Arizona's New Immigration Law

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

See post # 7. One thing Obama is NOT, is stupid. I'm just a guy on a messageboard and I found the info on the law in less than 5 min. Obama knows exactly what's in/not in the statutes. What he stated is certainly not something that can reasonably be assumed to happen the way they're written. For him to make the statement he did is a purely political play.

I don't know who the "reasonable Republicans" are coming out against this law, but I'll bet it's safe to assume they're pandering to a Hispanic voting bloc in their district/state. You're absolutely correct, the security of the people of the U.S. isn't a right/left issue and I'll bet you could take a handful of members from this board, on both sides of the political spectrum, and come up with a reasonable solution to the illegal immigration issue that satisifed both sides. However, for the vast majority of politicians in DC its about power and keeping their jobs. The Hispanic voting bloc is already (or will be very shortly) the largest minority voting bloc in the country. How this issue is spun is key to gaining/losing support with a good portion of this voting bloc....so I would say there is definitely politcal advantage to be had here.

This is what it's all about for the Dems. With mid-terms just 6 months away, why wouldn't Obama publicly speak out on this? It's a great opportunity to build more support from registered Hispanic voters.

I haven't read this piece of legislation, nor do I care to. I don't have the time in my day to read page after page of statutes, however I'm all about the strictest (is that a word?) immigration laws. At a time when 1 in 10 Americans is without a job, the thought of people sneaking across our border to leech off of our already struggling economy makes me sick. I'm not an isolationist, but this is a time where we need to put ourselves first.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by GMScud

This is what it's all about for the Dems. With mid-terms just 6 months away, why wouldn't Obama publicly speak out on this? It's a great opportunity to build more support from registered Hispanic voters.

I haven't read this piece of legislation, nor do I care to. I don't have the time in my day to read page after page of statutes, however I'm all about the strictest (is that a word?) immigration laws. At a time when 1 in 10 Americans is without a job, the thought of people sneaking across our border to leech off of our already struggling economy makes me sick. I'm not an isolationist, but this is a time where we need to put ourselves first.

If only more people in D.C. thought like you.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The primary point to this statute is to provide for the state to take action against any locality that refuses to enforce laws already in place. This law brings a uniform state-wide policy to bear to combat the problems that AZ has been facing for years while politicians on both sides of the aisle in DC bury their heads, while trying to appeal/not offend to the Hispanic voting bloc.

In a nutshell it makes the "sanctuary cities" liable for legal action by the state for not enforcing Federal and State of Arizona law. This I'm sure is a bigger problem in AZ than it is in VA. But I live in the sanctuary city of Virginia Beach. The previous Mayor and police chief had a policy to not report illegals to ICE, in addition to the burden illegal immigrants put on the City services (police, medical, social services) two teenage girls are dead, directly because of this policy (killed by a drunk driving illegal who had been released twice before for alcohol issues).

Here's the a link to the actual text of the statutes:

Text of Arizona's Anti-Illegal Immigration Law - Part 1 | KEYTLaw

These statutes seek enforcement not only directly against illegal immigrants but also against companies that employ them.

President Obama is making a purely political play (and he damn well knows it) in misrepresenting what these statutes contain. This isn't about racism, it's about AZ protecting the people of the state from the negative consequences of illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, the murder of the rancher was the straw that broke the camels' back.

We're all grow men, let's bring facts to the table shall we?

1. It makes sanctuary cities liable citizen lawsuits. These citizens will be suing themselves and AZ is the most broke state in the country (yes, even more broken than Cali). Some will claim they're broke because of all the welfare they provide for undocumented aliens but the real questions is how do undocumented aliens obtain these welfare services and how does this law address that issue? You must understand that these aliens have fake everything, license, social security, you name it, they have it.

2. The crime rate in Arizona has been steadily declining even with increasing population of undocumented aliens. The question is what is the basis for claiming undocumented aliens increase are the source of crime in Arizona?

3. Lord Obama is certainly politicizing? He's a politician addressing a national issue, the issue of immigration, which last I checked is a federal issue. Anywho, this Arizona law is a political play itself and that's fine. Either side is entitled to convince the public their immigration vision is right for America. I don't know how he is misrepresenting the the AZ law. I would be happy to listen what part of what he said is objectionable.

4. Looking at comparison of Arizona's 2000 and 2010 budgets I don't see how this law will fix their budget issues. They're merely going to shift their expenditure from social services to incarceration, law enforcement, going to court and deprotation (not even sure they're going to do that themselves).

