PDA

View Full Version : Arizona SB 1070. The "Illegal Immigrant law"


Tommycat
06-30-2010, 07:47 PM
Now I have seen a LOT of misinformed people RAIL against this law. They call it racist(not true, American is not a race). They say it gives cops the ability to pull you over for looking Mexican(again NOT true).

For your edification the bill is here (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf).

Feel free to read all 16 pages of it. If you do you will be more informed about the law than Arizona's former governor Janet Napolitano, and our President Obama who have admitted they have not read the law(benefit of the doubt, maybe by now they have read it). There are a few things that could have been abused, but there are also harsh penalties for falsely reporting.

What the bill does:
-Provides HARSH penalties for those companies caught hiring illegal immigrants.
-Makes it illegal to transport illegal immigrants.
-Eliminates the ability of a municipality to create a "Sanctuary City"
-Makes it so that IF an illegal commits a crime they must serve their sentence here prior to being turned over to ICE
-Makes it a crime to stop to pick up workers IF you are blocking a roadway
-Makes it illegal to solicit work if you are here illegally... again
-Provides harsher penalties for repeat offenders.

Common arguments I've heard:
They're taking jobs nobody wants- Kinda. Sure they may take the picker jobs that pay sub minimum wage, however couldn't we apply that logic to slavery in the south. We need the slaves to do the job nobody wants to do. Besides the point is moot when you see illegals working in restaurants, in construction, and housekeeping.

They aren't hurting anyone- Lowering pay expectations. As with the fruit pickers, they enter other fields and drive down the pay for the jobs. In order to compete in the landscaping business, you have to charge rates that make it unprofitable to use anything BUT illegal workers. This puts legitimate business owners out of work, while rewarding those that break the law.

You're racist!- Just stop right there. I have NO problem with Hispanics coming to this country. I am all for LEGAL immigration. Heck this argument goes way out the window when you consider that even many Hispanics in the state support the bill. If you want to talk about ME personally being racist, well my girlfriend just happens to have the last name Medina

Totenkopf
06-30-2010, 09:06 PM
Exactamundo. Esp on last part. I've got 3 nephews and neices from central America myself.

Tysyacha
06-30-2010, 09:33 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thirded. I had a friend, Lola Khatamova, who was a television celebrity in Uzbekistan before her unpopular (true) views on the corrupt government forced her to go into political exile. She came to the U.S. LEGALLY, became a citizen via marriage, and then her no-goodnik husband dumped her via divorce. Originally, she was going to be my apartment-mate and helper if I needed assistance grocery shopping or lifting things. Unfortunately, the immigration office told Lola that she'd have to live somewhere where there WAS an immigration office (aka not my neck of the woods). Lola now lives in NY.

I say, EVERY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT WHO COMES TO THE U.S. GIVES HER A BAD NAME!!!

Ping
06-30-2010, 09:34 PM
I think the bill meant well, but people are probably misinterpreting on both sides (hence some of the more...sensitive comments made by the Arizona gov). The only thing I'm curious about is the first thing:

-Provides HARSH penalties for those companies caught hiring illegal immigrants.

Is that for companies that knowingly hire illegals, or not?

Totenkopf
06-30-2010, 09:39 PM
(hence some of the more...sensitive comments made by the Arizona gov)

To which ones do you specifically refer?

Darth Avlectus
06-30-2010, 09:45 PM
eVerify. Harry Reid fought it and blocked voting on it. Yet Janet Napolitano says they're doing everything they can to crack down on employers who hire illegals. Does that mean Harry Reid is a renegade and acting against this administration's wishes or does one part of it not know what the other part is up to?

Ping
06-30-2010, 09:47 PM
To which ones do you specifically refer?

I think she said something around the lines of "illegals are drug mules" or something similar, and she made it sound like everyone south of the border was trying to smuggle drugs.

mimartin
06-30-2010, 10:08 PM
I have no problem with the law if it is implemented the same across the board and not based on someone’s skin pigment. What I mean if a blond haired white American citizen or a black haired brown skin American citizen are pulled over and cannot present proper identification that they are equally likely to be detained by police.

I have my doubts if that type of unbiased practice will be used. I’ve been pulled over twice this year in Arizona and the only question asked of me was I an American Citizen. They did not even ask me for my ID, but surely that has nothing to do with me being white.

As long as it is practiced in a non-discriminative way toward all American Citizens, I have no problem with the law. The Federal Government has failed in its obligation to protect our borders. I thought after 9/11 that error would be corrected, but I was completely and utterly wrong.

Tysyacha
06-30-2010, 10:09 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^

Seconded.

Tommycat
06-30-2010, 11:45 PM
mimartin, That's the thing though. It has to be applied across the board. I believe there was a house resolution passed later that amended parts of SB 1070 to specifically prohibit the use to target Hispanic citizens(sorry can't remember that one). Of course there are some who are so against SB1070 that they make outrageous statements.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWaBkJSPXtk&feature=related

As to the question re knowingly hiring illegals. First offense is light, however you are placed on probation. Second offense during the probation you lose your business license. You are also to go through eVerify and keep records on all your employees.

They also closed a few loopholes that people were using to get around it.

mimartin
07-01-2010, 12:00 AM
The first thing that should happen is the police should go to the home of every Arizona politician to check the status of all their domestic employees. Anyone in the State Legislature hiring illegals should be punished to the full extent of the law and made to resign their office.

Totenkopf
07-01-2010, 12:17 AM
Why stop at AZ. Lets look at all pols/bureaucrats that are/have been in violation of the law (drug use, tax cheats, bribery, etc..) and do likewise. Goodbye Timmy "tax-cheat" Geithner....

@Tommycat--saw that clip a few days ago. What a dumbass. :p

In general, I think a two pronged approach is best. Enforce penalties vs businesses that continue to hire illegals (after their first warning, afterall.....the govt has aided and abetted illegal immigration for ~25 years or more largely through inaction) AND go after the illegals as well. All of this AFTER the border is "secured" and the flow of illegals diminishes to a trickle.

mimartin
07-01-2010, 12:34 AM
Go after AZ, since it is the topic of the thread and because if they do have illegal allies hired it is rather hypocritical of them to pass law punishing businesses for doing the exact same thing. You know hypocritical like Larry Craig’s political stance on a certain issues despite his own private life.

Totenkopf
07-01-2010, 01:26 AM
I agreed with your sentiment (punish the guilty), just not the lengths you wished to selectively go with it. Frankly, anyone in govt or the private sector that is knowingly guilty of breaking the law on that issue should all be punished equally harshly or equally leniently. Since Craig's problems aren't pertinent to the thread either, I'll pretend you didn't bring it up (though I've no problem whatsoever w/his having been "outed" by his own stupidity). ;)

mimartin
07-01-2010, 08:37 AM
I agreed with your sentiment (punish the guilty), just not the lengths you wished to selectively go with it. :lol: Selectively :lol: I know 2001 to 2009 taught this country that certain segments of this country is above the law. However, I was taught that those in power should be held to a higher standard.

JediAthos
07-01-2010, 08:59 AM
I don't really have a huge problem with the law myself if it is implemented correctly and used in an unbiased manner.

At the same time, unfortunately, I don't believe in the good nature of humanity anymore. There are people out there that can and will abuse the law and likely despite what the bill says nothing will happen to them. I have seen it too often to believe all law enforcement officials (police, border patrol, customs agents) will use the law as it is intended.

Also...I think it is a little unfair to task police departments, who may already be undermanned and overworked, with having to figure out if someone is a citizen or not in the process of doing their job. It could create a lot of unnecessary paperwork for them and consume their time doing that instead of getting back out where they should be which is protecting the communities in which they serve.

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-01-2010, 10:02 AM
If you want to talk about ME personally being racist, well my girlfriend just happens to have the last name Medina

not sayin you're racist but this sort of 'you think i'm racist why don't you tell that to my black friends, pal' thing gets me lollin every time i see it

http://i45.tinypic.com/ng2594.jpg

Tommycat
07-01-2010, 11:01 AM
not sayin you're racist but this sort of 'you think i'm racist why don't you tell that to my black friends, pal' thing gets me lollin every time i see it

http://i45.tinypic.com/ng2594.jpg

Yes, but if I WERE racist, I certainly wouldn't be in a committed relationship with a Hispanic. Heck I grew up in Texas, A majority of my friends were Hispanic(come to think of it I don't think I had ANY white friends... WAIT... I'm racist against WHITEY!!).

Honestly I don't absolve the Republicans of blame in this. Our borders have been so porous for a long time. That's what has led to this current situation in which now STATE governments feel the need to enact such laws that the Federal government SHOULD HAVE DONE YEARS AGO! Like after 9/11(actually before, but that SHOULD have been a wake up call). Which as you recall was a Republican presidency, with a Republican controlled congress.

mimartin, I actually agree with you. The VERY FIRST people to be investigated should be the ones who lead the state. If they are found to have knowingly hired an illegal, then they should not be allowed to retain office. Hiring illegal immigrants is a violation of law. Our state legislators should be held to a higher standard than even the citizens, as they are the ones who MAKE the dang laws.

@Ping I would need to see the quote in context to understand if your argument holds weight. She may have been talking about how some ARE drug mules as payment to get smuggled in.

For me the biggest problem with illegal immigration is the mentality we have of looking the other way. Should we look the other way and ignore the slavery that currently goes on in this country? YES, SLAVERY! Many are smuggled across the border at a cost too high to pay back, then bought by others to work for them at insanely low pay that ensures they will have to work for that person for an extremely long time. They are held in drop houses here in Phoenix where upwards of 50 people are held like cattle and under guard. I'm sure it's that way in other states as well. Just that with SB1070 we're getting more press, and people should know some of the reasons we're doing this.

