by the time i get to arizona

[SatCam]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?hp

Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration bill in the country into law on Friday, aimed at identifying, prosecuting and deporting illegal immigrants. The governor’s move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.

The law, which opponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in the country in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime. It would also give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have decried it as an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

show me your papers wetback

[Chigworthy]

The nerve, trying to prevent illegal immigration. Next thing you know, they'll be requiring identification based on reasonable suspicion.

[torker]

zona, zona, zona

[Syd]

The nerve, trying to prevent illegal immigration. Next thing you know, they'll be requiring identification based on reasonable suspicion.

tyranny in defense of liberty?

the conservatives had all their favorite quotes jumbled up when they created this law

[Chigworthy]

tyranny in defense of liberty?

the conservatives had all their favorite quotes jumbled up when they created this law

Can you quote something specific from the law that chaps your hide?

[torker]

Can you quote something specific from the law that chaps your hide?

let's keep it glittering generalities, please

[Syd]

Can you quote something specific from the law that chaps your hide?

I'd quote everything and tag it with "unconstitutional" if I had the text of the law. States have no domain on foreign affairs and immigration is purely a foreign affair, illegal or not.

It's a stupid fucking political stunt that is going to cost the state millions from all the lawsuits that are going to be filed. Good job Arizona, way to make the best use of your dwindling time as a relevant state.

[Death Metal Moe]

http://images.contactmusic.com/videoimages/sbmg/sister-souljah-the-final-solution-slaverys-back-in.jpg

"Good luck brothers, show 'em what ya got."

[KnoxHarrington]

Can you quote something specific from the law that chaps your hide?

Umm, this: "It would also give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally."

It gives redneck cops a free license to harass Hispanics.

It's a junk law that should be struck down as soon as possible.

[Syd]

Umm, this: "It would also give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally."

It gives redneck cops a free license to harass Hispanics.

It's a junk law that should be struck down as soon as possible.

that too but in the strict rabble rabble rabble of conservatives, the Constitution is pretty damn clear in who gets dibs on foreign affairs. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch

[KnoxHarrington]

that too but in the strict rabble rabble rabble of conservatives, the Constitution is pretty damn clear in who gets dibs on foreign affairs. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch

Oh yeah, that too, but racial profiling has been struck down by quite a few previous rulings too.

This law seems to me to be so obviously unconstitutional that it strikes me as one of those fake-ass laws conservatives pass knowing they'll be struck down, and then in later elections they can stir up rubes by promising to get rid of "judicial activists" who won't let us send the wetbacks back to Mexico.

See also just about any anti-abortion law passed in the last several years.

[Chigworthy]

Umm, this: "It would also give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally."

That's not a specific quote from the law.




It gives redneck cops a free license to harass Hispanics.

What a stupid, racist thing to say.



Maybe people should read about the law before knee-jerking. (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm)

[Syd]

Maybe people should read about the law before knee-jerking. (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm)

Requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to fully comply with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and gives county attorneys subpoena power in certain investigations of employers. Establishes crimes involving trespassing by illegal aliens, stopping to hire or soliciting work under specified circumstances, and transporting, harboring or concealing unlawful aliens, and their respective penalties.

yup, still unconstitutional

[Chigworthy]

yup, still unconstitutional

Care to explain?

[KnoxHarrington]

That's not a specific quote from the law.





What a stupid, racist thing to say.



Maybe people should read about the law before knee-jerking. (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm)

OK, here's an actual quote from the law:

Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

[KnoxHarrington]

That's not a specific quote from the law.





What a stupid, racist thing to say.



Maybe people should read about the law before knee-jerking. (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm)

OK, here's an actual quote from the law:

Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

So I don't know how actually quoting the law makes it any better. It still gives police power to harass the fuck out of people if they want.

[Chigworthy]

OK, here's an actual quote from the law:



So I don't know how actually quoting the law makes it any better. It still gives police power to harass the fuck out of people if they want.

Do you even know how Reasonable Suspicion works?

[dereckfishboy]

What a stupid, racist thing to say.



Yeah, that does come off awfully bigoted. For someone who's so worried about racial profiling, you certainly seem willing to paint southern white men in broad strokes.

[underdog]

Do you even know how Reasonable Suspicion works?

Cops can make up any reason they want to claim you were acting suspicious.

Am I going to need to carry my passport all the time soon?

[Chigworthy]

Cops can make up any reason they want to claim you were acting suspicious.

Am I going to need to carry my passport all the time soon?

Reasonable Suspicion (that a crime has been committed) describes the requirement a peace officer needs, and must be able to articulate in both a report and sworn testimony, in order to detain someone.

[Death Metal Moe]

http://cn.enveloop.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/arizona-green-tea-pomegranate-487-ml.jpg

[SatCam]

i just find it funny that the state was first illegally immigrated by the spanish, and it became part of mexico, and then was illegally immigrated by the americans, and it became part of america and now theyre trying to keep the dirty brown people out who it belonged to in the first place (well, after the indiands). they can legislate all they want, build the walls into the sky, but theyre not accomplishing anything. they sure as shit arent saving any state worth a damn

[keithy_19]

I didn't read the article, nor did I read the bill. I saw that it passed and that Obama quickly lashed out against it.

We need to figure out a way to stop illegal immigration. We need to strengthen our borders, north and south.

I do not want law offcials top harass people, but I also think that there are a lot of laws that probably allow officers to do this, and they do not. Yes, there are always people who are dicks about things. But just because you can doesn't mean you should, and I like to think most will not.

But what do I know.

[Death Metal Moe]

I didn't read the article, nor did I read the bill. I saw that it passed and that Obama quickly lashed out against it.

We need to figure out a way to stop illegal immigration. We need to strengthen our borders, north and south.

I do not want law offcials top harass people, but I also think that there are a lot of laws that probably allow officers to do this, and they do not. Yes, there are always people who are dicks about things. But just because you can doesn't mean you should, and I like to think most will not.

But what do I know.

Well,you know nothing about this story or the bill by your own admission.

[zentraed]

Reasonable Suspicion (that a crime has been committed) describes the requirement a peace officer needs, and must be able to articulate in both a report and sworn testimony, in order to detain someone.

The "crime" in this case is being in the U.S. So until they have documentation showing otherwise, the only suspicion they'd have is that "they look like they don't belong here."

Usually, we call that racial profiling, but according to Rep. Brian Bilbray , you can tell by looking at their shoes (http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/201004220001), so who knows, maybe it'll hold up after all.

[Chigworthy]

i just find it funny that the state was first illegally immigrated by the spanish, and it became part of mexico, and then was illegally immigrated by the americans, and it became part of america and now theyre trying to keep the dirty brown people out who it belonged to in the first place (well, after the indiands). they can legislate all they want, build the walls into the sky, but theyre not accomplishing anything. they sure as shit arent saving any state worth a damn

Dirty brown people? How are they trying to keep the "dirty brown people" out when 30% of the state's legal population is hispanic? That's 30% of the state's legal population, 100% of which is not effected by the illegal immigration law.

[zentraed]

Dirty brown people? How are they trying to keep the "dirty brown people" out when 30% of the state's legal population is hispanic? That's 30% of the state's legal population, 100% of which is not effected by the illegal immigration law.

According to StateMaster (http://www.statemaster.com/state/AZ-arizona/peo-people), AZ has 280,000 illegal immigrants. If all of them are Hispanic, that would mean about 1 in 6 Arizona Hispanics are illegals. That's a huge proportion, hence the concerns about harassment.

[Chigworthy]

The "crime" in this case is being in the U.S. So until they have documentation showing otherwise, the only suspicion they'd have is that "they look like they don't belong here."


Wrong:

1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.


Nowhere in the law does it allow law enforcement to articulate a reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration based on appearance. That is not the purpose of the law, although it makes for great news stories to portray it as such.

[Chigworthy]

According to StateMaster (http://www.statemaster.com/state/AZ-arizona/peo-people), AZ has 280,000 illegal immigrants. If all of them are Hispanic, that would mean about 1 in 6 Arizona Hispanics are illegals. That's a huge proportion, hence the concerns about harassment.

If you have to bring race into it, there are over 2,000,000 Hispanics in Arizona that are not effected by the law. Thats a huge portion. If the law is designed to target Hispanics, they've failed miserably.

[StanUpshaw]

1,711,429 or 2,280,000+

Which is it?

[zentraed]

If you have to bring race into it, there are over 2,000,000 Hispanics in Arizona that are not effected by the law. Thats a huge portion. If the law is designed to target Hispanics, they've failed miserably.

Lol. Bring race into it? We're (largely) talking about illegals who are crossing over the border from Mexico. I think it's safe to say they're Hispanic.

Arizona has 1.7 million Hispanics and 280,000 illegals. Assuming those illegals are Hispanics who came across the Mexican border gives the 1 in 6 number I gave. With a target population that large, harassment is guaranteed to occur.

How many bad apples does it take to spoil the bunch? I have a friend in Long Beach who's been pulled over by the cops 3 times (one of those times, he was on a bicycle). He's sued them successfully each time because they had no probable cause. Why did they pull him over? Because he was black. Does he mind? No, because he makes a lot of money for it.

Also, the law states that "a reasonable attempt should be made, when practicable" so there's a loophole there that could allow profiling to go unpunished.

[hanso]

Ah shit! Gig is up yo. Now they might find out that John McCain was born in Panama.

[Syd]

Care to explain?

I did, states have no domain over foreign affairs and this law is waaaaaaaay unconstitutional. It's like someone making playdough spaghetti and passing it off as real spaghetti. It's hilariously childish, shortsighted and little more than a cry for attention.

[Chigworthy]

Lol. Bring race into it? We're (largely) talking about illegals who are crossing over the border from Mexico. I think it's safe to say they're Hispanic.

Arizona has 1.7 million Hispanics and 280,000 illegals. Assuming those illegals are Hispanics who came across the Mexican border gives the 1 in 6 number I gave. With a target population that large, harassment is guaranteed to occur.

How many bad apples does it take to spoil the bunch? I have a friend in Long Beach who's been pulled over by the cops 3 times (one of those times, he was on a bicycle). He's sued them successfully each time because they had no probable cause. Why did they pull him over? Because he was black. Does he mind? No, because he makes a lot of money for it.

Also, the law states that "a reasonable attempt should be made, when practicable" so there's a loophole there that could allow profiling to go unpunished.

The race of the illegal immigrants has nothing to do with it when Arizona has a 30% hispanic population, double the national average. Arizona is not going to target 30% of it's votes and piss them off.

From the US Census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html)

Arizona estimated 2009 pop.: 6,595,778
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008: 30.1%

30.1% of 6,595,778 is 2,044,691, and I would guess that the hispanic population has increased from that since 2008. And the assumed number of 280,000 may or may not be correct, since, due to the nature of illegal immigration, it is very hard to track that population.

I did, states have no domain over foreign affairs and this law is waaaaaaaay unconstitutional. It's like someone making playdough spaghetti and passing it off as real spaghetti. It's hilariously childish, shortsighted and little more than a cry for attention.

I'm just asking you to back up the statement that it is unconstitutional with text from the constitution, which should be easy since the constitution is not really that long. I'm not saying you're wrong, just prove your point.

[Syd]

I'm just asking you to back up the statement that it is unconstitutional with text from the constitution, which should be easy since the constitution is not really that long. I'm not saying you're wrong, just prove your point.

I thought it was common knowledge that states cannot interact with foreign nations but here's the section that states pretty explicitly that states cannot interact with foreign nations:

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

[Serpico1103]

Wrong:



Nowhere in the law does it allow law enforcement to articulate a reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration based on appearance. That is not the purpose of the law, although it makes for great news stories to portray it as such.
What would give an officer reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal? Will they target european tourists who don't speak english well? Just think they should use the laws in place, police officers aren't always great with "reasonable" determinations.

