US Gov't Sues Arizona Over Immigration Law

That is for the privilege of international travel and crossing the border, not walking down the street in Tempe.

EPIC own goal. Just like most of the RACISM posts have been in this thread. Yours, however, deserved special recognition :)
 
What you say is true. I would like the liberals here to now make their plan for stopping the illegals that is perfect. They are criticizing, and start helping.
Why stop them? They provide cheap reliable labor. We should make it easier for them to be here for work purposes.
EPIC own goal.
I agree, but I didn't really want to embarrass you by calling it out as such.
 
Allowing illegals to stay is racist. They take the quotas from Africa and Asia. Why do all you illegal appologists hate Asians and Africans?
 
Our quotas are based one what we think our society can reasonably assimilate, distributed equitably throught the world. They take projected illegal immigration into account. So while the quotas for Latin American nations are also reduced (way to screw yourselves La Raza) their citizens get in anyway, while those unfortunate enough to have a ocean in the way are out of luck.

But like I said, its all about the Latinos. Who cares about these Asians/Africans/Europeans.
 
Can we apply the quotas retroactively and send some of the Irish packing? That would free up some population availability so we didn't need to reduce the quotas for everyone else.

But if the current quota stem takes into account illegals, then making the illegals legal should not change the other quotas.
 
Not every Mexican who comes across the border does so to immigrate. Many of them have legitimate work visas issued by the federal government. Unfortunately, there are far too many hoops both the employer and the employee have to jump through for the program to be as viable as it should be for agricultural workers and other low-paying jobs. Most other developed countries don't seem to have all these problems with such a simple notion for some odd reason.
 
Agreed, especially on the employer side. This law takes care of the employee side and somewhat adresses the other.
 
I am still waiting for someone to point out how this law is bigoted, posted thus far have failed miserably.

Because the law doesn't specifically prevent racial profiling, it promotes racial profiling.

...Is the gist of the argument.
 
Obviously the whole system is broken anyway, everyone knows that white people get off when blacks and minorities would be sent to prison. The death penalty is racist, obviously. But that is off topic.

If police officers can abuse their powers, they will abuse their powers... that what the gist of it seems to be.

And if a Mexican-American police officer happens to make the stop/arrest, my mind will implode.
 
The fact that it's not a felony; that graph is distinguishing deportations by those who have committed a felony and those who have not. We've been over this before. - Bill3000

The fact that it's not a felony doesn't mean it's not a crime... If you want to say that they're not violent felons, then do so. Let's not be completely disingenuous and pretend that illegal aliens aren't breaking federal laws in a criminal fashion.

This law only works if racial profiling is done

Racial profiling is illegal. - JH

Logical fail.

Not to mention "pre-emption" Legally speaking, AZ has no case. - JH

Yes it does. It's called protecting it's citizenry. If the government is going to pre-empt the Arizona law that looks to uphold a federal regulation, then I think you and thousands of other people would all about striking down "sanctuary cities" that violate the federal governments constitutional responsibilities to combat illegal immigration.

There is nothing in the language of the law that is discriminatory on the basis of race. You're assuming that racial profiling will occur and that the law will be abused. Well golly gee, if we're gonna start suing people because a law might be abused, we might as well just resign ourselves to anarchy.

It's very much the same problem with illegal immigrants. - Cutlass

Actually, there's been all kinds of articles talking about how illegal aliens are fleeing Arizona in the wake of this legislation. Illegal immigration is a lot easier to police than drugs. And ironically, if we actually police illegal immigration, it will make it a hell of a lot easier to police the importation and production of illegal drugs. Unfortunately for us we have a system in place that really doesn't give a hoot about drugs or illegal aliens. Addicts are a potential voting block and illegal aliens are an even larger one.

Except to violate the Constitutional rights of legal residents and citizens.... - Cutlass

You mean the constitutional right to not have to support people who are here legally? The constitutional right to live in a safe area? The constitutional right to not have to police illegal immigrants if you live in the city of Phoenix? The constitutional right to not have to fund huge warehouses full of drugs seized from illegal immigrants? The constitutional right to self-preservation?