Ping
07-01-2010, 11:20 AM
My opinion is that the bill could work, but I get the feeling that not everyone is going to do it in an unbiased manner. That's a rather large loophole in the bill - it doesn't say how to do it in an unbiased manner.

mimartin
07-01-2010, 11:40 AM
That's a rather large loophole in the bill - it doesn't say how to do it in an unbiased manner.It shouldn't have to, there are plenty of Federal Laws that make it illegal if it is done in a biased manner. Frankly I have no problem if it is bias against someone here illegally. I’m just worried that it will be used as an excuse to harass legal immigrants, tourists and American citizens because their skin tone is different.

Tommycat
07-01-2010, 11:41 AM
My opinion is that the bill could work, but I get the feeling that not everyone is going to do it in an unbiased manner. That's a rather large loophole in the bill - it doesn't say how to do it in an unbiased manner.

No more so than speeding tickets, or any other law for that matter. If a person is caught breaking the law, simply verify they are a citizen, regardless of race. I mean while Hispanics are the majority, they are certainly not the only illegal immigrants here.

Ping
07-01-2010, 11:53 AM
It shouldn't have to, there are plenty of Federal Laws that make it illegal if it is done in a biased manner. Frankly I have no problem if it is bias against someone here illegally. Iím just worried that it will be used as an excuse to harass legal immigrants, tourists and American citizens because their skin tone is different.

^^Agreed 100%.

Tommycat
07-01-2010, 12:14 PM
Course you could just start working on yer thick southern drawl...

Keep in mind that at a glance, Native Americans can to some appear to be Hispanic. And I doubt anyone would doubt their right to be here. (had a Native American friend that was told to "Go home to your own country" by someone the other day. It was hilarious when he said, "I can't they put a city on top of it"). So if you went after anyone who "looks Hispanic" it would be pretty obvious.

Totenkopf
07-01-2010, 12:25 PM
:lol: Selectively :lol: I know 2001 to 2009 taught this country that certain segments of this country is above the law. However, I was taught that those in power should be held to a higher standard.

If you think that republicans are the only ones that seem to think they were "above the law", then selectively was the right word. ;) There has often been a tendency by members of both parties to put themselves there. Congress has been guilty for years of applying laws to everyone else but themselves. As I said, I agree w/the sentiment that the people who make and enforce the laws should be scrutinized at least as closely as the rest of the people. But to take your example of high placed corruption, you need look no further right now than the head of the IRS (Geithener). However, I'd like to see the proof that all or most of AZ police are racist before I reduce myself to assuming that they're going to only/mainly go after "non-whites" in a fit of racist spasms. Seems there'd be too much scrutiny to even try something like that. Hard to commit such blatant behavior when everyone is watching you closely looking for the least opportunity to crucify you.

As to implied allegations of racism, I roflmao everytime I see people resort to such empty "arguments" (ie if you're not down with the liberal agenda, you must be racist).

It was hilarious when he said, "I can't they put a city on top of it").

:p

Tommycat
07-01-2010, 12:30 PM
As to implied allegations of racism, I roflmao everytime I see people resort to such empty "arguments" (ie if you're not down with the liberal agenda, you must be racist).


It's especially funny when it's said to someone like my old neighbor(a supporter of SB1070) that just happened to be a legal immigrant from Mexico.

Totenkopf
07-01-2010, 01:05 PM
Yeah, that does make it funnier in a way. As to BO's speech tonight, I doubt it'll be anything more in the end than platitudes. He just doesn't seem to be any more serious about the problem of border security than Bush was (more likely less so) or than he's been about protecting America's coastline in the face of the oil disaster. That it took >70 days to waive the Jones Act is not promising. Hopefully, Jimmy Carter Part Deux will end in 2012.

mimartin
07-01-2010, 01:15 PM
If you think that republicans are the only ones that seem to think they were "above the law", then selectively was the right word. ;)

Please show me where I have ever written that "I think that republicans are the only ones that seem to think they were 'above the law.'" When you can't, please feel free to apologize for making such asinine accusations.

Tommycat
07-01-2010, 01:42 PM
Please show me where I have ever written that "I think that republicans are the only ones that seem to think they were 'above the law.'" When you can't, please feel free to apologize for making such asinine accusations.

actually I think you implied that with the 2001-2009 portion as if it began there. Personally I would have said that as far as I can remember those in power seem to believe they are above the law.

mimartin
07-01-2010, 02:08 PM
actually I think you implied that with the 2001-2009 portion as if it began there. Personally I would have said that as far as I can remember those in power seem to believe they are above the law. I blame the democrats in Congress just as much as the republicans in Congress for turning a blind eye on what the administration was doing with executive order, suppressing due process and using word play to allow torture practices which we as a country have defined as torture and condemned for about 50 years.

Tommycat
07-01-2010, 03:04 PM
I blame the democrats in Congress just as much as the republicans in Congress for turning a blind eye on what the administration was doing with executive order, suppressing due process and using word play to allow torture practices which we as a country have defined as torture and condemned for about 50 years.

But you appear to be pushing more that the Republicans are the ones getting away with it. But I digress, as this has no bearing on the actual arguments here. I feel that the higher the office you hold, the more you should be scrutinized for the laws you are supposed to be upholding and passing(special note, keep in mind that AZ Senator McCain was one of the few Republicans with enough guts to stand up to Bush on the issue of torture).

Interestingly AZ Governor Brewer ALSO blasted the previous administration as she blasted Obama for not doing anything for the border. She said something along the lines of "It's apparent that this administration is going to continue the inaction of the previous administration on securing our border." Forgive me if the quote is not exact as I was quoting from memory of a news bite.

Ping
07-01-2010, 03:20 PM
If anyone thought they were above the law, it was the previous administration. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, but the previous administration and its supporters. It just so happened they were all Republicans.

Totenkopf
07-01-2010, 04:35 PM
actually I think you implied that with the 2001-2009 portion as if it began there. Personally I would have said that as far as I can remember those in power seem to believe they are above the law.



Exactly. On both counts (the second which I mentioned as well).

mimartin
07-01-2010, 04:38 PM
Exactly. On both counts (the second which I mentioned as well).

So you refuse to show where I wrote it?

Guess you can just make up the meaning to everything I write... I'm actually very careful to write what I mean, you don't have to read between the lines or make stuff up. Should you not understand, asking isn't beyond the realm of possible ways to determine what I really mean.

Tommycat
07-01-2010, 06:52 PM
If anyone thought they were above the law, it was the previous administration. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, but the previous administration and its supporters. It just so happened they were all Republicans.

HORSE PUCKEY!
The prior administration thought they were above the law as well. Democrats. The ones before. Republican. The ones before. Republican. The ones before Democrat. And now you are including the "supporters" in that. That is really reaching. I was a supporter, does that mean that I think I'm above the law? No it does not.

Look, this is a tangental discussion. Lets leave the Bush bashing out of this please. Unless you can somehow show me how the Bush administration allowing torture is somehow tied to SB1070 with a direct link then please JUST STOP IT!!! Seeing as how the bill was only written during THIS PRESIDENT'S term, we can safely ignore the bush administration feeling above the law over torture which has NO bearing on AZ-SB1070. From what I read of the 16 pages not ONE section refers to promoting torture.

I have been willing to step away from political affiliation and point out that even the Republican governor has condemned the inaction of the prior administration as well. I am willing to make a point of saying that the Bush administration which SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING especially after 9/11 in fact did NOTHING to help the situation. This is why SB 1070 has been enacted. Because AZ is sick of the lip service it has gotten from every administration that "Oh, Right that border thing... Yeah we'll do something about it." Then years later we have NOTHING.

mimartin
07-01-2010, 07:05 PM
The prior administration thought they were above the law as well. Democrats. The ones before. Republican. The ones before. Republican. The ones before Democrat. What? I'd give you Bill Clinton, but the Democrat before that was Jimmy Carter. Carter was a terrible President, but not a person that would put himself above the law. I would also say the same for the first George Bush, not a great President by any stretch of the imagination, but someone that seemed to respect the letter of the law. His son must have missed those lessons.

It almost looks like a pattern that respecting the law equals bad president, but then George W Bush shows that even someone that does not respect the law, can be terrible.

Tommycat
07-01-2010, 07:54 PM
What? I'd give you Bill Clinton, but the Democrat before that was Jimmy Carter. Carter was a terrible President, but not a person that would put himself above the law. I would also say the same for the first George Bush, not a great President by any stretch of the imagination, but someone that seemed to respect the letter of the law. His son must have missed those lessons.

It almost looks like a pattern that respecting the law equals bad president, but then George W Bush shows that even someone that does not respect the law, can be terrible.

Good point. Actually I debated it a bit. GH Bush while essentially thumbing his nose at everything he promised did pay more than lip service to the law. Jimmy Carter, okay... he really didn't do enough to be said to be ignoring the law.

But it does show that the respect for the law and being "above the law" is not limited to party lines. Some people just have higher moral character than others. Which was the whole point of that tangent anyway. You and I are in full agreement that the first people to be investigated should be the AZ Legislators. I mean if they are going to make the law, they should absolutely 100% be held to that law they made.

Honestly I'm more ticked that Bush didn't do anything to help fix our borders than make a few speeches, and wave a lot. HE'S FROM A BORDER STATE FOR PETE'S SAKE. If anyone should know the problems associated with lack of border security it should have been him. Granted Obama has our former governor there in charge of DHS... ugh... she did nothing for our border when she was here, why would I expect her to do anything now that she's in DC. Well she did when we threatened to kick her out of office if she didn't.

Speaking of which I'm sick of hearing from people in Washington saying that it's their job to fix the border. Well no **** Sherlock! BUT it's because of the ongoing federal inaction that AZ felt the need to do this. Many other states are planning laws similar to SB-1070 as well. The Fed has not done it's job of providing border security. We have over 11 Million illegals in the country. Arizona has been facing large numbers of illegals flooding our borders. Our healthcare system has similarly been flooded with illegals in the ER who won't end up paying for their service because there is no way to track them down which then raises costs to those of us that are legal. And the fed has done NOTHING for DECADES!

