Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arizona and Immigration?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 8:09:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I know that the law is not fancied by the majority here but how do you feel on the states rights issue?

Should the federal government come in and try to fight it?
Y?

Personally, I do not mind the law that is trying to be passed. I am completely pro-states rights; states rights are located in the bill of rights under the tenth amendment. This is Arizona's answer to being neglected in the Perpetual Union.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 8:18:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I agree. If the federal government won't do its job, it is the right of the state to attempt to do the job in its place.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 8:27:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I haven't read as much about the law as I should, but from my understanding, anyone can be asked for I.D. right? Even if the bill explicitly disallows racial profiling, it will still happen.

So what if you have to be suspected of something first? "Probable cause" is a load of B.S. The cops can pull you over for whatever they want and give some ridiculous "probable cause" like "that water bottle looked like it might be booze" or "from my angle it looked like you didn't have your seatbelt on."

They do that sort of thing all the time around the 4th of July on the Ohio/Michigan border. People from Michigan go to Ohio to buy their fireworks because they're illegal here. Supposedly, they can only check you for fireworks if they have some other reason for pulling you over, but, if they think you're carrying them, they always make up some stupid excuse to check you, even if you're doing absolutely nothing wrong. Leaving that sort of power at the officers' discretion is a big mistake.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 8:31:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 8:27:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I haven't read as much about the law as I should, but from my understanding, anyone can be asked for I.D. right? Even if the bill explicitly disallows racial profiling, it will still happen.

So what if you have to be suspected of something first? "Probable cause" is a load of B.S. The cops can pull you over for whatever they want and give some ridiculous "probable cause" like "that water bottle looked like it might be booze" or "from my angle it looked like you didn't have your seatbelt on."

They do that sort of thing all the time around the 4th of July on the Ohio/Michigan border. People from Michigan go to Ohio to buy their fireworks because they're illegal here. Supposedly, they can only check you for fireworks if they have some other reason for pulling you over, but, if they think you're carrying them, they always make up some stupid excuse to check you, even if you're doing absolutely nothing wrong. Leaving that sort of power at the officers' discretion is a big mistake.

The federal law is the SAME THING except that it doesn't have additional safeguards like that. So before being opposed to Arizona, you must be opposed to Washington.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 8:34:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 8:31:20 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/20/2010 8:27:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I haven't read as much about the law as I should, but from my understanding, anyone can be asked for I.D. right? Even if the bill explicitly disallows racial profiling, it will still happen.

So what if you have to be suspected of something first? "Probable cause" is a load of B.S. The cops can pull you over for whatever they want and give some ridiculous "probable cause" like "that water bottle looked like it might be booze" or "from my angle it looked like you didn't have your seatbelt on."

They do that sort of thing all the time around the 4th of July on the Ohio/Michigan border. People from Michigan go to Ohio to buy their fireworks because they're illegal here. Supposedly, they can only check you for fireworks if they have some other reason for pulling you over, but, if they think you're carrying them, they always make up some stupid excuse to check you, even if you're doing absolutely nothing wrong. Leaving that sort of power at the officers' discretion is a big mistake.

The federal law is the SAME THING except that it doesn't have additional safeguards like that. So before being opposed to Arizona, you must be opposed to Washington.

Well, I'm opposed to having laws that restrict who can immigrate, beyond maybe "No deadly contagious diseases." Even criminals immigrating just makes it possible to shoot them once you find out they are criminals.

P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 8:35:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 8:31:20 PM, mongoose wrote:

The federal law is the SAME THING except that it doesn't have additional safeguards like that. So before being opposed to Arizona, you must be opposed to Washington.

OK.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 8:35:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 8:31:20 PM, mongoose wrote:
The federal law is the SAME THING except that it doesn't have additional safeguards like that. So before being opposed to Arizona, you must be opposed to Washington.

There's no order of precedence, mongoose - J.Kenyon, and myself, would oppose both equally and happily, and at the same time!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 8:35:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 8:18:18 PM, mongeese wrote:
I agree. If the federal government won't do its job, it is the right of the state to attempt to do the job in its place.

I don't remember seeing a clause in the Constitution mandating immigration laws and a fence, so maybe it's neither the Fed nor the state's job.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 8:38:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 8:35:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/20/2010 8:18:18 PM, mongeese wrote:
I agree. If the federal government won't do its job, it is the right of the state to attempt to do the job in its place.

