Arizona Immigration Law

[2dumb2kwit]

What does drunk have to do with the new law?

The fact is if you are brown skinned and live in Arizona you are going to be asked to prove you are legal. Call it racial profiling if you want but there aren't many white guys wading north across the river. Are legal US citizens going to be stopped? You bet they will. Show ID and you're on your way.

If they broadcast that some old chubby white guy just gunned down some folks and I get stopped, no problem. I just hope I can remember where I was 20 minutes ago.

I was just using being drunk as another example. If a LEO has reason to think you are breaking a law, it should be his duty to see if you are, and arrest you if need be. To me, it doesn't matter if the law is being drunk, selling drugs, or being in this country illegally.

We may have gotten off on the ID thing, but I don't see where the law says anything about an ID. It says that if an LEO suspects you of being illegal, he should follow the laws that pertain to being an illegal alien.

[crashdive123]

So. the problem is that the state needs to enforce existing immigration laws. This can be done without adding further laws such as requiring ID.

Actually, the law is already on the books. As a US citizen you are not required to carry ID on you, but that is not the case for non-citizens.

Use of green card as an identity card
The card must be in the possession of the U.S. permanent resident at all times. This means that the permanent resident must have a currently valid card on the person at all times and be able to show it to a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services officer, if requested. Though aliens with permanent resident status are required to carry these identification cards, American citizens are not required to carry any citizenship identification (because no crime is being committed if you do not carry identification). Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, while status was checked when the permanent resident returned from foreign travel, the requirement to carry the green card was almost never enforced when residents traveled domestically. After that, officials from the United States Department of State began occasionally asking people if they were U.S. citizens or not, and in the latter case began enforcing the legal requirement that the person be able to immediately present their Permanent Resident Card or other proof of legal status

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permane...(United_States)

I know the quote above is for permanent residents, but I believe it is the same for legal temporary workers.

[2dumb2kwit]

This is the main point I dont like:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).



Can be interprted to mean that their "lawful purpose" is to investigate the "status"of the detainee as the primary cause that personis stopped. The rest of the proposed "law" seems to mirror existing law and procedure. So why would a new one be needed?

#22 didn't sound any different than laws about searching a vehicle, etc., with probable cause.

To me, it sounds like it takes away the option of ignoring immigration status, like that Va,Bch. policy.

[Justin Case]

REAL ID Act,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

[Batch]

Crash, my mother is an immigrant and still has a green card. If she were stopped and a cop had a probable cause to believe she was an immigrant instead of a citizen then they could apply those laws. She carries here green card with her as well as her drivers license I think her passport.

But, her situation should not be passed to me. If I want to move freely around without papers I should be able to. I hate having to carry my concealed weapons permit and my hunting license into the woods!

I got a frigging rifle or shotgun in my hands. Do you really think the handgun is going to be my go to. Also , Florida law allows anyone hunting, fishing or camping to carry openly or concealed without any other provisions. Yet, if you do so your likely to have a problem with any cop you run into. Enforce the existing laws and make the enforcers aware of them!

[crashdive123]

And you, as a US citizen do not have to carry ID by law unless you are performing an activity that requires it (driving, ccw, etc). My parents were both immigrants, and until they became naturalized citizens, they were required to carry their green cards. Honestly though - this really isn't a debate about identification, but rather putting an end to a problem (illegal immigration) that is very, very serious.

[Ken]

Speaking of law....where's our "Legal Beagle"?

I'd like to hear what he has to say about this.

I just got here.

Last I heard he was going to "The Other House" (Thirston Howell accent)

I did. Worked my butt off there. I floated one side of the basement floor level and installed a coupla' hundred 2x2 sheets of DRIcore. Next, I'll install the hardwood.

Let me get this straight. You want a white lawyer from Boston that owns two houses to add balance to a conversation about illegal aliens? Okaaaaay.

What's that supposed to mean?


Now, for my opinion..........

I believe that the immigration law should be vigorously enforced. Arizona may be most concerned with illegal Mexicans crossing the border, but there are many others who pose a much greater threat other than Mexicans crossing the Rio Grande. We could just as easily be talking about a terrorist from Pakistan or a heroin kingpin from France.

However, I see a myriad of problems with the Arizona law as I understand it. Mind you, I haven't read it yet, but I share many of Pal's concerns. Terms such as "reasonable suspicion" have a tendancy to be abused to a terrible degree.

And there's another issue there - it's called the Fifth Amendment.

[Justin Case]

I just got here.



I floated in the pool as my better Half installed a coupla' hundred 2x2 sheets of DRIcore. Next,she'll install the hardwood.

That Figures

[Ken]

That Figures

Look........ If you're gonna' edit my posts, at least make it believable. You ain't gonna' see Ken floating in any pools when it's 60* and raining.