Who knew that Hispanics had the constitutional right to violate federal laws, and live anywhere they want, simply because they're hispanic and represent the largest group of federal law breakers...

We would also note, as we have previously, that crime rates were at historic lows in 2008 in Arizona, the most recent year for which figures are available. - JH

Did you also note that Arizona is STILL one of the most crime ridden states? Did you note that Phoenix has the fifth highest violent crime rate in the nation? It's ridiculous for people like you to even insinuate that Arizona doesn't have a serious crime problem that's almost entirely due to illegal immigration. Phoenix - kidnapping capital of North America. It's old retirees in Mesa and the Native Americans at work.

No. There is no bigotry in Arizona... - Forma

There's bigotry everywhere. Bigots existing doesn't mean that a piece of legislation violates federal law.

The real question is how many legitimate residents are going to be forced to prove their status for no reason other than their appearance. - Cutlass

If police officers are enforcing the law as it is written, zero.

The law isn't. The ONLY way to enforce it is. - Woody

I guess the federal law is illegal. No more immigration policies! Open borders poor people from other countries! Have fun!

We are again reduced to "foreign looking" and "thick accent" as criteria. - JollyRoger

And garnered the attention of officers via some nefarious action.
 
Because the law doesn't specifically prevent racial profiling, it promotes racial profiling.

...Is the gist of the argument.

Because the police can be sued by any person for failing to racial profile.

Even the cops are divided on whether the law is good or bad.

Arizona Police Split on Immigration Crackdown
By Nathan Thornburgh / Phoenix Friday, Apr. 30, 2010

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1986080,00.html#ixzz0t2OMCyZ3


Just moments before I was gently removed from the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police meeting on Wednesday, April 28, in Phoenix — it was, apparently, a closed meeting — the Hispanic, Harvard-educated U.S. marshal for Arizona stood up to brief the group, as had representatives from several federal agencies before him. "My name is David Gonzales, and I was born in Flagstaff," he said, smiling as he pretended to pull something out of his jacket pocket. "I've got my papers right here." The room broke out in laughter.

There's been no shortage of show-me-some-ID jokes around Arizona this week, but the association of police chiefs from around the state does have serious objections to SB1070, the controversial new state law that requires police to ask for papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. The law's main champions certainly include some law-enforcement figures, like Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio and the bill's state senate sponsor, Russell Pearce, a former cop whose son (also a policeman) was once shot by an illegal immigrant. But the official opposition of the Chiefs of Police Association — on the grounds that the law amounts to an unfunded mandate, that it could hurt community relationships and that it distracts attention and resources from more serious criminality — shows that in Arizona, cops are just as divided about the law as everyone else. (See how Arizona is gearing up for a protracted immigration fight.)

Brian Livingston, president of the Arizona Police Association, which represents 9,000 rank-and-file officers and agents in the state, supports SB1070 without reserve. "What we've seen is inaction, a lot of discussion," he said. "We have officers getting killed, getting severely injured by illegal aliens." He told the story of officer Marc Atkinson, a young Phoenix cop whom Livingston had personally recruited to the force. Atkinson was killed by an illegal alien during a drug bust, said Livingston.

Livingston's organization is so enthusiastic about cracking down on illegal immigration that for the first time in its history, the group is not supporting Senator John McCain's re-election, choosing instead to endorse his tougher-on-illegals opponent J.D. Hayworth. "We implored John for many, many years to take action on illegal immigration, to no avail," said Livingston. Even though McCain voiced support for the bill just before the governor signed it, Livingston and many others still fault McCain for his previous attempts to pass comprehensive immigration reform. (See how Mexicans are expressing their opposition to the immigration law.)

The annual Border Security Expo in downtown Phoenix, held concurrently with the chiefs of police meeting, would seem like a hotbed of support for the state's new law. A thousand attendees — federal agents, defense contractors and cops — browsed booths hawking nightscopes ("Dominate the Darkness"), automatic weapons ("He who shoots the most. The fastest. Wins.") and heavily armored all-terrain vehicles with names like the Threatstalker and the Prowler.