Totenkopf
07-02-2010, 04:20 AM
So, was anyone really surprised by the president's speech?

Ping
07-02-2010, 09:00 AM
@Tommycat: I will agree with you there, the government hasn't really done much about illegals, and needs to do something. Even up here in PA, there's a significant Hispanic minority in my area, and a fairly good amount of which appear to be illegals.

mimartin
07-02-2010, 11:06 AM
So, was anyone really surprised by the president's speech?

Why would anyone be surprised? Immigration reform is at this stage is a joke (which I’m actually happy about). We are coming up on mid-term elections, so the only thing those up for reelection are worried about is keeping their jobs, so they are not doing their job. If they were not worried about keeping their jobs we would gets some carefully worded bill that did nothing but grant amnesty for illegals already here. Just like the bill from the 1980’s that was supposed to do many of the things SB 1070 does, but was in reality an amnesty bill.

I really don’t understand why immigration reform and border security have to be tied so closely together. It seems to me before you have immigration reform that you must first be able to control your own border or immigration reform is a mute point. I also believe protecting the sovereignty of our borders is a federal responsibility. So I agree with the Republicans that asked President Obama to visit the border region. Have him visit the families of that U.S. citizen murdered along the U.S./Mexico border. Let him tell them that the U.S. is doing all that it can do to protect its citizens.

This is yet another problem that Obama inherited, but G.W. Bush, Clinton and George Bush also inherited the same problem; let us see if anything is done this time around. I have my doubts since nothing was by two of the previous Presidents “from” the border state of Texas.

Tommycat
07-02-2010, 11:27 AM
So, was anyone really surprised by the president's speech?

I certainly wasn't. Condemning a law he hasn't read. The same old "We'll fix it" speech which may as well have been copy pasted from Reagan, GH Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush. I think maybe they need to have President Obama spend a month in Nogales, AZ. After he's seen what it's doing to that community, MAYBE he might do more than give us the same tired speeches that GW gave us.

Keep in mind that we have been doing more for reducing illegal immigration here in AZ than just SB-1070. Parts of SB-1070 give teeth to a bill that was passed during GW's presidency. While we're conservative, we're not just going to give a pass to Bush because he's a Republican. We've been trying to get the fed to do something about border security at least as long as I've been in AZ.

Obama talking about how illegal immigration is down... Well DUH! Hey dingbat, maybe it's BECAUSE of SB-1070. Maybe it's because employers who have been hiring illegals have finally got the hint that we're not going to allow that anymore. So there's less jobs for illegals. Mexico knows about SB1070, and illegals and smugglers have heard about SB1070. They aren't coming when they know there's a credible threat. Big friggin shocker illegal immigration is down.

These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.
HE Still doesn't understand that YOU CANNOT BE STOPPED TO ASK IF YOU ARE A CITIZEN. YOU HAVE TO VIOLATE THE LAW FIRST(and by that I mean violate ANOTHER law other than immigration)! Good heavens. Is it too much to ask the PRESIDENT that keeps speaking out about it to actually READ 16 pages?

Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally -– have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass deportations would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable.
Migrant workers. I'm so sick of hearing that one. He's African American and doesn't recognize slavery when he sees it? Using his argument, slavery should have just continued because it would have so disrupted our economy and community. Though in fairness it did lead to the Civil War... Maybe he doesn't want that... Even if for the slaves he's not a part of.

Years before the statue was built -- years before it would be seen by throngs of immigrants craning their necks skyward at the end of long and brutal voyage, years before it would come to symbolize everything that we cherish -- she imagined what it could mean. She imagined the sight of a giant statue at the entry point of a great nation -– but unlike the great monuments of the past, this would not signal an empire. Instead, it would signal one’s arrival to a place of opportunity and refuge and freedom.
Of course he got the initial intent of the Statue of Liberty WRONG! No shocker there either. The Statue of Liberty is carrying the torch of liberty to the rest of the world. And by the way, the poem was placed inside the pedestal that was funded by donations, the statue was funded by the French. But I can forgive him for that. Few people know that the statue was a GIFT from the French...

edit: @mimartin - Maybe the Bushes thought that we could get by like Texas with a natural border like the Rio Grande(yes I know that in some places it's shallow enough to walk across). Actually some things that SB 1070 does are only able to be done by state and local governments. Like taking away business licenses.

mimartin
07-02-2010, 11:47 AM
HE Still doesn't understand that YOU CANNOT BE STOPPED TO ASK IF YOU ARE A CITIZEN. YOU HAVE TO VIOLATE THE LAW FIRST(and by that I mean violate ANOTHER law other than immigration)! Good heavens. Is it too much to ask the PRESIDENT that keeps speaking out about it to actually READ 16 pages?
I’ve read the bill you linked and my concern over it is the same as Obama’s as stated in post #20. Asserting he has not read the Bill is disingenuous since you can read the bill and still have these concerns.

Let’s be honest, police have been given the authority to pull anyone over whenever they like. I’ve been pulled over for crossing the white line on a county road. Problem with that excuse was the road had no markers on it whatsoever. Still the Police Officer used it as an excuse to search my rent car. I guess a Lincoln Continental with a driver that had not shaved for a week in the middle of nowhere was a little suspicious. Still I wish I would have taken a picture of him when he yell “what this” while pulling out a old fruit cake tin with a Ziplock bag hanging out of it. The look of disappointment on his face when he found only cookie crumbs was priceless. Guess he wanted a cookie.

Tommycat
07-02-2010, 12:11 PM
@mimartin The problem is that the same argument could be made for ANY law.

oh and a little clarification, from the Sheriff's department in Pima county talking about a training video to remind them how to fairly enforce the law.
For the Sheriff's Department, because the law really does mirror the federal law, this makes no difference to us, it's not going to change the way we do business at all
Woulda used Maricopa, but everyone knows how Arpayo feels.

I woulda been mad too mimartin... I woulda wanted the cookies.

Oh and from the video:
In the video, Ginn warns: "The reality is that the ethnic mix of our community is such that race tells you nothing about whether or not a person is unlawfully in the United States," adding that the same is true of ethnicity.

Ginn said the best course for officers to follow is to ask for identification in the circumstances in which they would normally make such a request. She said that if individuals have one of the acceptable forms of ID, including an Arizona driver's license, a tribal ID card or another document that requires proof of legal presence in the country to obtain, "that's the end of your inquiry."

If someone doesn't have acceptable identification, Ginn said, officers can consider factors such as fleeing, engaging in evasive maneuvers, an inability to provide a home address, or having a foreign vehicle registration.

note: sorry for the multiple edits, I'm searching for the ACTUAL police training video.
edit again: found it here (http://www.azpost.state.az.us/assets/sb1070/video/index.html)

Totenkopf
07-02-2010, 07:30 PM
Watch the vid and it becomes clear that much of the flame fanning vs the bill from its opponents is empty overheated rhetoric, often based in the malignant supposition that the cops and lawmakers are all inherently racist goons looking for a reason to harass non-whites. Still, if the feds would quite making excuses or playing politics, things like this wouldn't be necessary.

Tommycat
07-02-2010, 08:01 PM
Watch the vid and it becomes clear that much of the flame fanning vs the bill from its opponents is empty overheated rhetoric, often based in the malignant supposition that the cops and lawmakers are all inherently racist goons looking for a reason to harass non-whites. Still, if the feds would quite making excuses or playing politics, things like this wouldn't be necessary.
Yeah I noticed that they said repeatedly, "I know you already know this and practice this, BUT just to make extra sure you aren't going to go about it any different we're telling you again anyway."

Darth Avlectus
07-05-2010, 11:51 PM
Interesting, congressional reports of OTM (other than mexicans) statistics. Anyone concerned with border security as a preventative measure against terrorism might be somewhat vindicated by this.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/23436627/detail.html

JediAthos
07-06-2010, 12:08 PM
The AP has reported that the Justice Department will indeed file a lawsuit against the State of Arizona challenging the constitutionality of the law and charging that it usurps Federal authority.

I'm sure this will make the illegals happy as I'm not entirely certain the law can effect as long as there is a standing legal challenge to it.

Tommycat
07-07-2010, 12:48 AM
The AP has reported that the Justice Department will indeed file a lawsuit against the State of Arizona challenging the constitutionality of the law and charging that it usurps Federal authority.

I'm sure this will make the illegals happy as I'm not entirely certain the law can effect as long as there is a standing legal challenge to it.
Sad thing is that while here in AZ we aren't so much divided along party lines(Two of our Liberal Democrat congresspersons, Rep Harry Mitchell and Rep Ann Kirkpatrick, joined Senator Kyle and Senator McCain in denouncing the legal action), as Obama would have you believe. This is not about party.

The challenge is not going to go well for the administration. The only thing it will do is generate a lot of bad press for them. More than 75% of the country supports AZ-SB-1070. Of course if you go by FoxNews polls, greater than 95% feel the Fed is at fault(not even bothering with a link, as everyone knows that even if FNC is "fair and balanced" their polls are so heavily skewed by conservatives...).

IF it ends up that the Fed says only the Fed can enforce it's laws, then I could see some local governments ceasing enforcement of other federal crimes. Rob a federal bank? Meh that's the fed's job.

If Obama feels it's so safe here, that we can wait for the fed to do something about it, have him show it by taking up residence in Nogales. Or so he doesn't have to give up his security, have him move someone he cares about there.

Darth Avlectus
07-07-2010, 01:05 AM
It's a double edge. If the AZ state law (comparatively lenient), fashioned after federal law (much stricter), is ruled unconstitutional, then would that not also invalidate the fed's own law? Not that the ones challenging it would care, they need serfs to rally to vote for them--and eventually to kick around.

If it is constitutional, then every state may well make its own similar immigration laws.

Tommycat
07-07-2010, 01:19 AM
It's a double edge. If the AZ state law (comparatively lenient), fashioned after federal law (much stricter), is ruled unconstitutional, then would that not also invalidate the fed's own law? Not that the ones challenging it would care, they need serfs to rally to vote for them--and eventually to kick around.