[BENESSE]

I believe that the immigration law should be vigorously enforced. Arizona may be most concerned with illegal Mexicans crossing the border, but there are many others who pose a much greater threat other than Mexicans crossing the Rio Grande. We could just as easily be talking about a terrorist from Pakistan or a heroin kingpin from France.

However, I see a myriad of problems with the Arizona law as I understand it. Mind you, I haven't read it yet, but I share many of Pal's concerns. Terms such as "reasonable suspicion" have a tendancy to be abused to a terrible degree.

And there's another issue there - it's called the Fifth Amendment.

Completely agree.
That's why this new law just doesn't sit right with me.

[Pal334]

I guess the the best arguement I can make is it violates Federal Law. I can give an example, The only FEDERAL Agencies that can routinely demand proof of citizenship are the Immigration Service (or whatever it is called today) and the US Department of Defense, Defense Security Service (DSS) (most of you have not heard of that small agency, it is charged with security investigations for security clearances and protection of classified material in tha hands of Industry). So, changing of Federal Law would be needed prior to implimentation of a local law that contradicts it.

[Rick]

Sorry, but I disagree with that and I'd bet most states will, too. State sovereignty has been at question for several years. That's why so many have passed succession resolutions. States hold the right to mandate how they will conduct business within their own borders and that's exactly what Arizona has done. In essence, they are telling the federal government it has failed at its job of immigration so they have now taken over the role. The courts will have to decide if they have the right to do so.

No law is worded perfectly but I can't fault Arizona in their attempt to solve their problem. 99% of the folks on here are originally from another country. A few are indigenous but most are imports. The difference between us and them is our ancestors did it legally. Personally, I don't care where you're from; Europe, Africa, South America, Asia, doesn't matter to me. If you're here legally then good for you. If you are here illegally then you butt needs to be deported. Just like I would be if I were in your country illegally.

[Pal334]

Then we shall have to agree to disagree

[BENESSE]

Rick, I don't disagree with anything you said.
Federal Govt. has failed miserably at protecting our borders and I wish someone would explain to me why it is more important that we keep thousands and thousands our troops deployed all over the world (some of them still in places they were since the cold war) instead of here at home protecting OUR borders.

I am yet to hear anyone raise a big stink over that, and to me, that stinks more than anything.
Take a look at all the places we currently are and ask yourself whether even half of those troops wouldn't be more useful here where we need them most.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deploym...tates_Military

[Justin Case]

Rick, I don't disagree with anything you said.
Federal Govt. has failed miserably at protecting our borders and I wish someone would explain to me why it is more important that we keep thousands and thousands our troops deployed all over the world (some of them still in places they were since the cold war) instead of here at home protecting OUR borders.

I am yet to hear anyone raise a big stink over that, and to me, that stinks more than anything.
Take a look at all the places we currently are and ask yourself whether even half of those troops wouldn't be more useful here where we need them most.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deploym...tates_Military

Thats being talked about now B

http://www.azcentral.com/community/p...rity-plan.html

[BENESSE]

"The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 [1] countries around the world, with more than 369,000 of its 1,379,551[2] active-duty troops serving outside the United States and its territories. Many of these troops are still located at installations activated during the Cold War, by which the US government sought to counter the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II. Since 2001, the US has redeployed some of its forces as part of the "War on Terror."

U.S. troops are seeing active combat in several countries, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq. Others are deployed as part of several peacekeeping missions."

Anybody see anything wrong with these numbers?
Anybody think that we couldn't solve our border problem with some of those troops redeployed back at home?

[Ken]

Don't hold your breath - it would take an Act of Congress.

The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Just sayin.'

[Justin Case]

Don't hold your breath - it would take an Act of Congress.

The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Just sayin.'

They did it before,

Snip,
National Guard wrapping up its U.S.-Mexican Border duty
Region's governors want 2-year mission extended

52 comments by Sean Holstege - Jun. 12, 2008 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

The last National Guard soldiers assigned to protect the U.S.-Mexican border will arrive in Arizona from Guam at the end of next week. They will leave by July 15 in the final act of a two-year mission that has been widely credited with making the border more secure.

Continued @ http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...start0612.html

[BENESSE]

Don't hold your breath - it would take an Act of Congress.

The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Just sayin.'

Aren't we talking about a foreign invasion really?
And how can it make sense that our military personnel act in a law enforcement capacity outside our borders but not inside?

On a separate note...
If we only pulled 57,000 troops from Germany, 32,000 from Japan, 9,000 from Italy and 9,000 from UK, imagine what a difference they could make in their own country. If someone wants to be outraged about something why not start there?

[Justin Case]

'Nobody wins' on immigration reform

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36325.html


Lets Face the facts,, Its all about the politics,,