|
| Thread: Arizona immigration law | |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 29, 2010 03:55 AM |
|
|
Arizona immigration law
Why isn't this being discussed here?
Wiki.
The act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, and obligates police to make an attempt, when practicable during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official", to determine a person's immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien. Police may arrest a person if there is probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents; a person arrested cannot be released without confirmation of the person's legal immigration status by the federal government pursuant to § 1373(c) of Title 8 of the United States Code. A first offense carries a fine of up to $100, plus court costs, and up to 20 days in jail; subsequent offenses can result in up to 30 days in jail (in the original senate version, a minimum fine of $500 for a first violation, and for a second violation a minimum $1,000 fine and a maximum jail sentence of 6 months). A person is "presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.
The law also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting "the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law" and provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement. A private citizen who prevails in such a lawsuit may be entitled to reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees and court costs.
In addition, the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration-status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which "blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory impounding. Moreover, "encourag[ing] or induc[ing]" illegal immigration, giving shelter to illegal immigrants, and transporting or attempting to transport an illegal alien, either knowingly or while "recklessly" disregarding the individual's immigration-status, will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if fewer than ten illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if ten or more are involved. The offender will be subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien so transported or sheltered.
Supporters say it will crack down on illegal immigrants. Opponents say it's racist/promotes racial profiling/etc. HC, discuss.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 29, 2010 03:58 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 04:06, 29 May 2010.
|
Go read the actual laws (federal and state). You'll see that the outcry over the law is a bunch of BS.
EDIT:
Federal Law:
Title 8 USC 1304
Title 8 USC 1306
Arizona State Law:
Arizona Law SB 1070
(In case that direct link isn't working for you, type in "arizona immigration law sb1070 text" in google and it's the first hit.)
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 29, 2010 07:15 AM |
|
|
I don't know the background for this, but I do know that there's the typical media hype about it. And I know it's the typical crowd stirring up trouble. And I know there's a huge amount of misinformation out there.
It's a court issue, let them deal with it. I'll wait and see what they say. I might not always agree with the high court, but I think at least they are capable of wading through all the bull**** to look at the law objectively.
Reading the text, it seems to me that it's the type of legislation that isn't necessarily needed in the legal sense, but more clarifies ambiguity in existing law....or at least it has that kind of feel to it. Regardless, it seems to just be saying that existing laws will be enforced.
People freak out over some of the language about probable cause and think it gives law enforcement the authority to somehow be racist. Something like probable cause has the potential to be abused. But on the other hand it's been around a long time and I'm sure there is tons of case law which fairly clearly defines and restricts probable cause. Even if the probable cause language in this legislation causes some problems short term, I can't anything like that lasting for long.
One thing I see is the typical agitators who stir up the masses on an emotional level. One of these days it will be a case of the boy who cried wolf. One day the people will just quit believing them. I'm far beyond that point myself. I've seen this type of thing so many times that I just make an assumption about the agitators and write them off. Maybe I shouldn't do that. Maybe there is some small chance that they're right this time. But if they are going to constantly cry wolf with their lies and baseless emotional appeals, then it's their own damn fault if I don't believe them if there really is a wolf.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 01, 2010 01:05 AM |
|
|
The law is a virtual carbon copy of the federal law, except that it provides some additional protection to keep people from being stopped without a legitimate cause.
Some people don't think America has a right to control her borders.
Mexico's president is a big hypocrit. Mexico's laws are very tough agains illegal immigration yet he calls Arizona's laws racist.
The recent terror alert along the border and the federal warning for Houston, Texas, to be ready for a terrorist attack from people crossing the border shows the most important reason for the federal government to do its job and protect the border.
Leftist politicians want the Hispanic vote so bad, however, that they are willing for the border states to suffer terrorist attacks rather than risk offending Hispanic voters. The Dems also have a plan for amnesty for the illegal aliens already here to try to instantly gain millions of their votes. It is party over country.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 12, 2010 03:59 PM |
|
|
I thought we had a general thread about immigration, but this is the closest I could find.
Anyway, what I wanted to post was this. Apparently, a new study finds that 8% of US births are to illegal immigrants. Should they be citizens?
The answer is, of course, absolutely not.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted August 12, 2010 04:09 PM |
|
|
If you cross the border to North Korea you get sent to labour camp
If you cross the border to Iran you are sent to prison or never heard from again
If you cross the border to Burma you are likely to be shot
If you cross the border to US or Europe fools will welcome you with open arms
So why can't we shoot anyone who tries to come illegally?
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 12, 2010 04:28 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:29, 12 Aug 2010.
|
Quote:
Apparently, a new study finds that 8% of US births are to illegal immigrants. Should they be citizens?
The answer is, of course, absolutely not.
I agree. But the Supremen Court ruled that if a person is born in the US they are a citizen of the US. There are some in Congress who want to repeal the 14th ammendment.
Clicky
Quote:
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution, if that person is:
-Born in the United States
-Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
-Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
-Has parents that are in the United States for business
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 13, 2010 03:19 AM |
|
|
It'll all be ok in the end, I'm sure the Hispanics are going to give you guys some wonderful reservations to live in. Maybe even tax reductions and a kind of limited sovereignty. You know, to open up casinos and stuff.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 13, 2010 03:28 AM |
|
|
Feels good man. I for one welcome our new Hispanic reptilian overlords.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 13, 2010 03:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution, if that person is:
-Born in the United States
-Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
-Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
-Has parents that are in the United States for business
Haha, land of the free, I haz you...
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 13, 2010 05:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But the Supremen Court ruled that if a person is born in the US they are a citizen of the US. There are some in Congress who want to repeal the 14th ammendment.
The Supreme Court has never ruled that someone born in the US is automatically a citizen. They only ruled about very specific circumstances.
And I can't say for certain that nobody in Congress wants to repeal the 14th amendment, but if there are they are total nutcases.
I don't see any way that the 14th Amendment could be interpreted to mean that a woman can illegally sneak across the border an hour before giving birth, have the baby on US soil, and that baby is a citizen.
Where's Solomon when you need him? "OK, ship the illegal parent(s) back, and they can take the baby if they want."
|
|
lord_crusader
Promising
Supreme Hero
UHU!! supreme!
|
|
posted August 14, 2010 05:40 PM |
|
|
so for you is ok to stop people just for their looks?? mmm nice... I will say nothing more on this thread
____________
Dig Out Your Soul
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 14, 2010 06:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
so for you is ok to stop people just for their looks?? mmm nice... I will say nothing more on this thread
That's good, because I have no idea what you're talking about.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted August 14, 2010 06:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
so for you is ok to stop people just for their looks??
no dog will stop me getting into the chicken pen!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted August 14, 2010 08:09 PM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 20:17, 14 Aug 2010.
|
Quote:
so for you is ok to stop people just for their looks?? mmm nice... I will say nothing more on this thread
The original law stated police can conduct an immigration status check during any "lawful contact", if they have "reasonable suspicion" a person is an illegal immigrant. So police may not stop people without cause. Also according to the US law, race and ethnicity are not "reasonable suspicion".
The thing is nobody knows what exactly is, so some fear the Arizona law might encourage racial profiling in a state plagued by illegal immigration.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 14, 2010 08:38 PM |
|
|
It's not that it isn't a legitimate concern, because it definitely is and it will happen, but I'd like to know what law isn't corruptible. I think as long as you make it explicit that you can't stop people because they have a tan or because you have a weird hunch, then it's acceptable.
(To be honest, I previously assumed these measures were all already enforced. When I read the summary of the Act I felt like it was just a bunch of common sense stuff).
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
|
|