[Furtherman]

I think the law is pretty reasonable. I also think some people are too quick to judge police as having nothing better to do than harass people.

[tanless1]

A common misconception is that the fed's are the highest law of the land. When it is actually the sheriff.
What percentage of law enforcment (including border patrol) is hispanic.
What percentage of this board even spends time in these area's.

In order to keep this country healthy, we need to control the influx of imigration. That is not to be confused with cesation of imigration. By controling we are able to acclimate/intergrate which encourages a healthier america to accommodate increased imigration.
The borders are intentionaly neglected by the feds for various reasons. Each reason self serving to potentail political gain, and not the health of the country. One such reason would be the ability to play the race card incorrectly,yet still effectivley.

[Serpico1103]

I want harsh treatment for employers that consistently use immigrant labor. I don't mean a contractor who picks up a day laborer occassionally(still illegal, but not systematic like large corporations that use illegals). Immigrants don't come for the climate, they come because of all the employers hiring them.
BTW: if the feds are constitutionally empowered to legislate an activity than state law may not conflict, it may work in connection. If the feds don't have constitutional authority (the police powers, not referring to actual police) they may not legislate (except when supreme court expands congress' powers, i.e. court giving feds authority to crack down on drugs not directly involved in interstate commerce.)

[tanless1]

They should reintitute the guest worker program and go from there. The solutions are simple, but the benifits of not addressing are greater.

[Serpico1103]

Why not downsize the military and give soldiers first crack at new.border patrol positions. If terror is such a threat, address it properly. Not with tanks and jets, but good police work and secure borders.

[tanless1]

not argueing on that, it does disturb me that when the reserves are sent down, they are sent down unarmed.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I am all for strict enforcement of immigration laws, border enforcement, ending birthright citizenship and deportations, however I think this is a bit too draconian. There are a lot of 3rd 4th and 5th generation Hispanics who will get stopped because the 5% of cops will feel like they have the power to.

This doesnt take into consideration many Navajo and Hopi's who may look hispanic to a lot of people. IMHO a circuit court will strike this down.

[Barnaby Jones]

And what have you done with WRESTLINGFAN?!??!?!!?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

And what have you done with WRESTLINGFAN?!??!?!!?

I wont be at the next La Raza function, however a police state is not the way to go

[hanso]

Why not downsize the military and give soldiers first crack at new.border patrol positions. If terror is such a threat, address it properly. Not with tanks and jets, but good police work and secure borders.

It's easier to lose billions of dollars in some made up war.

[foodcourtdruide]

I am all for strict enforcement of immigration laws, border enforcement, ending birthright citizenship and deportations, however I think this is a bit too draconian. There are a lot of 3rd 4th and 5th generation Hispanics who will get stopped because the 5% of cops will feel like they have the power to.

This doesnt take into consideration many Navajo and Hopi's who may look hispanic to a lot of people. IMHO a circuit court will strike this down.

I can't believe this law has made it this far. How is this any different from stopping every person that looks middle eastern and making them prove they are not a terrorist?

[Serpico1103]

I can't believe this law has made it this far. How is this any different from stopping every person that looks middle eastern and making them prove they are not a terrorist?

If that is what it takes for the people in North Dakota to be free from terrorism, than I am all for it.

[Chigworthy]

I thought it was common knowledge that states cannot interact with foreign nations but here's the section that states pretty explicitly that states cannot interact with foreign nations:

It may be common knowledge, but the law clearly states:

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.

As well as:

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


What would give an officer reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal? Will they target european tourists who don't speak english well? Just think they should use the laws in place, police officers aren't always great with "reasonable" determinations.

Reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal would be established when that person is lawfully contacted and cannot produce valid ID. If you are stopped for not using a turn signal, the officer requires that you identify yourself. If the person being stopped cannot produce ID or another means to identify themselves, the officer can arrest that person, based on the original crime committed (turn signal, etc) until that person can be identified. This is universal in our country. As a result of a contact like this, an officer may develop a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal. Nowhere in the law does it allow officers to profile someone based on appearance and detain them because they appear illegal. This would violate the 4th amendment. It's also addressed in the law:

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, 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).

I am all for strict enforcement of immigration laws, border enforcement, ending birthright citizenship and deportations, however I think this is a bit too draconian. There are a lot of 3rd 4th and 5th generation Hispanics who will get stopped because the 5% of cops will feel like they have the power to.

This doesnt take into consideration many Navajo and Hopi's who may look hispanic to a lot of people. IMHO a circuit court will strike this down.

I can't believe this law has made it this far. How is this any different from stopping every person that looks middle eastern and making them prove they are not a terrorist?

See above, nowhere in the law does it authorize officers to stop someone for the crime of illegal immigration based upon their appearance. A law that would authorize this would instantly cease to exist, since it would be constitutionally unlawful, and a legal paradox vortex would occur.


I want harsh treatment for employers that consistently use immigrant labor. I don't mean a contractor who picks up a day laborer occassionally(still illegal, but not systematic like large corporations that use illegals). Immigrants don't come for the climate, they come because of all the employers hiring them.
BTW: if the feds are constitutionally empowered to legislate an activity than state law may not conflict, it may work in connection. If the feds don't have constitutional authority (the police powers, not referring to actual police) they may not legislate (except when supreme court expands congress' powers, i.e. court giving feds authority to crack down on drugs not directly involved in interstate commerce.)

This is addressed by the law:

13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions
A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.

And:

23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense
A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.



Just read the law before taking how special interest groups are portraying it:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

[Syd]

fine, you're a fascist and this law is totally a-o-k. Enjoy your little police state so that you can feel safe at night because you're afraid of your own shadow.

The law will be struck down soon enough hopefully at enormous expense to the state of Arizona.

[Serpico1103]

Reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal would be established when that person is lawfully contacted and cannot produce valid ID. If you are stopped for not using a turn signal, the officer requires that you identify yourself. If the person being stopped cannot produce ID or another means to identify themselves, the officer can arrest that person, based on the original crime committed (turn signal, etc) until that person can be identified. This is universal in our country. As a result of a contact like this, an officer may develop a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal. Nowhere in the law does it allow officers to profile someone based on appearance and detain them because they appear illegal. This would violate the 4th amendment. It's also addressed in the law:



You seem under the assumption that "lawful contact" requires an underlying crime. I am not sure that is the definition. Is it your interpretation of the law that an officer may not approach a person simply with reasonably suspicion that they are illegal immigrant? That an underlying crime is required to create a "lawful contact?"
It may be similar to NY's stop and frisk practice.

[Chigworthy]

You seem under the assumption that "lawful contact" requires an underlying crime. I am not sure that is the definition. Is it your interpretation of the law that an officer may not approach a person simply with reasonably suspicion that they are illegal immigrant? That an underlying crime is required to create a "lawful contact?"
It may be similar to NY's stop and frisk practice.

A lawful contact can be any contact that does not violate the law, mainly the 4th amendment. An officer can begin talking to someone, but they are completely free to leave unless the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, at which point they have the option to detain the person. It would be unlawful for an officer to detain someone because the officer believed that they were an illegal immigrant based solely on the person's appearance.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Why not downsize the military and give soldiers first crack at new.border patrol positions. If terror is such a threat, address it properly. Not with tanks and jets, but good police work and secure borders.

Also it makes no sense to have guard troops from AZ, NM, TX and CA 7000 miles away

[tanless1]

Sure it does, that's why we send them down there from time to time. Its such a "good idea" that we disarm them before hand(god forbid we be effective).

[underdog]

I think the law is pretty reasonable. I also think some people are too quick to judge police as having nothing better to do than harass people.

I know a lot of cops. I'm not jumping to any conclusions when I judge police as having nothing better to do than to harass people.

I can't believe this law has made it this far. How is this any different from stopping every person that looks middle eastern and making them prove they are not a terrorist?

This law allows cops to stop ANYONE and harass them, as long as they look like an "illegal".

[Chigworthy]

This law allows cops to stop ANYONE and harass them, as long as they look like an "illegal".

If that is true, just paste the text to prove it from the link I provided.

Hint: It's not true, just read the law.

[Dude!]

Hint: It's not true, just read the law.

he doesn't like to be confused
by facts

[StanUpshaw]

Our courts approved random sobriety checkpoints for fucks sake. I can't imagine they'd rule this unconstitutional.

[PapaBear]

Our courts approved random sobriety checkpoints for fucks sake. I can't imagine they'd rule this unconstitutional.
But the checkpoints stop everyone. You don't get mixed up in profiling with checkpoints. Unless it's one of those rolling checkpoints. Years ago, they would pull over everyone with a Grateful Dead sticker, after a show in DC.

[Syd]

Our courts approved random sobriety checkpoints for fucks sake. I can't imagine they'd rule this unconstitutional.

It's unconstitutional because it is a state government directly interacting with foreign nationals, which is a no-no. Any official international interaction involves federal authorities.

Arizona has no right to interact with Mexico officially. That is one of the reasons it is unconstitutional and it's also probably also unconstitutional for a number of other reasons.

[tanless1]

you are inncorrect syd. Its not your fault, its only been beat'n into head at nawseum.

[Chigworthy]

Our courts approved random sobriety checkpoints for fucks sake. I can't imagine they'd rule this unconstitutional.

Why would they rule it unconstitutional?

[StanUpshaw]

Why would they rule it unconstitutional?

In today's world of "reasonable suspicion," there's not much justification I can point to. The courts have made it clear that the 4th amendment doesn't mean shit. In an earlier time, perhaps, citizens' rights to privacy would have been worth protecting.

[Chigworthy]

In today's world of "reasonable suspicion," there's not much justification I can point to. The courts have made it clear that the 4th amendment doesn't mean shit. In an earlier time, perhaps, citizens' rights to privacy would have been worth protecting.

Again and again, I have asked for a simple cut and paste from the law where it gets even close to violating the 4th amendment.

[Devo37]

if the Federal government refuses to do its job in securing the borders, what other choice do states have? illegal aliens are sucking us dry.

every time someone gets arrested, step 1 should be determining if they're a legal resident. if not, instant deportation.

[hanso]

If it were that easy yes I'm all for it. However from what I've read. They get locked up at a cost of 40k a year.

[Syd]

if the Federal government refuses to do its job in securing the borders, what other choice do states have? illegal aliens are sucking us dry.

How do you secure a 2000 mile border? Just build one enormous fence, then watch as the wall slowly bleeds us dry from the exorbitant amount of money that will not only be required to build it, but to maintain it and secure it?

There's nothing you can do about it besides tank America's economy, stop the war on drugs and cause massive deflation of the USD. Otherwise America will be attractive to immigrate to for one reason or another.

[underdog]

How do you secure a 2000 mile border? Just build one enormous fence, then watch as the wall slowly bleeds us dry from the exorbitant amount of money that will not only be required to build it, but to maintain it and secure it?

There's nothing you can do about it besides tank America's economy, stop the war on drugs and cause massive deflation of the USD. Otherwise America will be attractive to immigrate to for one reason or another.

We could hire illegals to build the wall.

[Ogre]

Why not downsize the military and give soldiers first crack at new.border patrol positions. If terror is such a threat, address it properly. Not with tanks and jets, but good police work and secure borders.

Why take them off the table? You had me at soldiers on the border.

How do you secure a 2000 mile border?

With tanks and jets silly.

[Barnaby Jones]

Yeah! That'll take care of all those immigrants who are a drain on the system (but not really) and won't cost anything at all!