If it is constitutional, then every state may well make its own similar immigration laws.
From what I understand, they are not challenging the constitutionality of the immigration portion so much as state enforcing federal law. It's all a dog and pony show. Obama probably knows that it won't hold water. I think he just wants to show that he "cares" for the little guy.

Either that or he's hoping that with state budgets already strained, we'll cave simply to avoid the cost of a legal battle. If he really believes that, then he didn't spend enough time listening to Jan Brewer. her commitment to AZ would make Ahab say, "Oh come on, that's obsessive!"

Is this the kind of "change" Obama wants? Now not only are you not enforcing immigration, but now you're actively fighting someone willing to do something about it?

Totenkopf
07-07-2010, 05:24 AM
But it's to be expected. The main thrust of this administration is to try to foist an amnesty scheme on the country and any attempt to actually enforce existing laws about the border is either passe or just inconvenient. AZ is making the feds look bad (not that they need much help, mind you :devsmoke: ). Federal policy on border security has been a joke for several decades (if not longer).

Tommycat
07-07-2010, 09:02 AM
I wonder if he might think differently if someone broke into his house. Would he kick them out, and or have them arrested? or would he just relabel that person family. *sigh* It seems that his border policy is not change, but more of the same empty rhetoric. Not that I'm surprised. It's just ridiculous that they are using taxpayer money to go after people enforcing the laws...

Q
07-07-2010, 11:22 AM
Ridiculous, yes, but hardly surprising. They didn't earn the money, so why should they care if they're wasting it?

mimartin
07-07-2010, 12:33 PM
It's just ridiculous that they are using taxpayer money to go after people enforcing the laws...It is ridiculous, imagine how secure our border could be if after 9/11 we would have decided to actually protect our borders (both of them, after all some of the Terrorist on 9/11 crossed from Canada, not Mexico) and went after those that mastermind of the attack instead of going into Iraq. Neither party has any interest in doing anything about illegal aliens. Had they something would have already been done. Now one side has decided to use this as an election issue with a pretty good idea that a naïve America will fall for its rhetoric. However, once the election is over the issue will go the same way as the Contract with American did. Nice rhetoric, no substance. Lucky for them the American public has a short attention span and a penance for buying into the snake oil being sold to them.

Q
07-07-2010, 12:37 PM
^...by both parties.

mimartin
07-07-2010, 01:03 PM
^...by both parties.

That is why I said both, however, I do think that the Republicans are better at selling the snake oil. I've even bought into it more than once. Still can't believe I fell for compassionate conservative. :argh:

Q
07-07-2010, 01:13 PM
Yup, "compassionate conservative" is right up there with "hope and change". :p

Totenkopf
07-07-2010, 03:40 PM
Well, look at the bright side, mimartin. If the Republicans (who don't have enough votes in Congress to stop the dems from pretty much what they want to do right now) get sufficient traction on this issue and do nothing if they have the #s to actually accomplish anything, they'll have signed their own warrant for the forseeable future as well. Seems to me that this administration and its H2O carriers in the media are trying to use the crisis in the gulf and along the borders to foist poor policy choices on America. Anytime someone tells you that "of course border security is important, but...", you can be sure that everything preceding but is merely bs. Remember, the pulse of America was anti-Obamacare (still is), but it largely passed. If pelosi and co. wanted to force "immigration reform" down America's throat, they still have the #s (there may only be 59 dems in the senate, but you can always count on a few reps there to betray their party). Obama is wrong when he says he mathematically needs reps (except for anything other than political cover). They've already proven that several times in the past few months alone.

Problem w/the border issue is that both parties hope to cull future voters from the herds of illegals (dems have a definite advantage there) and both have benefactors that profit directly from cheap labor. It's not a case of one party wants votes, the other "slaves". We need to wake up before they (dems/reps) ultimately give away the store.

mimartin
07-07-2010, 05:24 PM
Yea, you hit the nail on the head, the polls on health care reform are exactly the type of thing I’m talking about. Look at the poll numbers before and after the snake oil salesmen started lying about death panels and such. Add nothing of substance to the debate, no alternatives, just frighten the American people with half truths and outright lies. Sounds like what I want from my government.

Neither party cares about the future votes of these illegals, they do nothing because the ones that contribute the money, also hire these illegals at a cheaper rate than they can American citizens.

Totenkopf
07-07-2010, 07:13 PM
Actually, that's not entirely true. Money is necessary to run a campaign, but they still have to get the vote out. If you don't think either party is looking to swell their voter rolls w/all those illegals-come-citizens via amnesty, you're fooling yourself. On top of which are the calculations about how to keep the current hispanic voting block (or as much as they can muster) in their respective camps.

As to the whole death panel thing, that was not beyond the pale(in :D ). The one thing that's going to make health care (as well as medicare and SS) costs continue to swell is that older people are living longer and require expensive care. One way for the govt to control that is to deny them (like insurance companies.....but the govt decision will be unappealable) treatment that's deemed too expensive, but which may be the only thing that keeps them from dying or experiencing negative quality of life. As to lies revolving around healthcare, the supporters of Obamacare have told a bunch of their own. Many revolving around costs and ability to keep your current insurance/doctors. The other thing is that the opponents of Obamacare did offer alternatives, but were drowned out/ignored by the media and the dishonest mantra that the reps et al offered nothing. But this is all material for a different thread.

Tommycat
07-07-2010, 08:45 PM
It is ridiculous, imagine how secure our border could be if after 9/11 we would have decided to actually protect our borders (both of them, after all some of the Terrorist on 9/11 crossed from Canada, not Mexico) and went after those that mastermind of the attack instead of going into Iraq. Neither party has any interest in doing anything about illegal aliens. Had they something would have already been done. Now one side has decided to use this as an election issue with a pretty good idea that a naïve America will fall for its rhetoric. However, once the election is over the issue will go the same way as the Contract with American did. Nice rhetoric, no substance. Lucky for them the American public has a short attention span and a penance for buying into the snake oil being sold to them.
To the rest of the nation, immigration is a partisan thing. In AZ it is about REAL safety concerns. Somehow once it leaves where the real problem is it becomes mixed in with politics even though it isn't so much political here in the state. Sure those outside the state pick up on it along party lines.

And I want to know who the heck Obama was talking to. The head of the border patrol union in Tucson certainly doesn't think that having police officers as a force multiplier is a bad idea. the 287(g) program was set up specifically to allow this. Of course the interesting thing is that the law suit filed was something like 24 pages... THE LAW SUIT FILING HAS MORE PAGES IN IT THAN THE LAW???

Of course, at least NOW they have read it...

mimartin
07-07-2010, 08:56 PM
To the rest of the nation, immigration is a partisan thing. In AZ it is about REAL safety concerns. Yes, Arizona is in it on little bubble and other border state such as Texas, New Mexico and California don't have that same concern. :rolleyes:

DarthJacen
07-07-2010, 09:57 PM
Okay, for the record, I completely agree with SB-1070. I live in Phoenix, AZ and see the problem every day. Arizona is on the front line in the Drug War and the cartels love our state because of the flat fenceless land border that can be easily crossed on their way to the nearest border towns and cities. Former News Talk 92.3 KTAR talk show host Darrell Ankarlo actually walked across the border from Mexico with everybody listening. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=152490

Totenkopf
07-07-2010, 10:25 PM
The biggest BS thing about the whole debate is the intentional muddying of the issue by trying to conflate immigrant w/illegal immigrant in a desperate and unseemly attempt to label anyone against illegals as racist and mindlessly nativist. Anytime I see a defender of "comprehensive immigration reform" (which they never clearly define) in print or on air, they always try to take this tack. Whether it's aholes like Pete Stark of CA calling Minutemen murders and behaving in a condescending, high-handed manner at a public forum or someone from La Raza trying to downplay the border security issue on emotional terms of how (illegal) immigrants only want a better life and merely do things Americans won't (a lie), proponents of illegal immigration "comprehensive amnesty" all peddle the same divisive crap. Americans have to be racist to oppose their agenda. :rolleyes: Judging from much of America's support for measures like 1070, most of us seem to see through that ruse.

mimartin
07-07-2010, 10:39 PM
Americans have to be racist to oppose their agenda. :rolleyes: Judging from much of America's support for measures like 1070, most of us seem to see through that ruse.I support border security, but I have yet to see a plan by either party or any state that really address the idea of border security. The ruse here is to make people feel safer, but in reality until we close our borders (both borders) off to track who is coming and going from our county then all we are doing is putting a band-aid on a severed leg. Asking someone once they are in this country for proof of citizenship based on an Police Officers “feeling” is all fine and dandy if that person that came here for a better life, but it most likely will only get the officer dead if it someone with more criminal pursuits in mind.

As far as I’m concern if someone came here illegally then they are criminals and should be deported. Most likely they will miss work Monday, but should be back at work on time by Tuesday.

Totenkopf
07-07-2010, 10:54 PM
I support border security, but I have yet to see a plan by either party or any state that really address the idea of border security. The ruse here is to make people feel safer, but in reality until we close our borders (both borders) off to track who is coming and going from our county then all we are doing is putting a band-aid on a severed leg. Asking someone once they are in this country for proof of citizenship based on an Police Officers ďfeelingĒ is all fine and dandy if that person that came here for a better life, but it most likely will only get the officer dead if it someone with more criminal pursuits in mind.

As far as Iím concern if someone came here illegally then they are criminals and should be deported. Most likely they will miss work Monday, but should be back at work on time by Tuesday.

I agree that criminals, legally here or otherwise, are always a threat to law enforcement. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be pursued. As to your last two comments, I agree. :p As things are now, that probably happens anyway.

mimartin
07-07-2010, 11:06 PM
I agree that criminals, legally here or otherwise, are always a threat to law enforcement. I was speaking along the lines or the drug cartel and the terrorist. I would much rather keep someone with military style weapons or a possible dirty bomb from getting in to this country than have law enforcement officers try to stop them within a major urban area.

