on that" anytime soon.

 

[Benji2112]

Notice on what grounds the Justice Dept filed suit,

and on what grounds they did not file (racial profiling).

Exactly. Amazing isn't it ?

 

[anitram]

Interesting article in the NY Times today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/us/politics/19evangelicals.html?hp

At a time when the prospects for immigration overhaul seem most dim, supporters have unleashed a secret weapon: a group of influential evangelical Christian leaders.

Normally on the opposite side of political issues backed by the Obama White House, these leaders are aligning with the president to support an overhaul that would include some path to legalization for illegal immigrants already here. They are preaching from pulpits, conducting conference calls with pastors and testifying in Washington — as they did last Wednesday.

“I am a Christian and I am a conservative and I am a Republican, in that order,” said Matthew D. Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a conservative religious law firm. “There is very little I agree with regarding President Barack Obama. On the other hand, I’m not going to let politicized rhetoric or party affiliation trump my values, and if he’s right on this issue, I will support him on this issue.”

...

“Hispanics are religious, family-oriented, pro-life, entrepreneurial,” said the Rev. Richard D. Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm. “They are hard-wired social conservatives, unless they’re driven away.

“I’ve had some older conservative leaders say: ‘Richard, stop this. You’re going to split the conservative coalition,’ ” Dr. Land continued. “I say it might split the old conservative coalition, but it won’t split the new one. And if the new one is going to be a governing coalition, it’s going to have to have a lot of Hispanics in it. And you don’t get a lot of Hispanics in your coalition by engaging in anti-Hispanic anti-immigration rhetoric.”

...

The support of evangelical leaders is not yet enough to change the equation. But they could mobilize a potentially large constituency of religious conservatives, an important part of the Republican base better known for lobbying against abortion and same-sex marriage. They already threaten the party’s near unity on immigration.

 

[Diemen]

Here's something I found hilarious:

Arizona turns off speed cameras - Telegraph

Choice quote:

A spokesman for Jan Brewer... said she "was uncomfortable with the intrusive nature of the system"

I swear I thought this was an Onion article at first.

 

[deep]

a camera is not as smart as the human mind, in spotting law-breakers

 

[diamond]

Most here don't have one iota of a clue what 1070 is about, and a few have even lied here and said they've read it.

1070 is friendlier than the Fed Law, has provisions against profiling.. and adds as a deterrent to criminals such as coyotes, droop house owners and drug runners.

We were forced to add this because the Feds refused to help us, and guess what-it's working.

<>

 

[BVS]

<>, I think it's silly for you to come in here and say most have no clue when you couldn't even answer the direct questions asked of you. The only person that even attempted was BigJohn, and he was at least honest about it.

What's working?

 

[Diemen]

Most here don't have one iota of a clue what 1070 is about, and a few have even lied here and said they've read it.

So that's why you haven't been around FYM that much lately. How long is the course-work for Introductory Mind Reading?

 

[bigjohn2441]

something else to add:

the issue of immigration has always been a FEDERAL issue. individual states do not deal with the issue. furthermore it is a FEDERAL, not state, crime to be an illegal alien under the Immigration and Nationality Act and Title 8 of the United States Code. States never enforced immigration law. But now we have Arizona trying to make immigration law fall under STATE law so it can be enforced at the STATE level. I guess Arizona feels the feds are doing a piss poor job on enforcing it's own law (which they would be right), so maybe they think they could do a better job themselves. it's really not a bad idea to have that duel level of enforcement, if it's done correctly, as ive stated before.

i might be stating the obvious, but i wanted to clear up the jurisdiction issue for those not aware who does what.