[StanUpshaw]

Again and again, I have asked for a simple cut and paste from the law where it gets even close to violating the 4th amendment.

It is a search. And to me, it's clearly unreasonable.

[Serpico1103]

How do you secure a 2000 mile border? Just build one enormous fence, then watch as the wall slowly bleeds us dry from the exorbitant amount of money that will not only be required to build it, but to maintain it and secure it?

There's nothing you can do about it besides tank America's economy, stop the war on drugs and cause massive deflation of the USD. Otherwise America will be attractive to immigrate to for one reason or another.

With increased patrols. We have troops overseas trying to rebuild two chaotic countries, trying to secure their borders. But, we can't find the manpower to secure ours? It can be done, politicians refuse to do it.

Why take them off the table? You had me at soldiers on the border.
With tanks and jets silly.

You don't fight terrorists with tanks and jets. Those are not anti-personnel tools. The costs of producing and maintaining those tools can be used to fight the war on terrorism smarter.

[Ogre]

You don't fight terrorists with tanks and jets. Those are not anti-personnel tools. The costs of producing and maintaining those tools can be used to fight the war on terrorism smarter.


http://images.dailyradar.com/media/uploads/ballhype/story_preview/2009/07/08/sgt_hulka_says_it_only_hurts_when_you_laugh.gif
Lighten up Francis

[Syd]

With increased patrols. We have troops overseas trying to rebuild two chaotic countries, trying to secure their borders. But, we can't find the manpower to secure ours? It can be done, politicians refuse to do it

2000 mile border in largely inhospitable conditions with zero logistical support? That will cost just as much as being in Afghanistan to secure the border. Do you really want a $200-300bn drain on the economy to stop something that is at worst a minimal drain on the economy?

[Jughead]

Arizona is Blue:smile:

[A.J.]

How do you secure a 2000 mile border?

Build a Maginot Line!

No, wait....

[Chigworthy]

It is a search. And to me, it's clearly unreasonable.

Can't you at least articulate which part of the law is unreasonable?

[StanUpshaw]

Can't you at least articulate which part of the law is unreasonable?

It, and decades of fourth amendment cases before it, violate my ideas of a "reasonable" threshold of intrusion. I can't offer more precision than that. This law is yet one more step away from the liberty I believe we are entitled to.

This law, and its precedents, empower police with an intrusive authority that should, and I believe the Constitution demands, be reserved for judges.

[Syd]

big government is fine so long as they promise they're going to harass people I don't like

[Tenbatsuzen]

The horrible thing about this is that all these misinformed people on the left are screaming how they are boycotting Arizona's tourism. Sure, hurt the little guy, especially those companies who are getting the most use out of illegal immigrants.

One idiot said illegal immigration is the 21st century version of slavery. *facepalm*

[underdog]

The horrible thing about this is that all these misinformed people on the left are screaming how they are boycotting Arizona's tourism. Sure, hurt the little guy, especially those companies who are getting the most use out of illegal immigrants.

What?

[Tenbatsuzen]

What?

Who does hotel infrastructure maintenance? Who works in the back of the house in restaurants?

[epo]

Who does hotel infrastructure maintenance? Who works in the back of the house in restaurants?

Who votes for jerkoff legislators who enact laws like this and the other which asked for the President of the United States to produce a birth certificate?

The people of Arizona.

[Tenbatsuzen]

Who votes for jerkoff legislators who enact laws like this and the other which asked for the President of the United States to produce a birth certificate?

The people of Arizona.

McCain actually tried to create an open-ended illegal immigration bill called a Guest Workers law with Kennedy but was shut down on it.

And the governor of Arizona wasn't voted in. She actually took office when.... Janet Napalotiano became director of Homeland Security.

boom, roasted.

[underdog]

Who does hotel infrastructure maintenance? Who works in the back of the house in restaurants?

I just meant who goes to Arizona as a tourist?

Other than the Canyon, but people are still going to go to that no matter what.

[epo]

McCain actually tried to create an open-ended illegal immigration bill called a Guest Workers law with Kennedy but was shut down on it.

And the governor of Arizona wasn't voted in. She actually took office when.... Janet Napalotiano became director of Homeland Security.

boom, roasted.

Boom, roasted? Save that shit for someone who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.

Right now Arizona is acting like one of the most batshit insane states in the nation. Christ, they have Senator McCain in a primary with a tea party radio show host. They are potentially demanding that a sitting President of the United States prove his citizenship to them. And they passed bill which essentially legalized racial profiling.

Gee...I'm shocked that level-headed people don't want to do business with their state.

[Tenbatsuzen]

I just meant who goes to Arizona as a tourist?

Other than the Canyon, but people are still going to go to that no matter what.

The Super Bowl was just there - you know, this:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/05/sports/05catch_slide4.jpg

and also Wrestlemania was there just a few months ago.

It's also a huge area for golfing and entertainment. Trust me, there's lots to do there.

[underdog]

The Super Bowl was just there - you know, this:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/05/sports/05catch_slide4.jpg

and also Wrestlemania was there just a few months ago.

It's also a huge area for golfing and entertainment. Trust me, there's lots to do there.

You think anyone who would seriously go to the Super Bowl or Wrestlemania would boycott Arizona?

[Tenbatsuzen]

Boom, roasted? Save that shit for someone who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.

Right now Arizona is acting like one of the most batshit insane states in the nation. Christ, they have Senator McCain in a primary with a tea party radio show host.

So there's an opponent in a primary who may have differing views than the incumbent! shocking! Let me know when McCain loses the primary.



They are potentially demanding that a sitting President of the United States prove his citizenship to them.

Again, let me know when this gets PASSED.

Birther bills have been brought up in Oklahoma, Florida, and Missouri and all have been shut down.


And they passed bill which essentially legalized racial profiling.

If you're an immigrant, have your green card on you. Just like if I'm driving a car, I'm expected to have my license. Or if I'm working in an office, I'm expected to have my employee ID.

[Tenbatsuzen]

You think anyone who would seriously go to the Super Bowl or Wrestlemania would boycott Arizona?

That's my whole point. The tourism industry isn't a big fan of the bill as it affects them - so the people whose panties are in a bunch over this bill are targeting the wrong people to go after.

[underdog]

If you're an immigrant, have your green card on you. Just like if I'm driving a car, I'm expected to have my license. Or if I'm working in an office, I'm expected to have my employee ID.

I wish we could just take away all your liberties.

[Tenbatsuzen]

And Epo, this is the same state that vetoed MLK day. We KNOW there's a bunch of fucking loons in Arizona, this isn't new news. It's just armchair QBs commenting and boycotting on rules that really doesn't affect them.

[Tenbatsuzen]

I wish we could just take away all your liberties.

soooo what exactly is wrong with expecting people to carry their green card on them?

[StanUpshaw]

That's my whole point. The tourism industry isn't a big fan of the bill as it affects them - so the people whose panties are in a bunch over this bill are targeting the wrong people to go after.

What they really need to do is threaten their retired parents that they'll stop calling them on Sunday evening unless they move out of Arizona.

[torker]

I'm switching back to Snapple.

[epo]

And Epo, this is the same state that vetoed MLK day. We KNOW there's a bunch of fucking loons in Arizona, this isn't new news. It's just armchair QBs commenting and boycotting on rules that really doesn't affect them.

Actually, when a state appears to be in violation of the 4th Amendment and threatens to keep a sitting President of the United States off the election ballot...I have a serious philosophical problem with it.

[Tenbatsuzen]

Actually, when a state appears to be in violation of the 4th Amendment and threatens to keep a sitting President of the United States off the election ballot...I have a serious philosophical problem with it.

So you're admitting that Obama doesn't have a birth certificate?

[Tenbatsuzen]

Actually, when a state appears to be in violation of the 4th Amendment and threatens to keep a sitting President of the United States off the election ballot...I have a serious philosophical problem with it.

And in all seriousness, Obama has his birth certificate, and it's been certified by Hawaii. So even in some crazy fucking world that the birther bill passes, Obama won't be kept off the ballot.

[epo]

So you're admitting that Obama doesn't have a birth certificate?

Worst logical twist ever.

[Tenbatsuzen]

You know what epo? The main reason I like debating with you is that you can keep things civil, and not make some jump to phantom racist comments.

[SatCam]

The horrible thing about this is that all these misinformed people on the left are screaming how they are boycotting Arizona's tourism. Sure, hurt the little guy, especially those companies who are getting the most use out of illegal immigrants.

One idiot said illegal immigration is the 21st century version of slavery. *facepalm*

who is saying this stuff? your neighbor wilson?

[Tenbatsuzen]

who is saying this stuff? your neighbor wilson?

No, Arizona tourism's facebook page.

[underdog]

soooo what exactly is wrong with expecting people to carry their green card on them?

What about citizens that look illegal or are "acting" illegal?

[underdog]

No, Arizona tourism's facebook page.

glenn beck is a better source than facebook.

[Tenbatsuzen]

What about citizens that look illegal or are "acting" illegal?

If you're a citizen, you have no need for a green card. But usually most citizens carry their license on them.

[Tenbatsuzen]

glenn beck is a better source than facebook.

what does this even mean, this was someone from the left posting it was slavery

[Chigworthy]

What about citizens that look illegal or are "acting" illegal?

Again, something that is not in the law.

[underdog]

If you're a citizen, you have no need for a green card. But usually most citizens carry their license on them.

My wife doesn't have a license. lots of people don't have licenses.

Also, you're supposed to be able to travel freely in this country without documentation. Suddenly everyone is ok with just checking everyone because they are slightly brown and then detaining them because they never learned to drive

[underdog]

Again, something that is not in the law.

you keep saying that and you keep saying that cops can act on what they deem as "reasonable" suspicion. Which is it?

[epo]

what does this even mean, this was someone from the left posting it was slavery

Wait, you are using Facebook comments to make a claim?

[Chigworthy]

you keep saying that and you keep saying that cops can act on what they deem as "reasonable" suspicion. Which is it?

Both. I've already explained what reasonable suspicion means. If you don't believe me, take a search and seizure class before jumping to conclusions.

[epo]

If you're a citizen, you have no need for a green card. But usually most citizens carry their license on them.

That is hardly a justification for a state passing a law in violation of the 4th Amendment.

[Chigworthy]

Also, you're supposed to be able to travel freely in this country without documentation. Suddenly everyone is ok with just checking everyone because they are slightly brown and then detaining them because they never learned to drive

A) You are required to identify yourself if you are suspected of committing a crime.
B) Quit making up the racist thing when you know it is not in the law. It sounds great and sensational, but you still cannot point to where the law allows law enforcement to violate the 4th amendment.

[jimmyolsenblues]

doesn't the amendment only apply to legal residents?

[Chigworthy]

That is hardly a justification for a state passing a law in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Nice untruth. Quote the part that violates the 4th amendment.

[underdog]

Both. I've already explained what reasonable suspicion means. If you don't believe me, take a search and seizure class before jumping to conclusions.

If you don't think cops can and do push the envelope and break the rules, then I don't know what to say to you. If you think leaving the judge and jury up to the cops, then good for you.

[epo]

doesn't the amendment only apply to legal residents?

States don't even have the right to enact immigration rules, that is the job of the federal government. The whole argument is hence moot.

[StanUpshaw]

doesn't the amendment only apply to legal residents?

It's for everyone, legal or not.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZO.html

[torker]

you guys fight like fucking old ladies.

and you smell like one too.

[underdog]

A) You are required to identify yourself if you are suspected of committing a crime.
B) Quit making up the racist thing when you know it is not in the law. It sounds great and sensational, but you still cannot point to where the law allows law enforcement to violate the 4th amendment.