I don't remember seeing a clause in the Constitution mandating immigration laws and a fence, so maybe it's neither the Fed nor the state's job.

Nothing in the Constituion mandates this, but it does allow it.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 9:17:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I doubt it's illegal for us to put up a fence, but it indicates we have some real problems. Real problems aren't fixed with fences, they are fixed with justice.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 9:21:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 9:17:53 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I doubt it's illegal for us to put up a fence, but it indicates we have some real problems. Real problems aren't fixed with fences, they are fixed with justice.

Out of curiosity, what is the "justice" solution to this?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 9:32:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 9:21:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/20/2010 9:17:53 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I doubt it's illegal for us to put up a fence, but it indicates we have some real problems. Real problems aren't fixed with fences, they are fixed with justice.

Out of curiosity, what is the "justice" solution to this?

Gief money from rich people to poor mexicans Nao I'm guessing.

There's a much cleverer way to put it, but it requires a racial slur. However funny the joke is, it still violates the TOS >_>
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 9:36:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 9:32:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/20/2010 9:21:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/20/2010 9:17:53 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
I doubt it's illegal for us to put up a fence, but it indicates we have some real problems. Real problems aren't fixed with fences, they are fixed with justice.

Out of curiosity, what is the "justice" solution to this?

Gief money from rich people to poor mexicans Nao I'm guessing.

There's a much cleverer way to put it, but it requires a racial slur. However funny the joke is, it still violates the TOS >_>

PM me.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 9:42:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The federal government cannot fight the law - the law is contingent upon the federal government enforcing a law that it previously enacted. I.e. - the government cannot complain that Arizona is doing anything illegal, because the Arizona law is in effect a directive for officers to comply with the federal law.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2010 11:39:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Az are absolutely correct in what they're doing, it's to the eternal shame of the present highly racist administration that they are not implementing an Az policy across the whole of the US.

Illegal immigrants are criminals from the very start because of their illegal status and burglars because they are taking from the population what they have no right to take.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 5:39:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 8:27:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I haven't read as much about the law as I should
You and far too many others...

but from my understanding, anyone can be asked for I.D. right?
Only if they've already broken a law. And its mandatory for those people. Their citizenship has to be checked. A driver's lisence makes it quick, unless they don't have one, in which case, it might take a while.

Even if the bill explicitly disallows racial profiling, it will still happen.
And all of those organizations against racism will point those examples out, and the policemen who racially profile will be dealt with. Although, with 30% of Arizona police being Hispanic, I don't see much room for racial profiling.

So what if you have to be suspected of something first? "Probable cause" is a load of B.S. The cops can pull you over for whatever they want and give some ridiculous "probable cause" like "that water bottle looked like it might be booze" or "from my angle it looked like you didn't have your seatbelt on."
Not just suspected. It has to be established that you comitted a crime. If the cop thought your seatbelt wasn't buckled, but it was, end of story.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 5:52:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2010 8:09:15 PM, comoncents wrote:
I know that the law is not fancied by the majority here but how do you feel on the states rights issue?:

I think a state's soveriegnty is of the utmost importance. Here's the qualifier though, (it has to be within the context and parameters of the Constitution, which no State can usurp).

Should the federal government come in and try to fight it?:

Only if it is unconstiutional, which in this case, there is room to argue it either way.

Personally, I do not mind the law that is trying to be passed. I am completely pro-states rights; states rights are located in the bill of rights under the tenth amendment. This is Arizona's answer to being neglected in the Perpetual Union.:

Yes, but read the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Since the Constitution states that immigration is a federal issue, the 10th Amendment cannot be invoked unless you invalidate Article 1, Section 8 and the 14th Amendment.

The problem is that it is implied that Congress has the final say in immigration, but at the same time, the Founders themselves elucidated different meanings:

"Alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved, to the states, respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled "An Act concerning Aliens," which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force." -- Thomas Jefferson

The problem is that States and Federal could usurp the other with loose definitions.

Having respect for the Constitution, legislators should seek to amend or ratify existing laws so that they are not so ambiguous.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 7:33:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Immigration policy is clearly a Federal responsibility, and what Arizona is doing is enforcing a subset of Federal law. There is a strong case for the Feds suing those that contradict the law, like the sanctuary cities. The Feds are suing because they claim that the Feds have a right to *not* enforce the law, and Arizona is infringing on their right of non-enforcement.