If you believe FoxNews, then sometimes the drug cartel and the terrorist are the same people. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/04/mexican-drug-cartel-reportedly-plotted-blow-texas-dam/)

If you a problem with FoxNews, then try the Houston Chronicle here (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7033818.html), warning it is about as fair and balanced as FoxNews. :) Just like most Texas papers.

DarthJacen
07-07-2010, 11:29 PM
The drug cartels have their own problems, right now, thankfully, due to Mexico's own war against them.

Totenkopf
07-08-2010, 04:31 AM
I was speaking along the lines or the drug cartel and the terrorist. I would much rather keep someone with military style weapons or a possible dirty bomb from getting in to this country than have law enforcement officers try to stop them within a major urban area.


Yeah, I figured you meant something more than your garden variety thug w/ a chip on his shoulder (though they can be every bit as dangerous to the cop making the stop). Frankly, though, I'd hope that the govt would have enough intelligence assests in place to keep from getting caught off guard by something like that. I think the states would be happy to play junior partner if the feds actually took the job of border security seriously.

As to the Zetas, they are terrorists as well as a drug cartel. Fortunately, given their level of training by the US (and probably others), their terror is mostly domestic in scope and intent.

Tommycat
07-08-2010, 09:09 AM
Yes, Arizona is in it on little bubble and other border state such as Texas, New Mexico and California don't have that same concern. :rolleyes:
For someone who doesn't like when people put words in his mouth, you sure put some in mine. Of course to other border states illegal immigration is a problem, they just haven't done anything as bold as 1070 yet. Hence why I said AZ.
But lets tackle these one at a time.

I grew up in Texas, and yes they have an immigration problem. However the border between Texas and Mexico, while very long, has a natural barrier. You can't just drive a van across anywhere along the border. You have "choke points" through which vehicle traffic MUST be funneled.

New Mexico: The area where they can cross is fairly narrow. And of course the portion of the Rio Grande that extends past the tip of Texas again helps funnel traffic.

California: They of all places should understand. But they've taken the partisan route. Because Obama derides it, they automatically dislike it. But then maybe it's because they have the largest contingent of border patrol. and a large canal right near the border. Or maybe it's because their illegal population is so high that they actually influence politics there.

I am by no means saying that other states don't have an immigration problem. Just that ours specifically needed to do something. Of course now that we have, other states are looking at doing the same. Mostly along party lines though.

mimartin
07-08-2010, 11:09 AM
For someone who doesn't like when people put words in his mouth, you sure put some in mine.
Nope, I only commented on what you wrote.

To the rest of the nation, immigration is a partisan thing. In AZ it is about REAL safety concerns.
I only saw AZ in there, so I figured Texas, New Mexico and California were lumped into with the "rest of the nation." Silly me. :rolleyes:


The border between Mexico and the United States is 1,951 miles, 1254 miles of that is Mexico-Texas border. Yes, the border is protected by the natural barrier of the Rio Grande; however it is by no means anymore of a deterrent to keep people out of the United State than a desert. I wouldn’t say Texas’ problems with illegal aliens are greater than other border states, but it isn’t any less of a problem either.

Of course, right now the Rio Grande is a pretty good deterrent with all the rain we have had in Texas. However, hopefully we don’t have all this tropical weather year round.

Jae Onasi
07-08-2010, 03:12 PM
The solution, if AZ wants to pursue this law, is to apply it to everyone who gets stopped. If everyone has to prove citizenship, then there are no grounds for discrimination. Illegal immigration is by no means limited to just Mexicans.

Totenkopf
07-08-2010, 06:00 PM
The solution, if AZ wants to pursue this law, is to apply it to everyone who gets stopped. If everyone has to prove citizenship, then there are no grounds for discrimination. Illegal immigration is by no means limited to just Mexicans.

That certainly really shouldn't be a problem in the case of traffic offenses, where ID checking is standard OP. Even got stopped on my own property once in my teens, and we didn't live along the border either. When I respectfully told the officer that he could check with my parents as to my ID, he called me a smartass. Problem with the objections to the AZ law is that while AZ cops need to jump through a bunch of legal hoops to establish ID in a questionable situation, the feds can actually do what BO disingenuously suggested w/re to the ice cream shop. If someone from ICE or some other fed agency wishes "to see your papers", he or she has much wider latitude to legally make that judgement call.

DarthJacen
07-08-2010, 06:20 PM
ICE can't do it alone, that's why they need the help of local law enforcement to really put a dent in this, once the illegal is in custody he can be extradited to ICE, so they can do the rest.

Tommycat
07-08-2010, 08:30 PM
@mimartin: The rest of the nation has made this more of a partisan thing. AZ the support for increasing border protection crosses party lines.

The desert isn't much of a deterrent when you're in a vehicle. I suppose the Rio Grande could just be crossed with boats, but what about the illegal drug trade. But I'm not going to say which has it worse, because Texas has that whole big Gulf of Mexico that can also be used. AZ has the second largest border with Mexico, and no significant barrier. Heck they even installed water stations for illegals so they wouldn't die out there.

@DarthJacen: Yup that's why officials within Border Patrol and ICE had pushed for 287g(I think that's the one, I could be wrong) which allowed for local officers to help enforce immigration. Sheriff Joe sent his men to the course(4 week course from ICE) so they would know how to handle it. Oh that's right... It has already been established that local law enforcement CAN enforce border security. That's been on the books since 96. OOPS! Guess the fed forgot about that.

mimartin
07-08-2010, 09:02 PM
Where I hunt, you can drive across the Rio Grande in a Jeep or a 4 wheel drive. Don't know about the entire 1254 miles, but the parts I've seen are no deeper waist high to a few inches.

Ping
07-08-2010, 09:05 PM
I personally don't consider the issue partisan. Illegals are a problem even up north here. I honestly can't understand why it has become a partisan issue.

And I kind of have to agree with Jae on this one. Everyone should be stopped so it doesn't look (not saying it is, just saying it might look it) discriminatory.

DarthJacen
07-09-2010, 02:18 AM
Agreed, when you get pulled over, the officer should ask for your name, license, registration, proof of insurance (AZ at least), by simply having the license in AZ, you are here legally. As long as you have those three in your car the rest becomes routine.

Darth Avlectus
07-09-2010, 02:41 AM
I don't think any of us who've commented (yet) really have any other problems with it.

We have our differences as to specifics. But really, I don't see it as a partisan issue.

I have known people who came here legally and took the time (~11 years), paid their dues and came here respectfully. When they see others come here illegally, it upsets them. I can understand why. Outward they'll care for the country. Inward they'll think "Why did I even bother doing it the legal way?".

That is unfair. Hold everyone to the same standard.

We're giving out basically open arms with formality, what's wrong with them meeting us halfway? Try to go into Mexico illegally and see what happens.

Tommycat
07-09-2010, 09:14 AM
Where I hunt, you can drive across the Rio Grande in a Jeep or a 4 wheel drive. Don't know about the entire 1254 miles, but the parts I've seen are no deeper waist high to a few inches.

Good point. But much of the Rio Grande is far deeper. I also mentioned that while some parts are pretty shallow a great deal is not. This again makes choke points. But as I said before. I recognize that TX HAS a problem with immigration(and being FROM there I'd be lieing if I said otherwise). I just don't think it's gotten as bad as AZ has. Note that the nation spends $100B on illegal immigrants. And that's AFTER you take out the $13B that they bring in.

Our state budget deficit was $1.3B. Interestingly, the amount we spend on illegal immigrants: $1.3B(We actually got that deficit erased by way of an increase in state sales tax. but then we have to).

@GTA Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. I didn't want it to come off as condemning Obama specifically. The reality is that while we as citizens recognize the problems of illegal immigration, Those in Washington DC with the power to act have chosen to turn this into a pure partisan issue. Most states are taking sides on the issue almost purely along party lines. And DC it's almost perfectly divided along party lines. With only the Democratic Congresspersons from AZ breaking ranks(as far as I've seen).

mimartin
07-09-2010, 09:52 AM
And that's AFTER you take out the $13B that they bring in. Most of that would be easy to fix. Stop the wire transfers from illegals working in this country make every pay day back to Mexico or at the very least heavily tax that money. Make them spend the money they made here, here. Again, I have no problem with Arizona SB 1070 other than I see fact it can be used by the more unscrupulous for race profiling. However, it is not going to solve the problem. Passing laws that dry up the incentive for being here would do more. Cut off the money and you end those incentives. The problem with that; is the businesses that hire cheap labor and the companies that make money off these wire transfers will scream bloody murder. I have no doubt they will find other ways to transfer the money, but at least we would not be making it easy for them.

1,254 > 389

Tommycat
07-09-2010, 10:05 AM
Most of that would be easy to fix. Stop the wire transfers from illegals working in this country make every pay day back to Mexico or at the very least heavily tax that money. Make them spend the money they made here, here. Again, I have no problem with Arizona SB 1070 other than I see fact it can be used by the more unscrupulous for race profiling. However, it is not going to solve the problem. Passing laws that dry up the incentive for being here would do more. Cut off the money and you end those incentives. The problem with that; is the businesses that hire cheap labor and the companies that make money off these wire transfers will scream bloody murder. I have no doubt they will find other ways to transfer the money, but at least we would not be making it easy for them.

1,254 > 389

Part of what you are asking for has already been done, and has been strengthened by SB-1070. As for the racial profiling... really? HOW does it allow for that? It SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS that. Officers can't do this any more because of this bill than they could already. If it's a racist cop, he could simply do that with the DUI laws. He could do that with ANY law. This law does not invite it anymore than any other law. Abuse of power is abuse of power. They can't just stop anyone for being suspected of being an illegal. That person must violate another law FIRST. If he's a racist cop, he'd just use the DUI laws, rather than this law.

mimartin
07-09-2010, 10:10 AM
That person must violate another law FIRST. If he's a racist cop, he'd just use the DUI laws, rather than this law.