5. There are many questions this law doesn't address...How are you going to determine if someone legal or illegal if they have a fake driver's license? How are you going to punish companies if all the documents they have for an undocumented worker are valid? How are you going to punish someone for providing comfort to undocumented alien if they say I didn't ask (citizens are not required to ask someone if they are documented and that's not constitutional). How are they going to deal with lawsuits from multiple fronts.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by saden1

3. Lord Obama is certainly politicizing? He's a politician addressing a national issue, the issue of immigration, which last I checked is a federal issue. Anywho, this Arizona law is a political play itself and that's fine. Either side is entitled to convince the public their immigration vision is right for America. I don't know how he is misrepresenting the the AZ law. I would be happy to listen what part of what he said is objectionable.

Holy crap. You're either VERY naive or just have selective ignorance to his statements.

He said "people trying to take their daughter out for ice cream will be asked to show papers for no reason but how they look" and directly accuses opponents of being racists.

Not only is he completely wrong (and/or dishonest) about the facts of the law, he's being racially inflammatory for the sole reason of securing a Hispanic voting block, whether they are legally entitled to vote or not. Think about it...he's opposed to a law forcing illegals to have a legal I.D. to be here. What do you need to vote? A legal I.D.

If you're a legal resident/citizen and have I.D., what are you worried about? I'd gladly have to show my I.D. a few times in exchange for a safer, more secure nation with a better economy and less crime. But of course, unlike the President's false claims, unless I'm already committing a crime, I won't have to worry about any unnecessary hassle.

How anyone can oppose this common-sense law is beyond me.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by Buster

Holy crap. You're either VERY naive or just have selective ignorance to his statements.

He said "people trying to take their daughter out for ice cream will be asked to show papers for no reason but how they look" and directly accuses opponents of being racists.

Not only is he completely wrong (and/or dishonest) about the facts of the law, he's being racially inflammatory for the sole reason of securing a Hispanic voting block, whether they are legally entitled to vote or not. Think about it...he's opposed to a law forcing illegals to have a legal I.D. to be here. What do you need to vote? A legal I.D.

I thought a national ID was a new world order communism socialism fear?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Buster

Holy crap. You're either VERY naive or just have selective ignorance to his statements.

He said "people trying to take their daughter out for ice cream will be asked to show papers for no reason but how they look" and directly accuses opponents of being racists.

Not only is he completely wrong (and/or dishonest) about the facts of the law, he's being racially inflammatory for the sole reason of securing a Hispanic voting block, whether they are legally entitled to vote or not. Think about it...he's opposed to a law forcing illegals to have a legal I.D. to be here. What do you need to vote? A legal I.D.

If you're a legal resident/citizen and have I.D., what are you worried about? I'd gladly have to show my I.D. a few times in exchange for a safer, more secure nation with a better economy and less crime. But of course, unlike the President's false claims, unless I'm already committing a crime, I won't have to worry about any unnecessary hassle.

How anyone can oppose this common-sense law is beyond me.

You're a dense humanoid...even if I broke it down for you I'm afraid you wouldn't understand.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're a dense humanoid...even if I broke it down for you I'm afraid you wouldn't understand.

And there we go...sunken to the President's debate tactics...namecalling.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Buster

He said "people trying to take their daughter out for ice cream will be asked to show papers for no reason but how they look" and directly accuses opponents of being racists.

a police officer can walk up to you and ask for your id at any time. whether your hispanic or not. if there is a law that requires you to carry an id when in public (which there might be in every state) and you dont have that id then you might be screwed if your illegal.

a police officer can knock on your door and ask if he can search your home. you can say no and the cop cant do anything about it. (in the real world, you say no, the cop does what he wants anyway then claims consent or exigent circumstances like the smell of burning marijuana or a guy was sitting on the couch acting nervous and i had to search him and the area for any weapons and i just so happened to find the cocaine under the bathroom sink upstairs where hypothetically the nervous guy could have ran up to and retrieved a weapon from)

when i lived in san diego, i lived in what they call the ghetto. its not really ghetto, at least not by DC standards. there were a shit ton of illegals but they were great. so close to the border they were so worried about everything that they wouldnt bother you, very very polite and respectful.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

a police officer can walk up to you and ask for your id at any time. whether your hispanic or not. if there is a law that requires you to carry an id when in public (which there might be in every state) and you dont have that id then you might be screwed if your illegal.

a police officer can knock on your door and ask if he can search your home. you can say no and the cop cant do anything about it. (in the real world, you say no, the cop does what he wants anyway then claims consent or exigent circumstances like the smell of burning marijuana or a guy was sitting on the couch acting nervous and i had to search him and the area for any weapons and i just so happened to find the cocaine under the bathroom sink upstairs where hypothetically the nervous guy could have ran up to and retrieved a weapon from)

when i lived in san diego, i lived in what they call the ghetto. its not really ghetto, at least not by DC standards. there were a shit ton of illegals but they were great. so close to the border they were so worried about everything that they wouldnt bother you, very very polite and respectful.