But despite the enthusiasm for security gewgaws, there was little unanimity about SB1070 at the exposition. In his keynote speech, former ambassador to Mexico Jim Jones said the law is too fixated on hunting for people whose only crime is being in the U.S. illegally, which, he pointed out, is just a misdemeanor offense. "We don't deprive people who have committed a misdemeanor of having a life," he said. (See the top 10 crime stories of 2009.)

David Aguilar, acting deputy commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, followed that speech with his own prescription for immigration and border issues. He didn't explicitly take sides on SB1070, but he argued for a "holistic" approach that includes a lot of help for America's neighbor to the south. "Speaking cop to cop," he told the audience, the real question should be "How do we help [Mexico] reduce the violence?"

The controversy alone made some law-enforcement officials uncomfortable. Walking on the floor of the exhibition hall, police chief Jerald Monahan of Apache Junction didn't want to comment about the law, except to take issue with the rising calls to boycott Arizona: "To boycott all of us when they're mad at a few people is not right," he said. "We're doing good work." (See a Swampland post outlining the rising calls to boycott.)

Chief John Harris of Sahuarita, the current president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, said he opposed the law before Governor Jan Brewer signed it and still does today. He listed his objections: Immigration has traditionally been a federal issue, and the police already have "manpower and budget issues" that will only get worse under the law. "If we then arrest [illegals] on state charges, who will pay?" he asked. He's also concerned that victims may not report crimes to his officers. And finally, the threat of lawsuits — any citizen may sue a police officer or department for impeding the enforcement of immigration laws — makes him leery.

When told of the Arizona Police Association's support for the law, Harris nodded. "It gives police officers, in their mind, another tool," he said. "But if they get hit with a civil rights lawsuit, well, that's a problem for the chief of police."

Some of those same concerns about how the law affects police have been echoed outside of Arizona. Texas Governor Rick Perry notably said he didn't think the law would be right for his state, largely because it would take police "away from their existing law-enforcement duties" if they had to focus on immigration violations.

Ultimately Harris and the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police will continue to oppose the law until it takes effect in mid- to late-summer. After that, however, they will uphold its provisions while being as fair as possible. "We are sworn," he said, "to enforce the laws of Arizona."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1986080,00.html#ixzz0t2OEHst6

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1986080,00.html
 
Merkinball said:
The fact that it's not a felony doesn't mean it's not a crime... If you want to say that they're not violent felons, then do so. Let's not be completely disingenuous and pretend that illegal aliens aren't breaking federal laws in a criminal fashion.

Not anymore than an 18 year old drinking alcohol, no. Also, I didn't say violent felons, I said felons, which would include nonviolent ones.
 
Like summoning the police in a domestic violence situation?
Criminals obviously don't deserve police protection - just police persecution along with anybody else who happens to look like them. That's not rasist. It is common sense.
 
Like summoning the police in a domestic violence situation? - JollyRoger

Being abused domestically makes it okay to be a criminal?

Not anymore than an 18 year old drinking alcohol, no. - Bill3000

Which is also a crime. And let's not kid ourselves, illegal immigration is massively more devastating to America than 18 year olds drinking alcohol.
 
A majority of economists agree illegal immigration is a net benefit to the US economy.

The Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

The agency estimates that for 2005, the last year for which figures are available, about $9 billion in taxes was paid on about $75 billion in wages from people who filed W2 forms with incorrect or mismatched data, which would include illegal immigrants who drew paychecks under fake names and Social Security numbers.

Contrary to popular belief, many (most?) illegal immigrants pay taxes and get nothing back. They also may be bolstering Social Security to the tune of a $7 billion subsidy each year in free money.

As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.
 
Being abused domestically makes it okay to be a criminal?
Who said criminal? I was playing along with the foreign looking and thick accent assertion as valid criteria by someone on your side of the debate. Someone who could still be a citizen and want to report domestic abuse without being hauled to the nearest ICE facility. As fo law-abiding, it is likely that most citizens have committed criminal acts. Very few never speed, never jaywalk, never drank underage, etc.

So once again, we are down to foreign looking and heavy accent.
 
Top Bottom