If you really believe that, Iíll let George Strait do my talking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwVHOl4-Ndw

Qui-Gon Glenn
07-09-2010, 11:25 AM
Most of that would be easy to fix. Stop the wire transfers from illegals working in this country make every pay day back to Mexico or at the very least heavily tax that money. Make them spend the money they made here, here. {snip } Passing laws that dry up the incentive for being here would do more. Cut off the money and you end those incentives. The problem with that; is the businesses that hire cheap labor and the companies that make money off these wire transfers will scream bloody murder. I have no doubt they will find other ways to transfer the money, but at least we would not be making it easy for them.
Hear Here! A solution that would at least hurt them where it counts!!

I would like to hear how those companies that make their money off illegal immigrants using their wire x-fer system to bilk the American public will scream bloody murder and not be laughed at outright? I cannot see a defensible position, even in our laissez-faire economy.

mimartin
07-09-2010, 11:39 AM
I cannot see a defensible position, even in our laissez-faire economy.The defense is the same as it’s always been***** not my argument**** It goes against NAFTA and it would hurt trade. Problem with that is what I wrote did not include U.S. citizens. Of course, those working here illegally could get around my solution by having U.S. citizen wire the money for them. Build a fence; they go through, over or under. Pass a law requiring proper Identification, forgers and identity thefts make a killing. There is no easy or ready solution and it is a losing fight as long as Americans want cheap labor. 20 years from now we will be discussing what a joke Arizona SB 1070 is, just like we look at the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 today.

Qui-Gon Glenn
07-09-2010, 11:52 AM
The defense is the same as itís always been***** not my argument**** It goes against NAFTA and it would hurt trade. Problem with that is what I wrote did not include U.S. citizens. Of course, those working here illegally could get around my solution by having U.S. citizen wire the money for them. Build a fence; they go through, over or under. Pass a law requiring proper Identification, forgers and identity thefts make a killing. There is no easy or ready solution and it is a losing fight as long as Americans want cheap labor. 20 years from now we will be discussing what a joke Arizona SB 1070 is, just like we look at the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 today.
Well, I meant a defensible position that the American public wouldn't laugh at... but there I go again over-estimating American brainpower...

In 20 years, will we be joking about SB1070 in English or Spanish? Real question. I speak both, as I can say I saw this coming a loooong time ago and decided I'd prepare a little.

Totenkopf
07-09-2010, 03:05 PM
You almost have to wonder why if the overhyped "concern" that 1070 will lead to racial profiling were so compelling that the govt doesn't reference or highlight it in its lawsuit vs AZ. This lawsuit is about nothing other than politics. The govt looks bad b/c it does nothing and resents AZ keeping that glaring fault in the public spotlight and it interferes w/BO and like minded people that want amnesty for illegals rather than "border security". The solution to the problem is not going to be a one-sided approach. Both the law breaking illegals and the economic incentives that keep them coming have to be hit simultaneously. No more free govt benefits (public ed, "anchor babies", etc...) for these people.

While I agree that going after $$ transfers could help clamp down, how do you go after that w/o penalizing American citizens sending money to relatives living abroad? How much of a tax do you put on $$ going somewhere outside the US in your effort to stop $$ leaving America? And what right does the govt have to "tax" money in that fashion that it can't prove was made illegally here in the US? Do the banks now have to risk some variation on racial/country profiling so the politicans don't? If you dry up the jobs and benefits that illegals come here for in the first place, then $$ transfers are rendered moot.......can't send what you don't have. Not saying it's a bad idea, though, just wondering how you can implement it w/o unintended consequences. There's more than one way to send money than just Western Union as well as the possibility that the illegals just keep the cash here and don't send it or utilize some other way to do an end run around the system.

mimartin
07-09-2010, 10:24 PM
You almost have to wonder why if the overhyped "concern" that 1070 will lead to racial profiling were so compelling that the govt doesn't reference or highlight it in its lawsuit vs AZ. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn’t someone actually have to be wronged (profiled) by the law before you can bring that issue before the judiciary? Could that actually be why it was not refereed to or highlighted within the lawsuit?

While I agree that going after $$ transfers could help clamp down, how do you go after that w/o penalizing American citizens sending money to relatives living abroad? Same way you determine if someone is an American citizen when they are pulled over. Ask for identification. Banks and wire services should do that anyways based on the anti-money laundering laws. The only difference is there could be no profiling because you are not going by someone’s “feelings” everyone would have to prove citizenship.

How much of a tax do you put on $$ going somewhere outside the US in your effort to stop $$ leaving America? No clue, as that would have to be something determined by Congress. If I were allowed to write the law, then I would go with 35% unless someone can show me where a majority of illegals are paying both Federal income taxes and state taxes. I would split that 20% for the Federal Government and 15% for the state and mandate that 5% of the federal money go to INS.
Do the banks now have to risk some variation on racial/country profiling so the politicans don't? If you check everyone, then it is not profiling. :rolleyes:
If you dry up the jobs and benefits that illegals come here for in the first place, then $$ transfers are rendered moot.......can't send what you don't have. Remind me, how well did that work when it was attempted in 1986?

There's more than one way to send money than just Western Union as well as the possibility that the illegals just keep the cash here and don't send it or utilize some other way to do an end run around the system. Wasn't just talking about western union when talking about wiring money, tell you what go to your local back and ask them about transferring money to Mexico. You will find out how easy it really is. I'd even venture to say Western Union is not how the majority of money is going to Mexico, if the lines at the local bank are any indication on Thursday and Friday, then Banks have taken over that market.

Totenkopf
07-09-2010, 11:46 PM
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesnít someone actually have to be wronged (profiled) by the law before you can bring that issue before the judiciary? Could that actually be why it was not refereed to or highlighted within the lawsuit?

Well, that's an interesting legal question. If the oft quoted objection to the law is that it's going to be that it's basically racist, one would think that filing a lawsuit against a law that hasn't gone into effect would be based on something more than misrepresentation and fear mongering. What the fed's case seems to say is that they have nothing that proves that allegation but purile conjecture. A means to twist public opinion and little else.


Same way you determine if someone is an American is citizen when they are pulled over. Ask for identification. Banks and wire services should do that anyways based on the anti-money laundering laws. The only difference is there could be no profiling because you are not going by someoneís ďfeelingsĒ everyone would have to prove citizenship.

One problem here is conterfeit ids. No real foolproof way to get around that. Other is that wiring (be it Western Union or any other bank/institution) may then replaced by other means to send that cash back to their home countries. Then there's always the possibility of a cut-out of sorts (ie have someone "legal" take care of it for you). More than one way to skin that cat.


No clue, as that would have to be something determined by Congress. If I were allowed to write the law, then I would go with 35% unless someone can show me where a majority of illegals are paying both Federal income taxes and state taxes. I would split that 20% for the Federal Government and 15% for the state and mandate that 5% of the federal money go to INS.

Seems pretty presumptuous to put that hefty a fine on wired monies when you don't know either their source of origin or final destination (ie not merely the country on the receiving end). You'd have to be a lot more discriminating than just merely saying "slap a tax on wires" b/c that's overkill. Much like what Salazar is attempting in the Gulf right now.


Remind me, how well did that work when it was attempted in 1986?
Remind me, was it actually really tried then... :rolleyes: That was amnesty, the same mistake that BO and the dems want to inflict on America yet again.

Wasn't just talking about western union when talking about wiring money, tell you what go to your local back and ask them about transferring money to Mexico. You will find out how easy it really is. I'd even venture to say Western Union is not how the majority of money is going to Mexico, if the lines at the local bank are any indication on Thursday and Friday, then Banks have taken over that market.

You'll have to forgive me as I didn't take you only literally on western union (ie. I figured you were using that as shorthand for wiring in general). Problem is that you can't just single out Mexico and it's presumptuous that banks should have to assume that all money going out by wire is somehow afoul of the law. Banks wire money overseas all the time. How does the fed have the right to take any cut based on merely the possibility that it might be "ill-gotten" w/o some form of due process?

Big problem in the end, though, seems to be that even if we had/have some effective means to stop it w/o adversely affecting legitimate transactions, the political will isn't quite there yet as witnessed by current events. However, as I indicated, if a fair way could be devised to accurately target what monies crossing the wires were "illegal", w/o impacting others, I'd see that as a positive tool. Just one more way besides drying up job ops, benefits and anchor babies to disincentivize illegals from coming here.

mimartin
07-10-2010, 12:20 AM
Are you even reading what I write or am I just wasting my time answering you? What part of illegal aliens wiring money exactly singles out Mexico? How presumptuous is it to fine those illegal aliens? In no way have I suggested taxing money sent anywhere. Should anyone besides someone here illegally send the money, then it would not be subject to my proposal.

I believe there are laws against counterfeit ids, if that is your problem then I suggest you should also be opposed to Arizona SB 1070 as it suffers from the same problem.

If you don’t understand the full extent of what the 1986 bill was suppose to do, maybe you should read it before merely declaring it an amnesty bill.

I'd also suggest you look at the lawsuit; it has to do with state and federal rights. I disagree with the suit, because if the fed is so worried about its power, then it should not relinquished those rights by not enforcing its own laws including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Tommycat
07-10-2010, 12:00 PM
I disagree with the suit, because if the fed is so worried about its power, then it should not relinquished those rights by not enforcing its own laws including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Not to mention Section 287(g) (http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/070622factsheet287gprogover.htm) in which it specifically gives that right to local law enforcement. It's why Sheriff Joe has been able to do this for the past few years. So for the Sheriff's department, nothing has changed at all. They've been able to do this already.

And back to your supposition that I'm silly to believe they would use DUI law before this. Which one is EVERY protection group in the US and even abroad going to look at. I mean we have our Draconian DUI law, that can be used to threaten and intimidate people. Or SB 1070 that is being watched like a hawk.