I hope you get sent to guantanamo because the cops suspect that you're "breaking the law". Keep giving away your liberties because a couple of brown people came across the border without papers.

[Chigworthy]

If you don't think cops can and do push the envelope and break the rules, then I don't know what to say to you. If you think leaving the judge and jury up to the cops, then good for you.

Because some cops violate the law does not mean a bill is unconstitutional.

[epo]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Being profiled is not probable cause to violate the 4th Amendment.

Furthermore the federal government will likely use the Supremecy Clause to wipe this rule off the books as soon as they can.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Either way you slice it, Arizona is completely out of line with this law.

[Chigworthy]

Being profiled is not probable cause to violate the 4th Amendment.

Furthermore the federal government will likely use the Supremecy Clause to wipe this rule off the books as soon as they can.



Either way you slice it, Arizona is completely out of line with this law.

All you have to do is quote something from the law that authorizes profiling or unreasonable seizures. It should be easy judging by how vehement you are.

[Chigworthy]

I hope you get sent to guantanamo because the cops suspect that you're "breaking the law". Keep giving away your liberties because a couple of brown people came across the border without papers.

You still can't support your opinion with facts? Well, keep coming up with off-the-wall hypotheticals, then.

[underdog]

You still can't support your opinion with facts? Well, keep coming up with off-the-wall hypotheticals, then.

I will!

You're the one who keeps saying cops can use their own reasonable suspicion. I'm not ok with that.

[underdog]

All you have to do is quote something from the law that authorizes profiling or unreasonable seizures. It should be easy judging by how vehement you are.

Please show me where in law it says thay swerving to miss a pothole means a cop can pull over and detain a person on suspicion of drunk driving.

[Chigworthy]

I will!

You're the one who keeps saying cops can use their own reasonable suspicion. I'm not ok with that.

Yes, you said you want Judges to authorize it. Which really makes a lot of sense. You must have really liked Judge Dredd. Why don't you just admit that regardless of what the law is, you don't like cops?

[Syd]

Given the track record of Arpaio, cops aren't terribly trustworthy in Arizona.
http://www.arpaio.com/

[Chigworthy]

Please show me where in law it says thay swerving to miss a pothole means a cop can pull over and detain a person on suspicion of drunk driving.

E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION.

From: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf, Page 5, lines 20-23.

See how easy that was?

[epo]

Yes, you said you want Judges to authorize it. Which really makes a lot of sense. You must have really liked Judge Dredd. Why don't you just admit that regardless of what the law is, you don't like cops?

That's a crazy argument. Its like saying that because I'm pro 21st Amendment, I'm anti-beer.

[underdog]

Yes, you said you want Judges to authorize it. Which really makes a lot of sense. You must have really liked Judge Dredd. Why don't you just admit that regardless of what the law is, you don't like cops?

I already said in this thread that I don't trust cops. I know a lot of cops, including ones in my family. They are just normal people with power.

[underdog]

From: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf, Page 5, lines 20-23.

See how easy that was?




There is no mention of potholes there. According to your quote, a cop can pull over whoever they want as long as they can fake a reason.

[underdog]

That's a crazy argument. Its like saying that because I'm pro 21st Amendment, I'm anti-beer.

Why are you so anti-beer.

[epo]

Why are you so anti-beer.

Not sure. But I certainly do my part in destroying the beer population.

[Serpico1103]

2000 mile border in largely inhospitable conditions with zero logistical support? That will cost just as much as being in Afghanistan to secure the border. Do you really want a $200-300bn drain on the economy to stop something that is at worst a minimal drain on the economy?

How much does it cost to process illegals caught in the country, to detain them, to arrange for their deportation? Isn't it cheaper to stop them before they enter?

Obama has promised to focus on the flood of US guns into Mexico. Increasing patrols may stop that traffic also.

This law may be all about pressuring the Feds to act more aggressively towards immigration. I do not think the law is per se unconstitutional, I think police officers will often use it in a way that crosses the boundaries of constitutionality.

[Serpico1103]

Reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal would be established when that person is lawfully contacted and cannot produce valid ID.

Where does it say this in the law?
Where does it say in the text of the law that independent reason is needed for the lawful contact?


Reasonable suspicion is never defined in a law. It is left up to the officer viewing the totality of the circumstances.

[hanso]

Crooks will use this tricking immigrants and commit crimes on them.

[hanso]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FH_0fuG_OB0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FH_0fuG_OB0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Tenbatsuzen]

That is hardly a justification for a state passing a law in violation of the 4th Amendment.

personally I'm of the school that the constitution only applies to citizens, but hey, that's not the point.

[underdog]

personally I'm of the school that the constitution only applies to citizens, but hey, that's not the point.

That's great, but how do you prove you're a citizen to a cop?

[Tenbatsuzen]

Given the track record of Arpaio, cops aren't terribly trustworthy in Arizona.
http://www.arpaio.com/

Arpaio only has power in the Phoenix area (maricopa county). Tucson and Flag he has no jurisdiction over.

[Tenbatsuzen]

That's great, but how do you prove you're a citizen to a cop?

Quick little story for your pothole story.

About a year and a half ago, I was picking up my parents from the airport coming home from... Phoenix. Their plane was about an hour late, so I didn't get them home until well past midnight on a Tuesday night/Wednesday morning.

I then drove back to my apartment. Driving home, the tail end of my truck fishtailed because it had rained and it looked like I could possibly be DUI.

Cop pulled me over. He had reasonable suspicion. He asked me for my license, I gave it to him. He scanned it, gave me a quick once over to see if I was drinking, and let me on my way. I didn't feel like my civil rights were violated. I had the proper IDs, he checked them, I wasn't wanted for anything, I was on my way.

People who are against this law think Arpaio is gonna start doing some serious Kristallnacht shit, that as soon as they get a brown person, they're gonna throw the fucking book at them. Not true.

[Tenbatsuzen]

I hope you get sent to guantanamo because the cops suspect that you're "breaking the law". Keep giving away your liberties because a couple of brown people came across the border without papers.

"a couple?"

Try a half million in Arizona alone.

[Tenbatsuzen]

My wife doesn't have a license. lots of people don't have licenses.

Also, you're supposed to be able to travel freely in this country without documentation. Suddenly everyone is ok with just checking everyone because they are slightly brown and then detaining them because they never learned to drive

How does your wife buy beer? How does your wife do something at a bank that needs photo ID?

[Chigworthy]

Where does it say this in the law?
Where does it say in the text of the law that independent reason is needed for the lawful contact?


Reasonable suspicion is never defined in a law. It is left up to the officer viewing the totality of the circumstances.

Because in order for a contact to be lawful, it has to comply with the 4th amendment. I don't know why this simple concept is so hard to grasp. Law enforcement cannot lawfully violate the law; it is a paradox.

As for reasonable suspicion being defined in a law, there is always a long line of case law to establish what is currently acceptable search and seizure.

[Chigworthy]

There is no mention of potholes there. According to your quote, a cop can pull over whoever they want as long as they can fake a reason.

In CA, failure to maintain a lane gives an officer probable cause for a traffic stop. I would imagine every state has a similar vehicle code, because the majority of people feel that swerving a vehicle may be a sign that something is wrong. I'm guessing you think that violates the 4th as well.

[Barnaby Jones]

"a couple?"

Try a half million in Arizona alone.

They're the backbone of the Arizona economy!

[epo]

personally I'm of the school that the constitution only applies to citizens, but hey, that's not the point.

Then you don't really understand the Constitution.

[underdog]

How does your wife buy beer? How does your wife do something at a bank that needs photo ID?

If my wife wants to buy beer, she'll grab her passport and use that. But she doesn't carry it the majority of the time. She carries virtually no type of identification most of the time.

And who the hell goes to banks, Blowhard?

[KnoxHarrington]

Then you don't really understand the Constitution.

That god-damn piece of paper?

[Serpico1103]

Because in order for a contact to be lawful, it has to comply with the 4th amendment. I don't know why this simple concept is so hard to grasp. Law enforcement cannot lawfully violate the law; it is a paradox.

As for reasonable suspicion being defined in a law, there is always a long line of case law to establish what is currently acceptable search and seizure.
You didn't answer my simple question. Where in the does it say, other than reason suspicion of immigration status, another violation is required? Where does it say race can not be used as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculation?

Again, I am not saying the law is unconstitutional, only that officers may cross the line in applying it, and it may cause more harm than good.
I don't know if current case law about reasonable suspicion is easily applied to immigration status. Reasonable suspicion in the leading drug case was satisfied by changing cars, u-turns, and fabric softener odor. What would be immigration equivalent?

[Chigworthy]

You didn't answer my simple question. Where in the does it say, other than reason suspicion of immigration status, another violation is required? Where does it say race can not be used as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculation?

Again, I am not saying the law is unconstitutional, only that officers may cross the line in applying it, and it may cause more harm than good.
I don't know if current case law about reasonable suspicion is easily applied to immigration status. Reasonable suspicion in the leading drug case was satisfied by changing cars, u-turns, and fabric softener odor. What would be immigration equivalent?

I have answered your question, and I've even quoted the law repeatedly. If you want the law to state everything that officer's can't do, it would be a mile long. That's why we have the constitution as a backbone and the evolving history of case law. It is a given that law enforcement is not allowed to violate the constitutional rights of people. Of course there are cases where that happens, but only in a situation where there is proven widespread abuse would you limit the entire body's authority. There is nothing new in this law about profiling in order to stop someone.

If you would take a look at the state laws that give officers authority to detain and arrest people for any crime, you will find similar language about "reason to detain" or "reasonable suspicion". This is part of the already-established, constitutional standard for a lawful search & seizure. If you're saying that this law is unconstitutional or wrong because of the section that describes reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal immigrant, then logically you are also saying that an officer has no authority to detain anyone for any crime, as the same standards of reasonable suspicion are used to give the officer that authority.

I will quote the part you are asking for once more:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, 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).

Lawful Contact.

[Serpico1103]

I give up. I have read the law. Thanks. Its lawful because law enforcement can't break the law.
Can illegals get az driver licenses?

[CaptainBlowhole]

Why is there such a fuss over a law that targets people who are here illegally? Is it because the people that are here legally may be hassled for appearing like the targets of the action? I would think that if I happened to look like an illegal immigrant, but I went though whatever hassle enabled me to come here legally, that I would be happy to provide proof that I am legitimately here.
Illegals are breaking the freaking law! How else can you target someone? I also imagine that American GI's in the middle east are targeting by terrorist combatants because we "look American" yet no one complains about that. Why should honest, legal people have to bear the burden of allowing law breakers within our society and mooch off of our advantages and not contribute to it by paying taxes or at the very least go through whatever hoops legal people go though.

[underdog]

Why is there such a fuss over a law that targets people who are here illegally? Is it because the people that are here legally may be hassled for appearing like the targets of the action? I would think that if I happened to look like an illegal immigrant, but I went though whatever hassle enabled me to come here legally, that I would be happy to provide proof that I am legitimately here.
Illegals are breaking the freaking law! How else can you target someone? I also imagine that American GI's in the middle east are targeting by terrorist combatants because we "look American" yet no one complains about that. Why should honest, legal people have to bear the burden of allowing law breakers within our society and mooch off of our advantages and not contribute to it by paying taxes or at the very least go through whatever hoops legal people go though.

The fact that people are ok with "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" is fucking frightening.