You saved me from a complex response. I thank you sir and wish you a pleasant day.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

a police officer can walk up to you and ask for your id at any time. whether your hispanic or not. if there is a law that requires you to carry an id when in public (which there might be in every state) and you dont have that id then you might be screwed if your illegal.

a police officer can knock on your door and ask if he can search your home. you can say no and the cop cant do anything about it. (in the real world, you say no, the cop does what he wants anyway then claims consent or exigent circumstances like the smell of burning marijuana or a guy was sitting on the couch acting nervous and i had to search him and the area for any weapons and i just so happened to find the cocaine under the bathroom sink upstairs where hypothetically the nervous guy could have ran up to and retrieved a weapon from)

when i lived in san diego, i lived in what they call the ghetto. its not really ghetto, at least not by DC standards. there were a shit ton of illegals but they were great. so close to the border they were so worried about everything that they wouldnt bother you, very very polite and respectful.

Even in South Carolina that won't fly. No search warrant no coming in. We need to bring that subject up when it comes to government waste. I know a few folks who have gotten between 100,000 to 200,000. People have rights ya know.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

We're all grow men, let's bring facts to the table shall we?

1. It makes sanctuary cities liable citizen lawsuits. These citizens will be suing themselves and AZ is the most broke state in the country (yes, even more broken than Cali). Some will claim they're broke because of all the welfare they provide for undocumented aliens but the real questions is how do undocumented aliens obtain these welfare services and how does this law address that issue? You must understand that these aliens have fake everything, license, social security, you name it, they have it.

This point is a huge reach. The sanctuary cities are only liable in the following cases:

"implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection."

Unless a city is willfully violating the AZ statutes (like the City of VB was not enforcing Fed law) they have nothing to worry about. And even if they are fined it's only after the filing of an action, it's not retroactive.

2. The crime rate in Arizona has been steadily declining even with increasing population of undocumented aliens. The question is what is the basis for claiming undocumented aliens increase are the source of crime in Arizona?

To start with, this:
A report issued by Maricopa County's Attorney General Andrew Thomas in October 2008 reveals the extent of Arizona's problem with crime committed by illegal immigrants.

In 2007, illegal immigrants accounted for:

10% of sex crimes convictions
11% of murders convictions
13% of stolen cars convictions
13% of aggravated assaults convictions
17% of those sentenced for violent crimes
19% of those sentenced for property crimes
20% of those sentenced for felony DUI
21% of crimes committed with weapons
34% of those sentenced for the manufacture, sale or transport of drugs
36% of those sentenced for kidnapping
44% of forgeries
50% of those sentenced for crimes related to "chop shops"
85% of false ID convictions
96% of smuggling convictions

Illegal immigrants make up 19 percent of those convicted of crimes in Maricopa County and 21 percent of those in county jails.

Illegal immigrants make up an estimated 9 percent of the county's population.

3. Lord Obama is certainly politicizing? He's a politician addressing a national issue, the issue of immigration, which last I checked is a federal issue. Anywho, this Arizona law is a political play itself and that's fine. Either side is entitled to convince the public their immigration vision is right for America. I don't know how he is misrepresenting the the AZ law. I would be happy to listen what part of what he said is objectionable.

See Post # 7. When the left can produce a number of "father's taking their kids for ice cream" that have been stopped and detained for no reason other than the color of their skin, I'll be glad to listen to your point. Until then this is political positioning, nothing more. I'm still waiting to see all the vast numbers of US citizens who have been wrongly prosecuted under the Patriot Act.

Will there be police officers who handle enforcement wrong, certainly. However I'm sure they will be in the vast minority. Every jurisdiction in AZ will be training it's officers on "by-the-book" enforcement techniques. I'm also sure police and localities in AZ will be very aware the national spotlight will be on.

4. Looking at comparison of Arizona's 2000 and 2010 budgets I don't see how this law will fix their budget issues. They're merely going to shift their expenditure from social services to incarceration, law enforcement, going to court and deprotation (not even sure they're going to do that themselves).