I don't think that SB1070 will be as much of a joke in 20 years. I mean even back in 86 the IRCA was a joke. It may even be seen as a "turning point" in which the state and local law enforcement was given the ability to help do something. Especially since this bill strongly goes after BUSINESSES that hire illegals, and those smuggling them in(a full half of the bill). Thus drying up the reason for coming in illegally in the first place. IRCA gave blanket amnesty and a "path to citizenship" for those in the country illegally. It still allowed for subcontractors to bring in illegal aliens for the purpose of work. This bill specifically prohibits that practice. IRCA did not require the employer to verify the authenticity of any documents presented. With SB1070 there is a requirement to verify through eVerify AND to maintain those documents through the employees' time there or 3 years, whichever is longer.

mimartin
07-10-2010, 12:19 PM
Sorry, I should have cut the DUI part out of the quote in my comment. I am very uncomfortable discussing DUI in any shape or form for personal reasons. My comment was more to the fact that you wrote. That person must violate another law FIRST In the real world outside of the legislator people are pulled over in the United State every day because the officers suspects they may have violated a law. They look suspicious to the officer. The officer can use any law to do this, the easiest being crossing the white line, following too closely or something like driving too fast for road conditions. The true intent is to ascertain who the person is and what they are doing there. So if you believe someone has to actually violate another law First. Then I do have some Ocean Front Property in Arizona for sale. I will even throw in the Golden Gate Bridge for free.

DarthJacen
07-10-2010, 03:02 PM
If anyone, actually, takes him up on his "offer", they are more ignorant that George W. Bush in an engineering calculus class.

Anyway, we seem to be going around in circles on this thread, maybe we should all take a break and go back to modifying seven year-old games.

Totenkopf
07-10-2010, 04:21 PM
Are you even reading what I write or am I just wasting my time answering you? What part of illegal aliens wiring money exactly singles out Mexico? How presumptuous is it to fine those illegal aliens? In no way have I suggested taxing money sent anywhere. Should anyone besides someone here illegally send the money, then it would not be subject to my proposal.

I believe there are laws against counterfeit ids, if that is your problem then I suggest you should also be opposed to Arizona SB 1070 as it suffers from the same problem.

If you donít understand the full extent of what the 1986 bill was suppose to do, maybe you should read it before merely declaring it an amnesty bill.

I'd also suggest you look at the lawsuit; it has to do with state and federal rights. I disagree with the suit, because if the fed is so worried about its power, then it should not relinquished those rights by not enforcing its own laws including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Yeah, like you I just go into high dudgeon mode when disagreed with and read nothing. :rolleyes:.

I asked you what you would do and you said "No clue, as that would have to be something determined by Congress". You have some idea of how much you might want to charge, but offer no way (beyond somebody else trying to figure it out) how to determine which amounts of money are "illegal" and thus subject to your proposed tax and which aren't. That was the point.

Also, since I never said I was against making it difficult to hit the illegals in their wallet, your petulant fit is misplaced. The problem is determining which monies would be subject. Do you propose making the banks force everyone to prove where the pre-wired money came from? Does everyone now have to take a paycheck stub to the bank/WU/etc.. to avoid being subjected to this "tax"? The devil is in the details, on which you are admittedly sparse.

Point about the 1986 law is that it was effectively all show and set the ground for the problem we have today. More laws/regulations that are created and then never really enforced. As you stated..."what it was supposed to do"....and apparently didn't.

As to Mexico, it was the only country you listed, thus the one I dealt with in my reply. But it really is irrelevant b/c the same problems apply no matter which countries you list in the end.

I'm aware of the lawsuit, dude. Why I brought up the bit about all their hysteria about "discrimination" being a red herring. They know that kind of argument won't fly in the courts, just with public opinion.

I disagree with the suit, because if the fed is so worried about its power, then it should not relinquished those rights by not enforcing its own laws including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

On this much, at least, we don't seem to disagree.

mimartin
07-10-2010, 05:19 PM
Yeah, like you I just go into high dudgeon mode when disagreed with and read nothing. :rolleyes:. Speak for yourself, but that is good to know.

The problem is determining which monies would be subject. Do you propose making the banks force everyone to prove where the pre-wired money came from?Why? That is not something the banks or wire services should be worried about. If they are suspicious then they should report that suspicion to the Department of the Treasury and local law enforcement. To people that are train to uncover that type of activity, and frankly that is the LAW now. Only thing I purposed that if someone is here illegally then their transaction should be taxed. Why did I write that. (see post 79 and post 80).

Never wrote here it would solve all the problems. Even wrote that illegals would find a way around it (see Post 84).

The devil is in the details, on which you are admittedly sparse.Most of the details you bring up are irrelevant and either have nothing to do with what I suggested or are already covered by laws in place. I’m no expert at law nor have I ever presented myself to be. I know a little about tort and business law from schooling and my job, but nowhere near enough to write a comprehensive law without enough loopholes to drive a truck through. All your redundant questions are doing is attempting to muddy the waters .

As to Mexico, it was the only country you listed, thus the one I dealt with in my reply. I used the term Mexico, because I was responding to Tommycat’s post (post 79), most of the problems with illegals in the border states of Mexico are with Mexican National here illegally. I assumed that anyone would know that by using the term illegals I was not signaling out one nationality.

Point about the 1986 law is that it was effectively all show and set the ground for the problem we have today. More laws/regulations that are created and then never really enforced. As you stated..."what it was supposed to do"....and apparently didn't.So does that mean you don’t feel any longer that it was merely an amnesty bill?
I'm aware of the lawsuit, dude. Why I brought up the bit about all their hysteria about "discrimination" being a red herring. They know that kind of argument won't fly in the courts, just with public opinion. They don’t know if it will or will not fly and neither does anyone else until the law in implemented and then they will have to wait until either no one is harmed by the bill or if someone considers themself to be racially profiled because of the bill. You can’t sue because the fan you are using may cut off your finger, you have to wait until you are actually harmed and then show how that harm was caused by the negligent actions of another.

Tommycat
07-10-2010, 08:34 PM
Sorry, I should have cut the DUI part out of the quote in my comment. I am very uncomfortable discussing DUI in any shape or form for personal reasons. My comment was more to the fact that you wrote. In the real world outside of the legislator people are pulled over in the United State every day because the officers suspects they may have violated a law. They look suspicious to the officer. The officer can use any law to do this, the easiest being crossing the white line, following too closely or something like driving too fast for road conditions. The true intent is to ascertain who the person is and what they are doing there. So if you believe someone has to actually violate another law First. Then I do have some Ocean Front Property in Arizona for sale. I will even throw in the Golden Gate Bridge for free.

And if a cop does that, my girlfriend at the Public Defender's office and a number of ACLU lawyers just chomping at the bit will be all over that cop. Once it's established that a cop is racist that follows that cop(as has already happened in at least one case here that I know of). They've already prepped themselves for taking down any cop they feel is racist. And as noted in the training video they are going to have to show where that suspicion came from. "Well he looked Mexican" isn't going to fly.

mimartin
07-10-2010, 08:52 PM
Thank your girlfriend for being a public defender, then ask her what they are going to do when the Police Officer says he pulled over the brown skin man/women because he was following too closely. Most police officers I know are fairly intelligent. They will not say "he/she looked Mexican."

Totenkopf
07-10-2010, 09:56 PM
Speak for yourself, but that is good to know. Has trouble recognizing sarcasm, filing for future reference. :xp:



Why? That is not something the banks or wire services should be worried about. If they are suspicious then they should report that suspicion to the Department of the Treasury and local law enforcement. To people that are train to uncover that type of activity, and frankly that is the LAW now. Only thing I purposed that if someone is here illegally then their transaction should be taxed. Why did I write that. (see post 79 and post 80).

Never wrote here it would solve all the problems. Even wrote that illegals would find a way around it (see Post 84).

Nor did I ever accuse you of that statement, so the charge is pointless. How is the bank supposed to determine if the money being sent is on behalf of an illegal? If they can actually make that determination, then perhaps they should be contacting ICE rather than openly facilitating such illegal practices. Oh, wait a minute, why bother.....the feds aren't gonna do anything anyway.... :p





Most of the details you bring up are irrelevant and either have nothing to do with what I suggested or are already covered by laws in place. Iím no expert at law nor have I ever presented myself to be. I know a little about tort and business law from schooling and my job, but nowhere near enough to write a comprehensive law without enough loopholes to drive a truck through. All your redundant questions are doing is attempting to muddy the waters.

Hardly, just pointing out how impractical it might prove to be. Cops aren't allowed to ascertain the nationality of an individual, but the banks are supposed to. Nice. :rolleyes:


I used the term Mexico, because I was responding to Tommycatís post (post 79), most of the problems with illegals in the border states of Mexico are with Mexican National here illegally. I assumed that anyone would know that by using the term illegals I was not signaling out one nationality.

So, which is it....I'm supposed to interpret what you say or accept it at face value. You've apparently now accused me of both tactics. :eyeraise: Besides, when I mentioned WU, you took pains to point out that WU wasn't just WU, but shorthand for all wiring ops. What's good for the goose....




So does that mean you donít feel any longer that it was merely an amnesty bill?

You can call it what you like. It didn't deter the previous illegal immigration problem from snowballing. As long as the feds make laws they don't seem to want to enforce, but which make them look like they are doing something, it doesn't really matter what they say. If you ignore laws and they aren't enforced, it's like they weren't written anyway.



They donít know if it will or will not fly and neither does anyone else until the law in implemented and then they will have to wait until either no one is harmed by the bill or if someone considers themself to be racially profiled because of the bill. You canít sue because the fan you are using may cut off your finger, you have to wait until you are actually harmed and then show how that harm was caused by the negligent actions of another.