[StanUpshaw]

Why is there such a fuss over a law that targets people who are here illegally? Is it because the people that are here legally may be hassled for appearing like the targets of the action? I would think that if I happened to look like an illegal immigrant, but I went though whatever hassle enabled me to come here legally, that I would be happy to provide proof that I am legitimately here.
Illegals are breaking the freaking law! How else can you target someone? I also imagine that American GI's in the middle east are targeting by terrorist combatants because we "look American" yet no one complains about that. Why should honest, legal people have to bear the burden of allowing law breakers within our society and mooch off of our advantages and not contribute to it by paying taxes or at the very least go through whatever hoops legal people go though.

Your enthusiasm for the police state is baffling. But if that's what you want, cheers.

And only idiot mongoloid retards believe the myth that illegals take more from the economy than they add.

[Serpico1103]

Why is there such a fuss over a law that targets people who are here illegally? Is it because the people that are here legally may be hassled for appearing like the targets of the action? I would think that if I happened to look like an illegal immigrant, but I went though whatever hassle enabled me to come here legally, that I would be happy to provide proof that I am legitimately here.
Illegals are breaking the freaking law! How else can you target someone? I also imagine that American GI's in the middle east are targeting by terrorist combatants because we "look American" yet no one complains about that. Why should honest, legal people have to bear the burden of allowing law breakers within our society and mooch off of our advantages and not contribute to it by paying taxes or at the very least go through whatever hoops legal people go though.
So, you won't mind the irs auditing your last 7 tax returns? Won't mind the police reviewing all your website hits and d/ls for violations? Won't mind required gps devices to monitor adherence to traffic laws? After all, you behave legally.

Just like after 9/11, we impliment all new laws to protect us. When the old laws were adequate, it was their application that failed. How many FBI and CIA high level agents were fired for their incompetence? Instead, we add more layers to confuse them.

Enforce the simple laws we have. It works. Ask guiliani and nyc. You don't need new laws, you need to enforce the ones you have.

[Barnaby Jones]

And only idiot mongoloid retards believe the myth that illegals take more from the economy than they add.

They money made off of illegals here far outweighs their cost!

[Dude!]

They money made off of illegals here far outweighs their cost!

prove that with some facts
please

[StanUpshaw]

prove that with some facts
please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_Unite d_States

[WRESTLINGFAN]

They money made off of illegals here far outweighs their cost!

If I may add to this. I am probably the most supportive of anti immigration laws on this board. Sure the illegals need to be deported , however its the corporations, landscaping companies etc who are benefitting from this big time. More emphasis needs to go to them.

If employers are not targeted then the problem will never be solved.

I am softening my stance as far as guest workers. Let them in, however only for the season and they must go back and then they can reapply when the next harvest season begins. Also they must be paid a fair wage and they must pay federal and applicable state income taxes, enough of paying them in cash.

[CaptainBlowhole]

Regardless of all this anti law rhetoric, being in a country illegally is a CRIME, and if a person looks like they are committing a crime, it behooves a policeman to investigate. If a cop sees me going faster than other traffic, is it correct for him to pull me over. The law was not being enforced in Arizona, and it borders Mexico, so what rational person would have an issue with police enforcing a law? When I say they do not contribute, I mean that they are not counted as citizens, they send their children to schools and overcrowd classrooms because the school districts did not hire enough teachers because it was not in their budget because the number of people in the town was deflated because illegals would not fill out a census form etc. So, if you are a legal resident in that town and have your kid in the school and they have one teacher and the ideal is 25 kids in the class, and the teacher now has to teach 40 kids, your child does not get the attention that would be ideal for a proper education.

[Serpico1103]

I just wonder what "looking like" being an illegal will be?
Why were police refusing to enforce immigration law before? Lack of money, lack of political support, lack of federal cooperation?

[tanless1]

...lack of federal cooperation, and interferance.

[tanless1]

...and those other things

[tanless1]

...police wernt refusing to, they're hands were tied by superiors.....who were under the illusion that the feds had final authority.

[tanless1]

...but noone ever expected final authority to be inaction, or even complicitey.

[Serpico1103]

...police wernt refusing to, they're hands were tied by superiors.....who were under the illusion that the feds had final authority.
The feds do have final authority. Being an illegal is a violation of federal law. This law requires the local police to contact the feds. What will the feds do? Remain uncooperative, claim lack of resources?

[tanless1]

Here is a small example of how illiegal imigration DOES effect our economy w/o obligitory name calling . Jobs/education, youth/available jobs, lack of available jobs/prison population. We have a large number of youths living on student loans that they are later unable to repay due to lack of available position, where before they would've worked a job or 2 while achieving their educational goals. Often one may even change their major because of the experience they achieved in the work force..... instead of graduating and realizing they had no desire for the field, and now a but load of bills.

[tanless1]

The feds do have final authority. Being an illegal is a violation of federal law. This law requires the local police to contact the feds. What will the feds do? Remain uncooperative, claim lack of resources?

Yes, that's exactly what they've done. Its much easier to hold one(someone/not racial slur) than it is to let go and hope you find them by accident again.

[tanless1]

After school work : the coveated job was always market clerk. Not that easy to come by anymore. Lawn maintinece? Burger joint(what are those managers making these days) these are the jobs that paid for prom, band uniforms, first cars, second cars, art projects, new amplifiers....and prison graduates reentering the free world... as well as launch pads to vocational degrees and/or back up positions for struggling buisness owneres to fill in the gaps till they were more solvent.

[StanUpshaw]

After school work : the coveated job was always market clerk. Not that easy to come by anymore. Lawn maintinece? Burger joint(what are those managers making these days) these are the jobs that paid for prom, band uniforms, first cars, second cars, art projects, new amplifiers....and prison graduates reentering the free world... as well as launch pads to vocational degrees and/or back up positions for struggling buisness owneres to fill in the gaps till they were more solvent.

Now all you have to do is back up these assertions with facts!

[tanless1]

....nice attempt to dodge shaw, but inadequit.

[StanUpshaw]

What exactly am I dodging? You have the unsupported hypotheses, and it's up to you to prove them.

Obviously adding to the pool of unskilled workers drives wages down. That's the whole point. But you're going to have to show me proof that this trickle-up theory of yours has any substance.

[Barnaby Jones]

prove that with some facts
please

4th link down!

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=benefits+of+illegal+immigrants+in+the+us&aq=0&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=benefits+of+illegal+immigrants+&gs_rfai=&fp=4f910945c1ee36d4

[Serpico1103]

Arguing over the financial cost or gain is silly.
They are breaking the law.
The only question is how to enforce the law without becoming a draconian police state.
I want a focus on businesses that exploit illegals.
Increase border security to prevent immigration and stop illegal gun traffic into Mexico.

[foodcourtdruide]

Arguing over the financial cost or gain is silly.
They are breaking the law.
The only question is how to enforce the law without becoming a draconian police state.
I want a focus on businesses that exploit illegals.
Increase border security to prevent immigration and stop illegal gun traffic into Mexico.

It is not silly. If they are a financial gain to society, what exactly is the point of having the law?

[StanUpshaw]

Arguing over the financial cost or gain is silly.
They are breaking the law.
The only question is how to enforce the law without becoming a draconian police state.
I want a focus on businesses that exploit illegals.
Increase border security to prevent immigration and stop illegal gun traffic into Mexico.

Law is not static. By debating financial cost or gain, we might end up actually educating the public so they can pressure lawmakers to enact laws based on facts and reason, not nationalism and dogma.

[underdog]

Law is not static. By debating financial cost or gain, we might end up actually educating the public so they can pressure lawmakers to enact laws based on facts and reason, not nationalism and dogma.

USA! USA! USA!

[Serpico1103]

It is not silly. If they are a financial gain to society, what exactly is the point of having the law?

The point of this law? Or any law preventing immigration?
If it can be proven (not sure that is possible) that a steady flow of legal immigrants benefits us, then sure open the border to legal immigration.

Law is not static. By debating financial cost or gain, we might end up actually educating the public so they can pressure lawmakers to enact laws based on facts and reason, not nationalism and dogma.

Because it is a shadow economy, I am not sure the figures can be accurately counted. Also, most people would not understand the use of statistics, if even the numbers are accurate. Statistics are tools, but too many people misinterpret what they the statistic means.
If you want to open up immigration to as much as administratively possibly, fine. As long as they are here legally, I am ok with that.
I think they are a drain on the economy, but mostly due to their illegal status. So, employers exploit them, don't pay taxes or benefits to them, they don't pay taxes, they don't become good citizens improving America because they are kept underground.

[Barnaby Jones]

they don't pay taxes

A common misconception!

[Serpico1103]

A common misconception!

I was referring to employers not paying payroll taxes. Also, immigrants don't pay income taxes (neither do many of the businesses that employ them). Why does the contractor give you a discount if you pay in cash? So, he doesn't have to declare the income.
Illegals do pay taxes. Do they pay the same level of taxes as a citizen, on the books, earning the same wage?

[high fly]

Arguing over the financial cost or gain is silly.
They are breaking the law.
The only question is how to enforce the law without becoming a draconian police state.
I want a focus on businesses that exploit illegals.
Increase border security to prevent immigration and stop illegal gun traffic into Mexico.

Whaya gonna do when someone sees we have something like 150,000 miles of coastland and tells them immigrants about boats? Put up a wall on Daytona Beach?

Here again, we can take the conservative perspective and look to our Founding Fathers who welcomed immigrants and didn't have any illegal ones because they didn't enact any dopey laws like we got now.
Change the law.
Then the problem goes away.

These people are willing to leave their homeland, their families, their churches and social ties to risk their lives to come here in the face of a lot of hatred from Americans, yet still they come.
They want to be Americans so bad they need to be seen as assets, rather than as some "problem."
Legalize-em all and employers have to pay them better because they will no longer be afraid of deportation and can report the employers for underpaying them.
America will get 11 million new taxpayers paying for things like Social Security and whatever costs they impose on governmental systems.

Legalize-em all and everyone does just fine....

[StanUpshaw]

Whaya gonna do when someone sees we have something like 150,000 miles of coastland and tells them immigrants about boats? Put up a wall on Daytona Beach?

lol

[Serpico1103]

Whaya gonna do when someone sees we have something like 150,000 miles of coastland and tells them immigrants about boats? Put up a wall on Daytona Beach?

Here again, we can take the conservative perspective and look to our Founding Fathers who welcomed immigrants and didn't have any illegal ones because they didn't enact any dopey laws like we got now.
Change the law.
Then the problem goes away.
These people are willing to leave their homeland, their families, their churches and social ties to risk their lives to come here in the face of a lot of hatred from Americans, yet still they come.
They want to be Americans so bad they need to be seen as assets, rather than as some "problem."
Legalize-em all and employers have to pay them better because they will no longer be afraid of deportation and can report the employers for underpaying them.
America will get 11 million new taxpayers paying for things like Social Security and whatever costs they impose on governmental systems.
Legalize-em all and everyone does just fine....
I agree for the most part.

I think laws that are not enforced, should be repealed.
Lawmakers are lazy.
I am for legalizing them, increasing immigration limit to realistic number, and taxing the shit out of them. Before they get drunk and kill someone in a car crash.

Pushing people out of society, into an underground society, does not help us. Get rid of the underground society by crushing it, or embracing it.

[Barnaby Jones]

I was referring to employers not paying payroll taxes. Also, immigrants don't pay income taxes (neither do many of the businesses that employ them). Why does the contractor give you a discount if you pay in cash? So, he doesn't have to declare the income.
Illegals do pay taxes. Do they pay the same level of taxes as a citizen, on the books, earning the same wage?

I misunderstood the point you were making!