Note that there are federal laws against bank robbing and kidnapping. So should that nullify state laws against bank robbing and kidnapping? There is clear Federal preemption on drugs, but those opposed to immigration enforcement suddenly become state rights fanatics on drug enforcement.

The racial profiling stuff is imaginary nonsense. 30% of the Arizona police are Hispanic, and racists wouldn't hire Hispanics. There is no significant history of racial discrimination in Arizona. The Hispanic police in Arizona favor the new law, and in past referendum issues a majority of Hispanic voters favor excluding illegals from government benefits. The state is being killed by the costs of illegal immigration, and everybody in Arizona knows it.

Anyone who wants to debate the issue is invited to issue a challenge to me.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 7:37:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The racial profiling stuff is imaginary nonsense. 30% of the Arizona police are Hispanic, and racists wouldn't hire Hispanics
There are degrees of racism. Not everyone who is racist enough to think "Hey, maybe we should profile" is racist to say "Stupid Mexicans, I ain't never gonna hire ya!"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 8:18:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is a very interesting thread with some really intelligent and well-informed contributions.

I can see both sides of the argument, although I don't fully understand the Constitutional implications, but it seems to me that the law, if implemented correctly, should be fairly innocuous and should not cause any serious objections from legal citizens.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 8:35:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 7:33:11 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Immigration policy is clearly a Federal responsibility, and what Arizona is doing is enforcing a subset of Federal law. There is a strong case for the Feds suing those that contradict the law, like the sanctuary cities. The Feds are suing because they claim that the Feds have a right to *not* enforce the law, and Arizona is infringing on their right of non-enforcement.:

Here are the objections that challenge the Constitutionality of the HR Bill, using the verbiage contained within the bill itself.

1. It creates a new state crime of "trespassing by illegal aliens," which essentially consists of being in the state which is a violation of federal immigration laws. These laws are to be determined by an officer or agency authorized by the federal government to verify immigration status, not state law enforcement.

2. Sets out that no official or agency of the state or its political subdivisions (county, city, etc.) "may adopt a policy that limits the enforcement of federal laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law;"

3. State and local law enforcement officials shall make a "reasonable attempt . . . when practicable, to determine the immigration status" of any person with whom they have made "lawful contact . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the [detained] person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States;"

Okay, so how would you reasonably suspect someone is in suspicion of not living here legally besides the way they look? If police officers stop Hispanic motorists on pretextual grounds just to ask for their papers, for example, that would constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. But who is to say that they won't use something far more innocuous to affect the traffic stop and use it as probable cause? Indeed, cops look for a broken tail light as the pretext for the stop, hoping that because it's midnight on a Friday night, that you're drunk off your @ss.

4. If an alien who is unlawfully in the United States is convicted of violating any state or local law [including the new "trespassing by illegal aliens"], the alien "shall be transferred immediately [on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of fine for the offense] to the custody of the [federal immigration authorities]."

That means that police officers do what they've always done. That means the only thing this law does is give local police more authority to suspect people, and that's all.

I don't see any blatant Constitutional problems, but I see there being wiggle room for violations of civil rights. That's my concern.

The racial profiling stuff is imaginary nonsense. 30% of the Arizona police are Hispanic, and racists wouldn't hire Hispanics. There is no significant history of racial discrimination in Arizona. The Hispanic police in Arizona favor the new law, and in past referendum issues a majority of Hispanic voters favor excluding illegals from government benefits. The state is being killed by the costs of illegal immigration, and everybody in Arizona knows it.:

I wouldn't say that it is entirely imaginary, but I would agree that it is a rather convenient defense for those actually in violation of the immigration law. For instance, as somebody who does legally enforce federal immigration like, myself, as an hispanic (I don't look the part, but I actually am) I can say firsthand that I am only concerned with the law, not how people look. A large number of my friends in the Coast Guard, Customs, and the Border Patrol are also hispanic and they dutifully enforce immigration without prejudice.

That said, racism can and does rear its ugly head. In fact, the Sheriff Arpaio has manipulated the law to enact his own personal vengence on dissenters of his policies numerous times. That an official that far up the chain is willing to manipulate the law to serve his own ends lends credence to the unprecedented ability officers will have to do the same.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
phill3006
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 8:58:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 7:33:11 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Immigration policy is clearly a Federal responsibility, and what Arizona is doing is enforcing a subset of Federal law. There is a strong case for the Feds suing those that contradict the law, like the sanctuary cities. The Feds are suing because they claim that the Feds have a right to *not* enforce the law, and Arizona is infringing on their right of non-enforcement.