The only redundant and muddying aspect of the topic is the incessant wolf-crying about the bill being inherently racist. You posted replies to TC that indicate you buy into that interpretation yourself.

mimartin
07-10-2010, 10:20 PM
So, which is it....I'm supposed to interpret what you say or accept it at face value. You've apparently now accused me of both tactics. :eyeraise: Besides, when I mentioned WU, you took pains to point out that WU wasn't just WU, but shorthand for all wiring ops. What's good for the goose....I wrote wire transfers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_transfer). Most of that would be easy to fix. Stop the wire transfers from illegals working in this country make every pay day back to Mexico or at the very least heavily tax that money. Make them spend the money they made here, here. Again, I have no problem with Arizona SB 1070 other than I see fact it can be used by the more unscrupulous for race profiling. However, it is not going to solve the problem. Passing laws that dry up the incentive for being here would do more. Cut off the money and you end those incentives. The problem with that; is the businesses that hire cheap labor and the companies that make money off these wire transfers will scream bloody murder. I have no doubt they will find other ways to transfer the money, but at least we would not be making it easy for them. Not Western Union. Banks do wire transfers too. :ugh:

I'm done this has just became too silly.

Jae Onasi
07-10-2010, 10:45 PM
People, people people--chill out. That's a moderator order. Thanks.

Tommycat
07-11-2010, 09:36 PM
Thank your girlfriend for being a public defender, then ask her what they are going to do when the Police Officer says he pulled over the brown skin man/women because he was following too closely. Most police officers I know are fairly intelligent. They will not say "he/she looked Mexican."

They look at the whole of the officer's record each time. If the officer shows a pattern of pulling one group over then it will be pretty obvious. Most DUI stops take place with more than one officer(at least here). They must also run through the checklist of things that must occur to decide if the person might not be a legal resident. Again, read some of the things that the video explains you must do to verify if the person is not a legal resident.

Not saying that none will, just that if he does, it'll become very obvious.

Darth Avlectus
07-12-2010, 02:26 AM
From what I understand, they are not challenging the constitutionality of the immigration portion so much as state enforcing federal law. It's all a dog and pony show. Obama probably knows that it won't hold water. I think he just wants to show that he "cares" for the little guy.
Yeah. That would be consistent with what his supporters are looking to benefit from. More illegals is more clout, and more clout means more votes from people who think you're just trying to help them.

Either that or he's hoping that with state budgets already strained, we'll cave simply to avoid the cost of a legal battle. If he really believes that, then he didn't spend enough time listening to Jan Brewer. her commitment to AZ would make Ahab say, "Oh come on, that's obsessive!"
Yeah that seems to resonate with what I'm seeing thus far. Red tape is always ugly. But sometimes the looming danger of being pushed into it isn't enough to convince the opposition to just give up. However, I do believe what this tactic will achieve is giving enough stalling time for the administration to pull some other trick out of their hat or to gather support elsewhere.

Is this the kind of "change" Obama wants? Now not only are you not enforcing immigration, but now you're actively fighting someone willing to do something about it?
I'm thinking, yeah.

California: They of all places should understand. But they've taken the partisan route. Because Obama derides it, they automatically dislike it. Businesses, small or large, private or state all are using illegals. Big names like Pelosi and Boxer.

With arrogant ****tards like Pete Stark, nobody of opposition can get a word in without getting verbally abused. (I'd like to see him mouth off to Bill Goldberg like that--in a glass factory. O' irony. :dev9:, that or Kane "Hello Pete!!!")

But then maybe it's because they have the largest contingent of border patrol. and a large canal right near the border. Or maybe it's because their illegal population is so high that they actually influence politics there. Bingo.

I am by no means saying that other states don't have an immigration problem. Just that ours specifically needed to do something. Of course now that we have, other states are looking at doing the same. Mostly along party lines though.

Unfortunately AZ and TX are the only ones that support border security while CA largely opposes it, and NM is somewhat iffy on it though I can't imagine them looking too favorably on it if they once had people like the corrupt Bill Richardson in office.


@GTA Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. I didn't want it to come off as condemning Obama specifically. The reality is that while we as citizens recognize the problems of illegal immigration, Those in Washington DC with the power to act have chosen to turn this into a pure partisan issue.
Oh I didn't think you were, I was responding to the posts above mine, but yes, this and almost every Democrat administration has had CA close behind as a cheer leader. At least since "H" Bush.

Most states are taking sides on the issue almost purely along party lines. And DC it's almost perfectly divided along party lines. With only the Democratic Congresspersons from AZ breaking ranks(as far as I've seen).

And a lot of Liberal CA Republicans breaking ranks opposite.

JediAthos
08-03-2010, 06:53 PM
In a related story some senators want to review the 14th amendment:


Leading Republicans are joining a push to reconsider the constitutional amendment that grants automatic citizenship to people born in the United States.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday he supports holding hearings on the 14th Amendment right, although he emphasized that Washington's immigration focus should remain on border security.

His comments came as other Republicans in recent days have questioned or challenged birthright citizenship, embracing a cause that had largely been confined to the far right.

The senators include Arizona's John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential nominee; Arizona's Jon Kyl, the Republicans' second-ranking senator; Alabama's Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading negotiator on immigration legislation.

"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen," Sessions said.

Legal experts say repealing the citizenship right can be done only through constitutional amendment, which would require approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress and by three-fourths of the states. Legislation to amend the right, introduced previously in the House, has stalled.

The proposals are sure to appeal to conservative voters as immigration so far is playing a central role in November's elections. They also could carry risks by alienating Hispanic voters and alarming moderates who could view constitutional challenges as extreme. Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the United States, and many are highly driven by the illegal immigrant debate.

McConnell and McCain seemed to recognize the risk by offering guarded statements Tuesday.

McCain, who faces a challenge from the right in his re-election bid, said he supports reviewing citizenship rights. He emphasized, however, that amending the Constitution is a serious matter.

"I believe that the Constitution is a strong, complete and carefully crafted document that has successfully governed our nation for centuries and any proposal to amend the Constitution should receive extensive and thoughtful consideration," he said.

At a news conference, McConnell refused to endorse Graham's suggestion that citizenship rights be repealed for children of illegal immigrants. While refusing to take questions, he suggested instead that he would look narrowly into reports of businesses that help immigrants arrange to have babies in the United States in order to win their children U.S. citizenship.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," including recently freed slaves.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_go_co/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship

Thoughts on this? Good idea? I think it might be...but I think it might be hard to get it repealed given the requirements for doing so.

Tommycat
08-03-2010, 09:02 PM
Well it is a major problem. That tends to be where a lot of illegal aliens abuse the system. They have an "anchor baby" and then use that child to get on AHCCCS(Arizona's Medical), draw welfare, and other services usually reserved for needy citizens. They can live off those services and abuse the system.

Interestingly, I read recently in the Arizona Republic(don't let the name fool ya, they're the mouthpiece for the Democratic party) that better than 70% of AZ murder warrants are for illegal immigrants.

JediAthos
08-04-2010, 09:36 AM
I trust statistics reported by any "news" agency in this country about as far as I can throw them :) Perhaps the amendment doesn't need to be repealed, but rather amended to say that any child born in the country to a citizen or legal immigrant (i.e. someone who has their green card or is naturalized) is automatically a citizen.

I don't know...the article says that legislation to amend the right has stalled, but it seems like if they really wanted to stem the tide a bit this might be the way to do it.

Totenkopf
08-04-2010, 11:59 AM
..Perhaps the amendment doesn't need to be repealed, but rather amended to say that any child born in the country to a citizen or legal immigrant (i.e. someone who has their green card or is naturalized) is automatically a citizen.

I don't know...the article says that legislation to amend the right has stalled, but it seems like if they really wanted to stem the tide a bit this might be the way to do it.

That would seem emminently reasonable. Or even just having Congress make laws that make anchor babies illegal. IIRC the 14th was primarily included in 1868 to protect the newly freed slaves that had been in the US for generations.

Tommycat
08-04-2010, 09:50 PM
Actually it just needs to be challenged. I mean Foreign dignitaries and other foreign nationals are subject to the laws of their home country and therefore fail to meet the second requirement of the citizenship. It has loosely been interpreted as "if you're born here you're a citizen." However as the parents of illegals are not subject to the same laws as those of US citizens this could be interpreted the same way as with foreign ambassadors. Honestly this makes more sense than even 1070 does.

Speaking of which... Yes, I know the Federal judge ruled against parts of 1070, but even if she hadn't did anyone really believe this wasn't going to the supreme court?

And as for the statistics, well whether true or not, it was put out when Janet Napolitano was the governor, and Bush was the pres. It was when she was trying to get the fed to pay us back...

Ping
08-05-2010, 10:35 AM
I trust statistics reported by any "news" agency in this country about as far as I can throw them :) Perhaps the amendment doesn't need to be repealed, but rather amended to say that any child born in the country to a citizen or legal immigrant (i.e. someone who has their green card or is naturalized) is automatically a citizen.

I don't know...the article says that legislation to amend the right has stalled, but it seems like if they really wanted to stem the tide a bit this might be the way to do it.

If it is changed, I hope it comes to the above. My mother happens to be a legal immigrant, and it wouldn't really be fair to me if I lost my citizenship just because I have one immigrant parent.

Then again, Lou Dobbs is even saying that a repeal isn't needed...

Q
08-05-2010, 01:23 PM
Yeah, the amendment needs to be amended (:p) so that only children born to citizens or legal immigrants get automatic citizenship.

EDIT: I think that it would still be reasonable to go so far as to require that at least one of the parents be a citizen.

Tommycat
08-07-2010, 05:05 PM
Please note that I do not want the 14th amendment repealed(and neither do the Republicans in congress, despite how it's being presented), but rather re-interpreted. Again I note that under the 14th amendment you are not granted automatic citizenship if you are born to parents who are foreign ambassadors. There are TWO parts stated in the 14th amendment section 1(the only section that deals with citizenship)

for reference the 14th amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Repealing all of it will not happen. Though we could have another amendment that repeals section 1 and replaces it with a better worded version, however Republicans in AZ are arguing that section 1 need only be interpreted in that as the parents of illegal immigrants are ambassadors of their home country they are not subject to US jurisdiction.