This law may not fix the budget now, but it should help it from getting worse due to issues surrounding illegal immigration. It may have a minor effect in reducing social services, but I think it will actually reduce law enforcement/incarceration costs. If you're an illegal and you're in a state that is cracking down, chances are you take the path of least resistance and move on to another state where you can keep a lower profile or that has more lax enforcement.

5. There are many questions this law doesn't address...How are you going to determine if someone legal or illegal if they have a fake driver's license?

Can't, they have a fake ID that's good they'll get by.

How are you going to punish companies if all the documents they have for an undocumented worker are valid?

If the company did its "due diligence", unknown.

How are you going to punish someone for providing comfort to undocumented alien if they say I didn't ask (citizens are not required to ask someone if they are documented and that's not constitutional).

The words "knows and recklessly disregards" are part of the sections addressing this.

How are they going to deal with lawsuits from multiple fronts.

Same way they would deal with any other lawsuit. Unless there's some "cease and desist" order, they just put it on the docket and get to it when they get to it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

This point is a huge reach. The sanctuary cities are only liable in the following cases:

"implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection."

Unless a city is willfully violating the AZ statutes (like the City of VB was not enforcing Fed law) they have nothing to worry about. And even if they are fined it's only after the filing of an action, it's not retroactive.

My point was who pays the civil penalty? Now criminal penalty would do the trick if AZ really wanted to forces cities/localities to act. Is there provisions in the law that cuts off funding for cities and localities? I can easily tell you that all cities and localities will have to do to get out of having to enforce the law is to say "we don't have enough resources."

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

To start with, this:
A report issued by Maricopa County's Attorney General Andrew Thomas in October 2008 reveals the extent of Arizona's problem with crime committed by illegal immigrants.

In 2007, illegal immigrants accounted for:

10% of sex crimes convictions
11% of murders convictions
13% of stolen cars convictions
13% of aggravated assaults convictions
17% of those sentenced for violent crimes
19% of those sentenced for property crimes
20% of those sentenced for felony DUI
21% of crimes committed with weapons
34% of those sentenced for the manufacture, sale or transport of drugs
36% of those sentenced for kidnapping
44% of forgeries
50% of those sentenced for crimes related to "chop shops"
85% of false ID convictions
96% of smuggling convictions
[^^ dohhh ]

Illegal immigrants make up 19 percent of those convicted of crimes in Maricopa County and 21 percent of those in county jails.

Illegal immigrants make up an estimated 9 percent of the county's population.

You're telling me even Sheriff Joe has been ineffective? How is this law going to help these counties? Or is the plan that they simply go away? Even the criminals? The poor guy standing in front of Home Depot will dip-set but not sure about the guy at the chop-shop.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

See Post # 7. When the left can produce a number of "father's taking their kids for ice cream" that have been stopped and detained for no reason other than the color of their skin, I'll be glad to listen to your point. Until then this is political positioning, nothing more. I'm still waiting to see all the vast numbers of US citizens who have been wrongly prosecuted under the Patriot Act.

Will there be police officers who handle enforcement wrong, certainly. However I'm sure they will be in the vast minority. Every jurisdiction in AZ will be training it's officers on "by-the-book" enforcement techniques. I'm also sure police and localities in AZ will be very aware the national spotlight will be on.

The problem with the Patriot Act is spying on US Citizens...the problem with the Arizona law is racial profiling even if the law does not allow for profiling. These are legitimate objections of a freedom-liberty-america loving citizens. If you're brown looking best not jay-walk to the ice-cream truck with your daughter. BTW, does the new law provide for more training? Are there funding provisions in it?

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

This law may not fix the budget now, but it should help it from getting worse due to issues surrounding illegal immigration. It may have a minor effect in reducing social services, but I think it will actually reduce law enforcement/incarceration costs. If you're an illegal and you're in a state that is cracking down, chances are you take the path of least resistance and move on to another state where you can keep a lower profile or that has more lax enforcement.

You're a business man, what's the cost of incarceration vs issues surrounding illegal immigration Arizona? I guess we have to do the math to know the true...either that or wait a few years. Alas, Arizona doesn't have a prayer in court (BTW, if anyone wants to take that bet I'll be happy to).

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Can't, they have a fake ID that's good they'll get by.
If the company did its "due diligence", unknown.
The words "knows and recklessly disregards" are part of the sections addressing this.

What does due diligence mean? Check if their name comes up when you do a database search for it? Good luck proving "knows and recklessly disregards."

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Same way they would deal with any other lawsuit. Unless there's some "cease and desist" order, they just put it on the docket and get to it when they get to it.

It sounds easy.