See, the issue with this is that the FEDS don't enforce very many laws. It's typically the state or local law enforcement that enforces federal laws. So, how does Arizona know what laws the Federal government isn't enforcing? I would contend that if the Feds don't want a law enforced, they should repeal it. Isn't there something somewhere that makes it a crime to not enforce laws?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 9:12:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
See, the issue with this is that the FEDS don't enforce very many laws. It's typically the state or local law enforcement that enforces federal laws. So, how does Arizona know what laws the Federal government isn't enforcing? I would contend that if the Feds don't want a law enforced, they should repeal it. Isn't there something somewhere that makes it a crime to not enforce laws?:

They are enforcing the immigration laws: USCG, BP, ICE, INS, CBP, etc... The problem is that you can't stop it altogether. You catch one, forty make it through.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
phill3006
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 9:37:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 9:12:25 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
See, the issue with this is that the FEDS don't enforce very many laws. It's typically the state or local law enforcement that enforces federal laws. So, how does Arizona know what laws the Federal government isn't enforcing? I would contend that if the Feds don't want a law enforced, they should repeal it. Isn't there something somewhere that makes it a crime to not enforce laws?:

They are enforcing the immigration laws: USCG, BP, ICE, INS, CBP, etc... The problem is that you can't stop it altogether. You catch one, forty make it through.

Well, I'll pick a federal law they don't have an agency to enforce:

"(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun."

You tell me when the last time the BATFE kicked in someone's door because they though a juvenile was in possession of a handgun. I would be willing to bet most arrests are by city cops.
phill3006
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 9:42:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 9:12:25 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
See, the issue with this is that the FEDS don't enforce very many laws. It's typically the state or local law enforcement that enforces federal laws. So, how does Arizona know what laws the Federal government isn't enforcing? I would contend that if the Feds don't want a law enforced, they should repeal it. Isn't there something somewhere that makes it a crime to not enforce laws?:

They are enforcing the immigration laws: USCG, BP, ICE, INS, CBP, etc... The problem is that you can't stop it altogether. You catch one, forty make it through.

We're not discussing how to solve the problem.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 10:32:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, I'll pick a federal law they don't have an agency to enforce:

"(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.":

ATF.... Next....

I'm just messin' with ya. Okay, I think I see what you're saying now. You are asking why enforce, say, federal bans on weapons on the state and local level, but are disallowed to enforce immigration?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
phill3006
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2010 5:40:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 10:32:43 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Well, I'll pick a federal law they don't have an agency to enforce:

"(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.":

ATF.... Next....

I'm just messin' with ya. Okay, I think I see what you're saying now. You are asking why enforce, say, federal bans on weapons on the state and local level, but are disallowed to enforce immigration?

The BATFE doesn't run around arresting teenagers that are in possession of handguns anymore than the DEA runs around trying to catch teens with pot.

I am asking how does a state keep from getting sued when they're trying to enforce the law? I don't think the federal government (or anyone else for that matter) has a right to choose when, and when not to enforce the law.
Furthermore, once a law isn't being enforced, but is still on the books... well, that makes breaking one law easy.. then maybe breaking another doesn't seem so bad. I don't know that this WOULD lead to a complete breakdown of order and the authority of the Federal government, but it sure wouldn't help the Fed's case for anything.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2010 5:46:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
No Wars, No Borders.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
phill3006
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2010 6:02:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/22/2010 5:46:03 AM, Reasoning wrote:
No Wars, No Borders.

Elaborate a bit, please?
I don't disagree as much as I don't understand.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2010 6:11:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am asking how does a state keep from getting sued when they're trying to enforce the law?:

Only laws that the FedGov feels that States are violating the Constitution. Nothing can legally usurp the Constitution.

Also, Federal Laws (the United States Code) is separate from state and local laws. For instance, the Federal Government does not recognize gay marriage through the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) but there is no provision that declares that states can't recognize them.

The issue with this particular argument is that the 14th Amendment gives states rights that aren't explicitly stated as a federal government role. Immigration is explicitly stated as the role of the federal government, so a state cannot invoke the 14th Amendment.

Does that make a little more sense?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)