[StanUpshaw]

Cato Institute
Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform

CAPITOL HILL BRIEFING
Friday, August 14, 2009

<object name="player" id="player" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9.0.115" width="480" height="275"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.cato.org/jwmediaplayer44/player.swf"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="flashvars" value="plugins=gapro-1&gapro.accountid=UA-1677831-1&file=hb-08-14-09.flv&skin=http://www.cato.org/jwmediaplayer/nacht/nacht.swf&type=rtmp&streamer=rtmp%3A%2F%2Fflash.edgecastcdn.net%2F0008 73%2Farchive-2009"><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" width="480" height="275" src="http://www.cato.org/jwmediaplayer44/player.swf" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="plugins=gapro-1&gapro.accountid=UA-1677831-1&file=ccf-08-14-09.flv&skin=http://www.cato.org/jwmediaplayer/nacht/nacht.swf&type=rtmp&streamer=rtmp%3A%2F%2Fflash.edgecastcdn.net%2F0008 73%2Farchive-2009"></embed></object>

Sorry to go all hanso on you guys, but I think this video is relevant to the discussion at hand.


Edit: the fucking video won't embed, but you can watch it here (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6421)

[high fly]

I agree for the most part.

I think laws that are not enforced, should be repealed.
Lawmakers are lazy.
I am for legalizing them, increasing immigration limit to realistic number, and taxing the shit out of them. Before they get drunk and kill someone in a car crash.

Pushing people out of society, into an underground society, does not help us. Get rid of the underground society by crushing it, or embracing it.


Yeah, make citizenship a lot easier and bring to the fore our better half and welcome them with a smile and a covered dish.

There would need to be a second part of my idea, and that is to have a foreign aid program where we go in and improve their countries so that America is not such a powerful magnet to attract them. That is why enforcement will never really work, they already know they are hated and are willing to risk everything anyway to get here.
The only way to significantly decrease their numbers is by making their homelands better and those billions being spent on that 12-foot tall border fence only helps the 12-foot ladder industry. It would be better spent building schools and roads and stuff south of the border...

[tanless1]

I feel safe in saying that NONE of us are against imigration. To lable those that disagree with you as nationalistic or xenophobic does the discussion a great disservice.

[high fly]

I feel safe in saying that NONE of us are against imigration. To lable those that disagree with you as nationalistic or xenophobic does the discussion a great disservice.


It is an emotional wedge issue used to motivate the right-wing base.

South Carolina (it's always South Carolina these days) Lt. Governor Bauer blames illegal immigration on welfare queens... (http://www.thestate.com/2010/04/24/1258024/bauer-takes-aim-at-the-lazy-in.html)

[torker]

I feel safe in saying that NONE of us are against imigration. To lable those that disagree with you as nationalistic or xenophobic does the discussion a great disservice.

Homophobic racist.

[tanless1]

thanks torker. Ill exit with this. A healthy nation has the ability to be a helpful nation. A nation that willfuly disregards its health will soon be another.
Do not take this to imply xenophobia, do take this as concern that an opportunistic political movement will arrest the situation by siezing life, liberty, property,persuit of happiness....in the name of helping others(but only to empower and enslave). Stand up, stand up so that we may stand up to help eachother(this includes immigrants) later. Don't allow yourselves to be lost in anothers game, as their intentions are not beneavolent as their words are intended to lead you to believe.

[StanUpshaw]

Keep fuckin that chicken.

[Chigworthy]

To say that illegal immigrants add money to our country implies that they are bringing money from out of country to the US. Why are there signs for two or more money order companies in a foreign language that advertise money orders to mexico on every convenience store in my county?

[Chigworthy]

I give up. I have read the law. Thanks. Its lawful because law enforcement can't break the law.

No one said that law enforcement can't break the law. But many people are saying that this law allows and encourages law enforcement to break the law, which is untrue, and cannot be backed up with any facts. I don't understand how you think that I said that law enforcement can't break the law. It's baffling. I would ask you to quote where I did, but that won't happen.

[torker]

To say that illegal immigrants add money to our country implies that they are bringing money from out of country to the US. Why are there signs for two or more money order companies in a foreign language that advertise money orders to mexico on every convenience store in my county?

Why do I have to press 1 for english?

Because I don't speak spanish

[StanUpshaw]

To say that illegal immigrants add money to our country implies that they are bringing money from out of country to the US. Why are there signs for two or more money order companies in a foreign language that advertise money orders to mexico on every convenience store in my county?

Wow.

No, no one is saying that the immigrants cash on hand is why they are beneficial to the economy. It is value in labor they provide, which adds up on every progressive step, eventually totaling hundreds of billions in GDP.

Field -> Trucking -> Processing -> Trucking -> Wholesale -> Trucking -> Retail

All of the value added in each one of those steps is directly attributable to the initial labor. That value would simply cease to exist if it wasn't for illegals, because it simply wouldn't be profitable to pay domestic labor.

[Chigworthy]

That value would simply cease to exist if it wasn't for illegals, because it simply wouldn't be profitable to pay domestic labor.

So it wouldn't be profitable for companies to comply with the law and pay the regulated salaries, benefits, and insurance? In that case, fuck those brown people, they can work for substandard wages and conditions so I don't have to pay 6 dollars for lettuce.

[StanUpshaw]

So it wouldn't be profitable for companies to comply with the law and pay the regulated salaries, benefits, and insurance? In that case, fuck those brown people, they can work for substandard wages and conditions so I don't have to pay 6 dollars for lettuce.

Little brown people will still be doing the labor, perhaps for even less money, only it will occur in their own country. We will then pay that country's corporations, and import the goods from them.

[Serpico1103]

No one said that law enforcement can't break the law. But many people are saying that this law allows and encourages law enforcement to break the law, which is untrue, and cannot be backed up with any facts. I don't understand how you think that I said that law enforcement can't break the law. It's baffling. I would ask you to quote where I did, but that won't happen.

I know you didn't say it.
I just got bored with your "quote from the law" nonsense. I am asking a simple question that you never answered.
What would give reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal? Not having ID? So, every person that gets pulled over and forgot their wallet or purse will be taken to the precinct to verify their immigration status? What other factors would give rise to reasonable suspicion?
Other than race (which you state can not be used as a basis, but can not support that assertion with language from the law) is a factor? Smelling of fresh cut grass and gasoline? Finding George Lopez funny?

I have said the law may not be unconstitutional. I'll leave that to the courts. I have said, that giving police officers more responsibility/power does not always work out well.

[Serpico1103]

From the AZ governor (I'll let her answer your race issue).

"The governor pointed out, both in her statement and that executive order, that the new law prohibits police from using race or ethnicity as the sole factor in determining whether to pursue an inquiry.
But she conceded that it does permit either to be used as one factor(referring to race or ethnicity) for an officer’s consideration. And she defended the language."

http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2010/04/24/brewer-says-racial-profiling-wont-be-issue

So, what are the other factors? Will two suffice? Race and what? Poor English?

[high fly]

The immigration issue illustrates just how far we have departed from the values this country was founded upon.
People willing to leave everything and risk their lives to do horrid work under miserable conditions in the midst of so much hatred should be viewed as an asset, not a problem.

We like to think of ourselves as a good, generous people, but on this issue a vile streak comes out and the darkness of our hearts becomes evident.
We can do better, a lot better..
We should do better toward our fellow humans who have been granted the same unalienable rights we have.

[Barnaby Jones]

Wow.

No, no one is saying that the immigrants cash on hand is why they are beneficial to the economy. It is value in labor they provide, which adds up on every progressive step, eventually totaling hundreds of billions in GDP.

Field -> Trucking -> Processing -> Trucking -> Wholesale -> Trucking -> Retail

All of the value added in each one of those steps is directly attributable to the initial labor. That value would simply cease to exist if it wasn't for illegals, because it simply wouldn't be profitable to pay domestic labor.

It's all of this plus the money they spend here!

[Ogre]

The immigration issue illustrates just how far we have departed from the values this country was founded upon.
People willing to leave everything and risk their lives to do horrid work under miserable conditions in the midst of so much hatred should be viewed as an asset, not a problem.

We like to think of ourselves as a good, generous people, but on this issue a vile streak comes out and the darkness of our hearts becomes evident.
We can do better, a lot better..
We should do better toward our fellow humans who have been granted the same unalienable rights we have.

The founding fathers did not create the welfare system. This is where some people get confused. The founders established these unalienable rights of life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.

Not guaranteed happiness. But the opportunity of happiness.

Equality means equal protection under the law. Not gerrymandered equality of outcome or condition.

To use the founding fathers in an argument that also contains or tax dollars going to programs that are socialistic in their nature, is specious at best.

Why is it that the President feels that Government should have regulation over all things here in the US EXCEPT the borders? Because by allowing illegals into the country unencumbered assists the Cloward and Piven (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/clowardpiven_government.html) strategy of taking down the Capitalist machine that is the US. The overwhelming population would do one of two things:

One, If left unencumbered it crashes the States welfare, education and courts systems with overload, thus justifying a case for Federal intervention.

Two, Amnesty passes and he just bought 12 million new votes with your money and resources.

Let the States deal with the problem that the Federal Government has refused to address. I hear so much about civil rights. What about the rights of the Arizona Citizens? What about teir property rights? What about the dead rancher and his family? What about the rights of the Citizens of Pheonix AZ, which has the second highest kidnapping rate in the WORLD. (Second only to Mexico city). Drug cartels don't care about a line in the dirt, they do not care about our laws.

And what about these "peaceful" protests in AZ with bottles being thrown at Police, Police being assaulted, Police having to don riot gear. Where's blinky Pelosi with her fake outrage over the violence ? Where is the Media ?

The New York Tass and the Washington Pravda calls peacefully assembled American citizens domestic terrorists, but people protesting in favor of illegal activity, committing misdemeanor crimes against public officials peaceful.

There is video to support what I am stating, there still is no video of the made up N word event on HealthControl Sunday. But the press reported those rumors as fact.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

The illegal aliens have exploited our nations generosity to a point that they are biting the hand that feeds them. America welcomes immigrants to come and contribute and to come here legally.

We are a generous nation, however we must not allow people to come here, and scam off the entitlement system. We have enough of our home grown leeches. I have no problem with people coming here thru the proper channels, however the anarchy that is spilling over the border and the people who overstay their visas and the businesses who hire them are a huge problem and must be dealt with

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Here's video of a small riot upon signing of the bill


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p48INNGtXh4

[TjM]

The "crime" in this case is being in the U.S. So until they have documentation showing otherwise, the only suspicion they'd have is that "they look like they don't belong here."

Usually, we call that racial profiling, but according to Rep. Brian Bilbray , you can tell by looking at their shoes (http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/201004220001), so who knows, maybe it'll hold up after all.

FUCKING DUTCH AND THEIR FUCKING CLOGS! :furious::furious::furious:

[WRESTLINGFAN]

This rhetoric by Sharpton comparing illegal aliens to blacks is some of the most vile things Ive ever heard. I will use Mexicans as the example since they are the largest group of illegals here Slaves were shackled chained and brought here against their will. Illegals come here knowingly that they are breaking the law. Illegals arent being lynched. There are no cross burnings on the lawn of the Lopez Family. Illegals never had to sit at the back of the bus or drink out of separate fountains

A black conservative named Thomas Sowell calls sharpton for what he is. He's a poverty pimp and always looks to further his own agenda and uses a bully pulpit to exploit a situation.

[A.J.]

A black conservative named Thomas Sowell

aka "sellout".

[WRESTLINGFAN]

FUCKING DUTCH AND THEIR FUCKING CLOGS! :furious::furious::furious:

Windmills in front of houses look more appealing that 20 satellite dishes covering the roof :smile:

[Chigworthy]

From the AZ governor (I'll let her answer your race issue).