Anywho, I know you guys really dislike these illegals but don't lose sight what is and isn't a responsible and effective policy.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

My point was who pays the civil penalty? Now criminal penalty would do the trick if AZ really wanted to forces cities/localities to act. Is there provisions in the law that cuts off funding for cities and localities? I can easily tell you that all cities and localities will have to do to get out of having to enforce the law is to say "we don't have enough resources."

Unless they don't have telephone/Internet service they'll have no excuse. There are also plenty of grants from the state of AZ and Fed that focus on security/emergency services. That won't fly.

If a judgement is levied against a locality you can be 100% sure the state of AZ will withhold funding in the next fiscal year to repay any fines levied. Without going back to look at where the penalties/fines go, I believe it's into a state fund to police gang and illegal immigration activity. Simple transfer of funds at the state level, and the locality would never even see the money.

You're telling me even Sheriff Joe has been ineffective? How is this law going to help these counties? Or is the plan that they simply go away? Even the criminals? The poor guy standing in front of Home Depot will dip-set but not sure about the guy at the chop-shop.

If those numbers are fairly constant throughout the state and you can reduce them by even 30%, that's a huge net gain for the state and localities.

The problem with the Patriot Act is spying on US Citizens...the problem with the Arizona law is racial profiling even if the law does not allow for profiling. These are legitimate objections of a freedom-liberty-america loving citizens. If you're brown looking best not jay-walk to the ice-cream truck with your daughter. BTW, does the new law provide for more training? Are there funding provisions in it?

Didn't see any provisions for training funds in the statute, however as I mentioned above there are many programs at state and Federal level that provide grants particularly for law enforcement activities. I'm also sure these localities will make the funding available for proper training (which I'm sure wouldn't be expensive anyway) to make sure they're not going to run afoul of the state or some left-wing legal group looking to score (ACLU, etc.)

You're a business man, what's the cost of incarceration vs issues surrounding illegal immigration Arizona? I guess we have to do the math to know the true...either that or wait a few years. Alas, Arizona doesn't have a prayer in court (BTW, if anyone wants to take that bet I'll be happy to).

That will be the true barometer, anything else is speculation. However my speculation is that a reduction in crime and reduced stress on state/city services would amount to a net gain vs. short term incarceration pending deportation by ICE.

What does due diligence mean? Check if their name comes up when you do a database search for it? Good luck proving "knows and recklessly disregards."

From a company standpoint, I would say as long as the company made sure to verify the required documents for employment (Standard I-9 stuff) and kept records of the documents on file, that would show due diligence IMO.

"Knows and recklessly disregards" is a gray area, but the intent is to target organizations or individuals who have a track record of sheltering/transporting illegals for profit, rather than an individual who gave someone some food and water that looked needy.

Anywho, I know you guys really dislike these illegals but don't lose sight what is and isn't a responsible and effective policy.

Anywho, I have no dislike for people who are simply coming to America to try to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their families. Unfortunately we can't be all things to all people and public services come at a cost. We have serious issues here at home (struggling economy, national debt crisis, state budget issues, Medicare & SS insolvency looming, double digit unemployment in many places) and the illegal immigrant situation is only making things worse.

I do however have a major problem with Mexican nationals who profit from human smuggling, drug cartels, illegal thugs (primarily Mexican) who commit serious crimes including murder, and illegals that come to abuse/take advantage of the Federal and state social services. This law is designed to slow/stop this type of behavior. The person who sneaks into the U.S. illegally is still breaking U.S. law, but will likely not be affected by this law unless they are caught in some sort of employer-based sting, they break the law, or attempt to access a government service to which they aren't (and shouldn't be) entitled.

And at the end of the day, all these statutes do is re-enforce existing law.

[over the mountain]

I worked for the montgomery county circuit court for a bit, dealt with a lot of major crimes, murders, MS-13, rapes, etc.

the percent of child sexual offenders who were illegal aliens was astonishing. im talking 3 out of 4 offenders. sometimes on their own daughter (that guy decided not to show up day 2 of trial, he probably lives in your neighborhood now since ICE wasnt involved), sometimes an illegal would get all drunk and climb into a 10 year old girls bedroom hovering over her right before the dad came in.

im not making a generalization, im basing this strictly what i experienced. it was astonishing, the percent of illegals that have sexual predator addictions. different culture i assume plays into it.

of course, md and va have a higher number of illegals than say kansas (i assume).

[joethiesmanfan]

It's a politcal ploy in that the fringe regional Republicans are attempting to force the administration to push through an immigration policy they can use as a wedge issue to siphon off independents. But it's a weak ploy, and it won't pass the Federal Court sniff test.