Return comments are welcome. This is a discussion forum, after all.
Once ‘their jobs’ are expanded to include routinely violating civil liberties, they cease being cops and become the Gestapo. Uniformed thugs demanding to see the papers of American citizens who are of Hispanic ethnicity, and who can arrest them and charge them with a criminal offence just for not having the papers on them are not cops, they are Gestapo.
There’s a real risk that American citizens and legal residents in Arizona who are of Latino ethnicity are going to be harassed due to their ethnicity; this bill gives the police the power to do just that, and I find that quite disturbing. Not carrying papers should not be a CRIME. What is this, bloody 1984? Under such laws, an American citizen could be charged with a CRIMINAL OFFENCE for not carrying papers. Of course, this would only happen to the Hispanics, which is probably okay with some of “Arizona’s finest”. The word “Gestapo” was chosen intentionally, and was intended to emphasize the erosion of civil liberties under such drastic police powers. It’s hyperbole, for emphasis.
If someone commits a visible offence, fine, check their immigration status while you’re at it, regardless of their ethnicity. Deport if illegal. No prob. But Arizona goes way too far here, IMO.
Return comments are welcome. This is a discussion forum, after all.
Once ‘their jobs’ are expanded to include routinely violating civil liberties, they cease being cops and become the Gestapo. Uniformed thugs demanding to see the papers of American citizens who are of Hispanic ethnicity, and who can arrest them and charge them with a criminal offence just for not having the papers on them are not cops, they are Gestapo.
There’s a real risk that American citizens and legal residents in Arizona who are of Latino ethnicity are going to be harassed due to their ethnicity; this bill gives the police the power to do just that, and I find that quite disturbing. Not carrying papers should not be a CRIME. What is this, bloody 1984? Under such laws, an American citizen could be charged with a CRIMINAL OFFENSE for not carrying papers. Of course, this would only happen to the Hispanics, which is probably okay with some of “Arizona’s finest”. The word “Gestapo” was chosen intentionally, and was intended to emphasize the erosion of civil liberties under such drastic police powers. It’s hyperbole, for emphasis.
If someone commits a visible offense, fine, check their immigration status while you’re at it, regardless of their ethnicity. Deport if illegal. No prob. But Arizona goes way too far here, IMO.[/quote]
Ah yes. Hyperbole. My bad. I am working under the impression that the illegal immigrant Bill and the causes behind it are serious enough that hyperbolic exaggerations weren’t necessary to make one’s point.
I do understand your concern about the possible solution the Bill offers could be misused. We can hope though that legal citizens are protected from false and baseless accusations and harassment. I’m confident in any case the any harassment will be reported and promptly dealt with.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]Once ‘their jobs’ are expanded to include routinely violating civil liberties, they cease being cops and become the Gestapo. Uniformed thugs demanding to see the papers of American citizens who are of Hispanic ethnicity, and who can arrest them and charge them with a criminal offence just for not having the papers on them are not cops, they are Gestapo.
There’s a real risk that American citizens and legal residents in Arizona who are of Latino ethnicity are going to be harassed due to their ethnicity; this bill gives the police the power to do just that, and I find that quite disturbing. Not carrying papers should not be a CRIME. What is this, bloody 1984? Under such laws, an American citizen could be charged with a CRIMINAL OFFENCE for not carrying papers. Of course, this would only happen to the Hispanics, which is probably okay with some of “Arizona’s finest”. The word “Gestapo” was chosen intentionally, and was intended to emphasize the erosion of civil liberties under such drastic police powers. It’s hyperbole, for emphasis.
If someone commits a visible offence, fine, check their immigration status while you’re at it, regardless of their ethnicity. Deport if illegal. No prob. But Arizona goes way too far here, IMO.[/quote]They actually did do this in a town in Arizona when I lived in Phoenix. They paid a lot of money for that mistake. I think what it means is if you are doing something shady the cops can check your immigration status which is pretty easy to do now. Considering the success of breaking some gangs by putting hard members in solitary, I’m willing to trust these guys on this.
I can’t believe that people fail to appreciate the economic consequences of using illegals on govt revenue and its effect on low skilled American labor. This is even before you get into the grey economy aapect of it. I think the civil liberties as[ect is overblown when in fact they have a large amount of groups who specialize in helping illegals. I’m sure La Raza is screaming about this.
You are mistaken in thinking that the use of hyperbole does not mean one takes an issue seriously. Now you know better.
Poor education, living in a backwater state, conservative attitudes, all leading to xenophobia, with maybe some inbreeding thrown in. Who knows? That legislature is pretty screwed up, that’s for sure.
Poor education, living in a backwater state, conservative attitudes, all leading to xenophobia, with maybe some inbreeding thrown in. Who knows? That legislature is pretty screwed up, that’s for sure.[/quote]
So, the PROBLEM is caused by the legislature?
Did you miss the links on the previous page?
[quote]Okami wrote:
I can’t believe that people fail to appreciate the economic consequences of using illegals on govt revenue and its effect on low skilled American labor.[/quote]
Me either.
Could someone explain to me that a country with as much legal immigration as the US that should any of its citizens argue that anyone working or living there should do so legally is a racist inbred xenophobe with a poor education?
It simply doesn’t make sense and is arguing in bad faith. At least you were nice enough not to post pictures of white supremacists holding anti-immigration signs.
[quote=“Okami”]Could someone explain to me that a country with as much legal immigration as the US that should any of its citizens argue that anyone working or living there should do so legally is a racist inbred xenophobe with a poor education?