"The governor pointed out, both in her statement and that executive order, that the new law prohibits police from using race or ethnicity as the sole factor in determining whether to pursue an inquiry.
But she conceded that it does permit either to be used as one factor(referring to race or ethnicity) for an officer’s consideration. And she defended the language."

http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2010/04/24/brewer-says-racial-profiling-wont-be-issue

So, what are the other factors? Will two suffice? Race and what? Poor English?

Funny, the article doesn't quote her saying that the law permits race to be used as one factor, it just says that she concedes that point. But after reading the entire law, there is absolutely no mention of race or even appearance. Maybe the journalist lost his notes right when he was going to quote her saying that, since he has so many other quotes by her.

Here's one:

“Police officers are going to be respectful,” the governor continued. “They know what their jobs are, they’ve taken an oath. And racial profiling is illegal.”

Now here's how race can be used to develop reasonable suspicion. If a white family is found slaughtered in their beds, and the white husband/father's blood is found on the handle of the knife used to kill them, and the white father/husband is not at the house, and one of the vehicles is missing, do you think race might be used as one factor in developing reasonable suspicion to stop someone for the crime? Isn't the suspect's race fairly important? Maybe if an officer spots a similar vehicle parked in a parking lot, and notices a white man associated with the vehicle, race would be "factor" in reasonable suspicion.

Regardless of the hypothetical situation, race is used all the time in law enforcement as an identifying factor, just as clothing, hair color, jewelry, scars, tattoos, etc are all used to help identify suspects. But it is illegal to use race as the sole factor to develop reasonable suspicion. We've been through this. I don't understand why 4th amendment rights/search & seizure is so misunderstood by people that feel so threatened by it. You'd think they would study it a little if it is so frightening to them.

[Syd]

How do you tell if someone is an illegal immigrant or not?

[Serpico1103]

Funny, the article doesn't quote her saying that the law permits race to be used as one factor, it just says that she concedes that point. But after reading the entire law, there is absolutely no mention of race or even appearance. Maybe the journalist lost his notes right when he was going to quote her saying that, since he has so many other quotes by her.

Here's one:



Now here's how race can be used to develop reasonable suspicion. If a white family is found slaughtered in their beds, and the white husband/father's blood is found on the handle of the knife used to kill them, and the white father/husband is not at the house, and one of the vehicles is missing, do you think race might be used as one factor in developing reasonable suspicion to stop someone for the crime? Isn't the suspect's race fairly important? Maybe if an officer spots a similar vehicle parked in a parking lot, and notices a white man associated with the vehicle, race would be "factor" in reasonable suspicion.

Regardless of the hypothetical situation, race is used all the time in law enforcement as an identifying factor, just as clothing, hair color, jewelry, scars, tattoos, etc are all used to help identify suspects. But it is illegal to use race as the sole factor to develop reasonable suspicion. We've been through this. I don't understand why 4th amendment rights/search & seizure is so misunderstood by people that feel so threatened by it. You'd think they would study it a little if it is so frightening to them.
Not at a computer to research it, but now you are just grasping at straws. The journalist is lying? Of course the governor doesn't want to say race will be a factor, but she can't deny it. If the reporter asks "can race be a factor?" Do you think she will repeat the question in her answer like an essay exam? "Yes, race may be used as a factor." Or will she just say "yes." Hoping to minimize the exchange?
You are the one that said race may not be used. Now you are retreating to "of course it can be used." The law isn't going to say whether or not it can, case law will determine that. I have studied plenty of constitutional law. Graduating law school in a month. I never said the law was unconstitutional. I just think that part is an over reaction. Regardless, if local law enforcement was reluctant to enforce the law before, will they now try to avoid enforcing this law? By teaching their officers that the reasonable suspicion necessary is such a high standard it is never met? An officer on the street is more concerned with his superior than with the governor.

[Serpico1103]

How do you tell if someone is an illegal immigrant or not?
According to some in congress, by how they dress. The more I hear congressmen speak the more I worry about this country. Saw bill maher's religion movie the other day, senator he spoke with was making up words, using them completely wrong, was embarrassing.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

When it comes to immigration, the base at the statue of liberty refers to poor tired, huddled masses. It doesnt mean to kick the door down and have mass amounts of people sneaking in or overstaying their visa.

Why with every other wave of immigrants there were guidlelines IE Sponsor, had to be clear of diseases etc, however the illegals feel that they have carte blanche to come here and break the law even more?

Im going to use Mexicans, Central Americans as an example again. Why do most of them feel that they shouldn't speak English? While English is not mandatory, its the business of commerce etc. People from the middle east, India, The far east speak a language with a different alphabet structure and the translations are much harder from Arabic to english, than Spanish to English. If I was to move to another country, I would want to know the language of that country.

This isn't about hating short brown people. Hell I wish more Brazilian and Colombian and Lebanese women would come to the US ( legally of course), as they are some of the finest looking women on the planet :thumbup:

[Willmore]

Not at a computer to research it, but now you are just grasping at straws. The journalist is lying? Of course the governor doesn't want to say race will be a factor, but she can't deny it. If the reporter asks "can race be a factor?" Do you think she will repeat the question in her answer like an essay exam? "Yes, race may be used as a factor." Or will she just say "yes." Hoping to minimize the exchange?
You are the one that said race may not be used. Now you are retreating to "of course it can be used." The law isn't going to say whether or not it can, case law will determine that. I have studied plenty of constitutional law. Graduating law school in a month. I never said the law was unconstitutional. I just think that part is an over reaction. Regardless, if local law enforcement was reluctant to enforce the law before, will they now try to avoid enforcing this law? By teaching their officers that the reasonable suspicion necessary is such a high standard it is never met? An officer on the street is more concerned with his superior than with the governor.

Not a lawyer, but does US v. Martinez-Fuerte show that the law might actually be hard to overturn? If a police officer can somehow miraculously find reasonable suspicion of an illegal being in a random car traveling near the US-Mexico border, can't the police officer have reasonable suspicion of a person being an illegal in a state near the US-Mexico border.

The law is stupid, but it might be a pain to get rid of.

[Barnaby Jones]

When it comes to immigration, the base at the statue of liberty refers to poor tired, huddled masses. It doesnt mean to kick the door down and have mass amounts of people sneaking in or overstaying their visa.

Why with every other wave of immigrants there were guidlelines IE Sponsor, had to be clear of diseases etc, however the illegals feel that they have carte blanche to come here and break the law even more?

Im going to use Mexicans, Central Americans as an example again. Why do most of them feel that they shouldn't speak English? While English is not mandatory, its the business of commerce etc. People from the middle east, India, The far east speak a language with a different alphabet structure and the translations are much harder from Arabic to english, than Spanish to English. If I was to move to another country, I would want to know the language of that country.

This isn't about hating short brown people. Hell I wish more Brazilian and Colombian and Lebanese women would come to the US ( legally of course), as they are some of the finest looking women on the planet :thumbup:

We need the majority of illegals that are here and have been here! If we're going to have reform it's going to have come from a perspective that seeks to make the immigration process more appealing than going the illegal route! In short, we can't just kick them out and then seal off the borders to prevent them from coming in! Face fact: we need them!

[Serpico1103]

We need the majority of illegals that are here and have been here! If we're going to have reform it's going to have come from a perspective that seeks to make the immigration process more appealing than going the illegal route! In short, we can't just kick them out and then seal off the borders to prevent them from coming in! Face fact: we need them!
I don't think we need them. But I agree a simply aggressive approach will not work. Like a war on drugs, that doesn't address the demand. Like a war on terror that focuses on military battles. Give the proper authorities the resources and directive to control the situation. The window dressing of arresting the occassional immigrant is nonsense.
Crack down on employers using immigrants, crack down on property owners who rent to immigrants.

[Barnaby Jones]

...a new approach to the War on Drugs, too!

But we do need them, too! We need a cheap, relatively transient labor force!

[WRESTLINGFAN]

...a new approach to the War on Drugs, too!

But we do need them, too! We need a cheap, relatively transient labor force!

I think the best way is a seasonal guest worker program. They pay all required taxes. They have to register with ICE/DHS or whichever applicable department and upon completion of the season/harvest they must go home and reapply. A good possibility is after being a guest worker for a specific number of years then they can apply for a greencard.

IMHO amnesty is not the way to go as it will allow further chain migration. For example if an illegal is granted amnesty and then in turn 100 of hius relatives can come here. Multiply that by 20MM and the population will explode.

The gov't estimates that there are 12-20MM illegals, but it has to be at least 20

[Serpico1103]

...a new approach to the War on Drugs, too!

But we do need them, too! We need a cheap, relatively transient labor force!
We don't need cheap labor. We did away with child labor and survived. If goods go up in price, how many people will be materially affected? After all, their wages will also increase. If you want to legalize them, eh ok. But, leaving them as illegals is insane.

[Willmore]

Alternatively, does the law violate Kolender v. Lawson? There, it was ruled unconstitutional for a man to be forced to provide identification when on suspicion of loitering. It dealt with a black guy being repeatedly stopped in "white neighborhoods." Now, if it's illegal to stop and require the identification of a citizen, who is not breaking the law, the police can't possibly have the right to stop anyone without having advance knowledge of the person's legal status, no?

[Serpico1103]

Not a lawyer, but does US v. Martinez-Fuerte show that the law might actually be hard to overturn? If a police officer can somehow miraculously find reasonable suspicion of an illegal being in a random car traveling near the US-Mexico border, can't the police officer have reasonable suspicion of a person being an illegal in a state near the US-Mexico border.

The law is stupid, but it might be a pain to get rid of.
Martinez involved a permanent stop, done at the border, by federal agents. All distinguish it from the AZ law. Of course, there are factors are similar. I don't think the law is unconstitutional. It may just create constitutional challenges that end up forcing the local police to avoid enforcement, being leery of crossing at court established standard. Minimizes its impact, except as a publicity stunt, to draw attention to AZ's position.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

We don't need cheap labor. We did away with child labor and survived. If goods go up in price, how many people will be materially affected? After all, their wages will also increase. If you want to legalize them, eh ok. But, leaving them as illegals is insane.

While I disagree on giving them amnesty, The guest worker program could be beneficial to the government as they will collect more revenue thru applicable tax levels and these corporations can contribute as well.

[Serpico1103]

Unaware of the facts of kolender. But was there real cause to believe he was committing the crime of loitering? Or was it an obvious subterfuge to harrass the guy? Police can ask for anything. But if "ask" becomes "demand"' either explicitly or implicitly, a higher standard must be met. Stopping someone for a moment and asking for ID is seen as a minimal intrusion, so the protection is less than a search of a car, and much less than the search of a house. I haven't looked at it, but it may be analagous to NYC's stop and frisk practice. They have been accussed of racial profiling. Not sure the current status of it though.

[Serpico1103]

While I disagree on giving them amnesty, The guest worker program could be beneficial to the government as they will collect more revenue thru applicable tax levels and these corporations can contribute as well.
Like legalizing drugs. Use the revenue to offset the negatives; giving appropriate treatment to addiction and education. Let in a larger number of immigrants, using revenue from bringing their underground economy under the IRS's wacthful eye. With that tax money better control the border and illegal exploitation in the country.

[Chigworthy]

Not at a computer to research it, but now you are just grasping at straws. The journalist is lying? Of course the governor doesn't want to say race will be a factor, but she can't deny it. If the reporter asks "can race be a factor?" Do you think she will repeat the question in her answer like an essay exam? "Yes, race may be used as a factor." Or will she just say "yes." Hoping to minimize the exchange?
You are the one that said race may not be used. Now you are retreating to "of course it can be used." The law isn't going to say whether or not it can, case law will determine that. I have studied plenty of constitutional law. Graduating law school in a month. I never said the law was unconstitutional. I just think that part is an over reaction. Regardless, if local law enforcement was reluctant to enforce the law before, will they now try to avoid enforcing this law? By teaching their officers that the reasonable suspicion necessary is such a high standard it is never met? An officer on the street is more concerned with his superior than with the governor.

I pointed out that the journalist did not quote her because it is easier to shade the facts without a direct quote. Not that he is lying, just being a journalist.

All I've said in this thread is that race cannot be used as the sole determining factor to stop someone for anything. It's childish to say otherwise. The main thrust of this thread is that the law is unconstitutional because it allows police to stop people just because they look Mexican, and my whole point has obviously been that that is not true. Don't pretend like I meant otherwise.

[Barnaby Jones]

We don't need cheap labor. We did away with child labor and survived. If goods go up in price, how many people will be materially affected? After all, their wages will also increase. If you want to legalize them, eh ok. But, leaving them as illegals is insane.

We'd need cheap legal labor, too! The key is how they represent a transient cheap workforce! Are domestic poor aren't nearly as mobile! And I don't want to keep the illegals illegal! They'd still represent a cheap work force if they become legal, just not as cheap!

[Serpico1103]

I pointed out that the journalist did not quote her because it is easier to shade the facts without a direct quote. Not that he is lying, just being a journalist.

All I've said in this thread is that race cannot be used as the sole determining factor to stop someone for anything. It's childish to say otherwise. The main thrust of this thread is that the law is unconstitutional because it allows police to stop people just because they look Mexican, and my whole point has obviously been that that is not true. Don't pretend like I meant otherwise.
I'll accept the journalists view, unless presented with something to refute it. Your example of the man killing someone was horrible. That was a specific crime with a positive ID. A better analogy would have been "the robber jumped into a car with big rims and a loud radio", so the police add black male to the suspect's description because that is the likely result based on race. As an illegal immigrant in AZ is likely mexican (or looks mexican).
I never said the law was illegal. It articulates a standard, not a rule, so whatever the court has already established as the standard will be constitutional.I am merely curious (not burning flags and rioting in the street) about how it will be implemented.

[badmonkey]

They money made off of <strike>illegals</strike> slaves here far outweighs their cost!

Wow.

No, no one is saying that the <strike>immigrants</strike> slaves cash on hand is why they are beneficial to the economy. It is value in labor they provide, which adds up on every progressive step, eventually totaling hundreds of billions in GDP.

Field -> Trucking -> Processing -> Trucking -> Wholesale -> Trucking -> Retail

All of the value added in each one of those steps is directly attributable to the initial labor. That value would simply cease to exist if it wasn't for <strike>illegals</strike> slaves, because it simply wouldn't be profitable to pay domestic labor.

It's all of this plus the money they spend here!

We need the majority of <strike>illegals</strike> slaves that are here and have been here! If we're going to have reform it's going to have come from a perspective that seeks to make the <strike>immigration</strike>domestic employment process more appealing than going the <strike>illegal</strike> slavery route! In short, we can't just kick them out and then seal off the borders to prevent them from coming in! Face fact: we need them!

...a new approach to the War on Drugs, too!

But we do need them, too! We need <strike>a cheap, relatively transient labor force</strike> slaves!

We'd need <strike>cheap legal</strike> slave labor, too! The key is how they represent a transient cheap workforce! Are domestic poor aren't nearly as mobile! And I don't want to keep the <strike>illegals</strike> slaves <strike>illegal</strike> slaves! They'd still represent a cheap work force if they become legal, just not as cheap!

You two are just a couple of regular champions for the poor.

[Barnaby Jones]

I just said I don't want them here as illegals! I want the illegals here now made legal and the immigration process reformed so that it's more appealing to choose that than to sneak into the country! I want the companies and property owners that exploit illegals cracked down on! You might want to improve your reading skills, Mr. Monkey, instead of only seeing what you want to see! What a dope!

[Serpico1103]

You two are just a couple of regular champions for the poor.
I am not a fan of cheap labor argument. Until recently strawberries were expensive and seasonal, how did we survive? Wanting cheap goods is what got us here, outsourcing and immigrant labor destroying middle class jobs.

[StanUpshaw]

I am not a fan of cheap labor argument. Until recently strawberries were expensive and seasonal, how did we survive? Wanting cheap goods is what got us here, outsourcing and immigrant labor destroying middle class jobs.

Drivel. I don't even know where to start.

[Barnaby Jones]

immigrant labor destroying middle class jobs.

This is crazy talk!

[Serpico1103]

Drivel. I don't even know where to start.
Don't. But, thanks for your inner thoughts.

[Serpico1103]

This is crazy talk!
Because contractors don't use immigrants, paying them lower wages. Because companies don't use immigrants aware that illegals will never unionize. Outsourcing is the same. We want 5 dollar jeans, but than complain there is no manufacturing in the US.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Mexicos problems won't be solved from this side of the border. While there is an upper class of elites and many on the bottom rungs of economic society, Mexico in no way is a poor country. The richest man in the world is a Mexican.

Saying that, its not like Mexico is Darfur. The natural resources it has can make it a self sustaining country. Mexico's problem is corruption especially in Politics. Things are sleazy in DC but not like whats going on south of the border. Thepeople need to clean their own house there and not spill over the border into here.

This may sound socialist of me but there should be a surcharge/tax on all money being wired outside the US. For Latin American countries it should be higher than for example Europe. As I stated there are a lot of Irish illegals but the majority are from Mexico. Alot of that is used to send to relatives so they can pay a smuggler to bring them over instead of having the money lent to them so when they come here they have to pay off the smugglers

[Barnaby Jones]

Because contractors don't use immigrants, paying them lower wages. Because companies don't use immigrants aware that illegals will never unionize. Outsourcing is the same. We want 5 dollar jeans, but than complain there is no manufacturing in the US.

For the most part those aren't middle class jobs! Saying illegal immigrants take away middle class jobs in any significant capacity is just foolish!

[Barnaby Jones]

Mexico in no way is a poor country. The richest man in the world is a Mexican.

The latter does not prove the former! Come on!

[StanUpshaw]

Mexico has a per capita GDP of between $13,000-14,500 (PPP).

Well above average.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Many of Mexicos elites are either from Spain or mixed with the native indian tribes (Mestizos) Its the ones in rural areas who are amongst the poorest. Many illegals come from the state of Oaxaca which is in Southern Mexico. A lot of the border towns are kind of staging areas to go across the border, also thats where a lot of the drugs come from towns like Tijuana for example.

Once the corruption ends or at least gets down to a lower level Mexico can be a country with a thriving middle class.

I think NAFTA/CAFTA played a big role in this because pre 1994 there were not that many illegals in states like NY. Most of the illegals were in border states

[Barnaby Jones]

Mexico has a per capita GDP of between $13,000-14,500 (PPP).

Well above average.

But that doesn't make pointing out that the richest man in the world is there as proof that it's not a poor country any less of a terrible argument! It also doesn't disprove the idea that there aren't a ton of poor people in Mexico! That's why they're coming here!

[WRESTLINGFAN]

But that doesn't make pointing out that the richest man in the world is there as proof that it's not a poor country any less of a terrible argument! It also doesn't disprove the idea that there aren't a ton of poor people in Mexico! That's why they're coming here!

I should have elaborated better my bad. Mexico really isnt that poor. A country like Haiti and Somalia now thats poor. Its the corruption, even the police are corrupt.

They have a huge tourism industry, Im sure swine flu affected that, however, the oil revenue as well as mining etc can make life sustainable there

[Serpico1103]

For the most part those aren't middle class jobs! Saying illegal immigrants take away middle class jobs in any significant capacity is just foolish!
They lower the wage of any manual labor position. Taking it from a wage an american would accept, to a wage only an immigrant getting paid in cash, unconcerned about medical or retirement benefits. We don't need cheap labor. We need that will accept a livable wage. Immigrants accept a lower wage than a citizen could afford. Scrupulous employers are forced to compete with employers using illegal labor, evading taxes, and probably safety standards because who will the illegals conplain to?

We don't need cheap labor. If your grocery bill goes up, cut back on your cable bill.

[Barnaby Jones]

They lower the wage of any manual labor position. Taking it from a wage an american would accept, to a wage only an immigrant getting paid in cash, unconcerned about medical or retirement benefits. We don't need cheap labor. We need that will accept a livable wage. Immigrants accept a lower wage than a citizen could afford. Scrupulous employers are forced to compete with employers using illegal labor, evading taxes, and probably safety standards because who will the illegals conplain to?

We don't need cheap labor. If your grocery bill goes up, cut back on your cable bill.

I agree with the idea that this whole thing needs to be overhauled so that employers can't take advantage of illegals. The bigger issue of a livable wage holds much more water in terms of arguing about the loss of middle class jobs, but that lack of that goes well beyond cheap illegal labor!

[Barnaby Jones]

I should have elaborated better my bad. Mexico really isnt that poor. A country like Haiti and Somalia now thats poor. Its the corruption, even the police are corrupt.

They have a huge tourism industry, Im sure swine flu affected that, however, the oil revenue as well as mining etc can make life sustainable there

Mexico could have a much more viable economy! I keep coming back to drug legalization because it would cripple so much of the criminal organizations there! It's not like we're talking a narco-state reliant on something like cocaine in Columbia or heroin in SE Asia! These are groups making a ton of money off of marijuana!

[Serpico1103]

I agree with the idea that this whole thing needs to be overhauled so that employers can't take advantage of illegals. The bigger issue of a livable wage holds much more water in terms of arguing about the loss of middle class jobs, but that lack of that goes well beyond cheap illegal labor!
Of course immigration and outsourcing are just two factors in our economic stratification. A strong middle class is necessary for a strong democracy. We are moving away from that.
Mexico is very stratified, and a very inflexible class structure. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Saudi arabi is a rich country, but it too lacks a sizeable middle class- ultra wealthy or dirt farmer.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Of course immigration and outsourcing are just two factors in our economic stratification. A strong middle class is necessary for a strong democracy. We are moving away from that.
Mexico is very stratified, and a very inflexible class structure. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Saudi arabi is a rich country, but it too lacks a sizeable middle class- ultra wealthy or dirt farmer.

I would say Sand Farmer, but I agree with that

[StanUpshaw]

They lower the wage of any manual labor position. Taking it from a wage an american would accept, to a wage only an immigrant getting paid in cash, unconcerned about medical or retirement benefits. We don't need cheap labor. We need that will accept a livable wage. Immigrants accept a lower wage than a citizen could afford. Scrupulous employers are forced to compete with employers using illegal labor, evading taxes, and probably safety standards because who will the illegals conplain to?

We don't need cheap labor. If your grocery bill goes up, cut back on your cable bill.

I know there's a lot of law classes you need to take, but surely there was some sort of econ requirement!?

So you want people paid American wages to pick strawberries, right? So American strawberry prices skyrocket. Who the fuck is going to buy American strawberries at $10/lb when they can buy Mexican or Chinese or Chilean strawberries at $3/lb? What happens then?

By saying we don't need cheap labor, you're saying we don't need labor. LABOR IS CHEAP. That's all there is to it. It's cheap, it's fungible, and if we don't use it, someone else will. This is fucking reality.

[Serpico1103]

Guess what strawberries used to be seasonal. All fruits and vegetables were seasonal. Meat was seasonal. Until we lowered our standards and accepted things that look like food, but wasn't quite the same thing.
We can demand certain standards for the imports. So, either people buy our products or buy imports that are paying to improve the standards in otherr countries instead of just going to the profits of a multinational corporation. Will dishes be sent overseas to be washed? Will lawns be mowed by remotely controlled mowers from india? Will houses be built in south america and then shipped to the property? Drivel! Shouldn't have replied.