It simply doesn’t make sense and is arguing in bad faith. At least you were nice enough not to post pictures of white supremacists holding anti-immigration signs.[/quote]
It seems to show a certain ignorance of the topic, especially when the tide of illegal immigration that the AZ Bill will attempt to block and repel hurts many the poorest minorities in the US.
Poor education, living in a backwater state, conservative attitudes, all leading to xenophobia, with maybe some inbreeding thrown in. Who knows? That legislature is pretty screwed up, that’s for sure.[/quote][/quote]
So, the PROBLEM is caused by the legislature? [/quote]
You didn’t say which problems, the new facist law, or the failure by the authorities to crack down on the criminal business owners who hire the illegals. Perhaps we should look into the latter instead? After all, they can’t just disappear the way the illegal workers can, only to reappear a day after the raid, or week later, after being deported.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]
You didn’t say which problems, the new fascist law, or the failure by the authorities to crack down on the criminal business owners who hire the illegals. Perhaps we should look into the latter instead? After all, they can’t just disappear the way the illegal workers can, only to reappear a day after the raid, or week later, after being deported.[/quote]
The employers are at fault. Absolutely. There was a law passed in 2007 that[quote]
says any business that knowingly hires a worker who is in the country illegally will have its business license suspended. For a second offense, the business’ license could be revoked. [/quote]
Of course business owners hate this law:[quote]
“We have 140,000 businesses in Arizona. Every time they hire someone, they have to go through this procedure, and it was never meant to be mandatory,” said Julie Pace, a Phoenix attorney who represents 12 major business groups opposing the law — contractors, farmers, hotel owners and state and local chambers of commerce.
The groups sued to stop the law from taking effect, arguing that it is unconstitutional because only the federal government can make immigration law. And they say the law’s economic consequences are being felt even though it hasn’t taken effect.
“People are concerned about starting businesses in Arizona. We’ve already seen a loss of companies coming here. They’re shutting down, or they’re taking their money to different states to open their businesses,” Pace said. [/quote]
So, why is this happening?
The people see the problem and want a solution. How do the lawmakers feel?
But why would the fine people of AZ want this law, that even their friendly neighborhood small business owner detests?
But why not rely on the Federal Government to take care of everything?[quote]
the (Federal) government concentrated on “smart, effective immigration enforcement” focused on removing illegal immigrants who committed crimes,[/quote]
But does that stop the thousands of illegals from being there? Working illegally? Stealing? Murdering? Getting medical care they cannot pay for? The list of illegal immigrant problems is extensive…what gets me is that by BEING there, without proper documentation, they ARE breaking the law.
So why should the AZ legislature pass a bill that is so harsh?[quote]
“This is not a comprehensive solution,” Kirk Adams, a Republican and the speaker of the House, said before casting his vote for it. “That’s not going to occur until the federal government takes up its responsibility to protect Arizona. But that doesn’t mean we should wait until then.” [/quote] nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/15immig.html
Immigration enforcement is now under Federal Enforcement. AZ thinks it should be under State’s Authority. It’s a mainline Constitutional issue.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
If the Law, when passed, effectively dismantles AZ’s economy, TFS. Other States won’t follow. If it works, and unskilled US citizens take over the jobs lost, and then wages rise…well then…booya
But to say that the law is Fascist or racist is simplistic. It’s like saying the Civil War was about freeing the slaves. And if that is your position, I would advise you to visit the Lincoln memorial in Washington DC. You will there, downstairs in the museum read this
The Union, the United States, above all other concerns.
Illegal immigration is a soft war. Not a War on Drugs. It’s a new war. A subtle economic war that an unchecked migration of people cause, not deliberately, but still, the devastating effects are there, on the host nation, and the II’s own families who may have been in country illegally for decades.
I think, in AZ, it’s time to pay up. I totally agree that it’s not going to be pretty. The problem has been sidelined for far too long. But from what I hear, the US has a President now who makes well thought plans come to fruition, and is not afraid to do unpopular things.
So the low-skilled legal workers in AZ aren’t stepping in to fill those jobs as some claimed they would? Or even if those legal workers would step in (presumably at a higher, minimum wage), the businesses don’t want to pay that?
My concern is that too much of the blame, as exemplified by the AZ legislature’s action, is being directed at the illegal immigrants, and too little sympathy is given to them by some who don’t see that poverty and lack of job opportunity back home can compel someone to cross a river to look for work. Of course Juan goes over time and time again to get a job. He has nine mouths to feed. (Of course we could get into an entire discussion on the side as to why that’s a problem. When I lived in Mexico, I remember frequent government-sponsored ads encouraging people to have smaller families, which was of course countered by the Catholic Church’s ban on contraception.)
Why is the sympathy necessary? Because it is a combination of concern for enforcement of immigration law and sympathy for those who violate it due to poverty which creates a balanced set of legislation and enforcement.
Business owners who’d rather make an extra buck by hiring the cheapest labor, even if it’s illegal, and who’d rather relocate than pay minimum wage to legal workers – they don’t get much sympathy from me. And yes, I realize that their actions don’t exist in a vacuum, as they are surrounded by competitors willing to hire the illegals. But their actions aren’t driven by hunger and poverty, and they do have alternatives.
So the next question (and I don’t know the answer to this) is – to what extent have the legislature and authorities in, for instance, AZ, really tried to (or been able to) target the business owners who illegally hire the wetbacks? And conversely, to what extent is it more politically viable, more legally feasible, or in some unfortunate cases, perhaps more compatible with some redneck sheriff’s biases, to focus on the dark-skinned laborer instead of the American boss?
[quote=“hardball”]So, why is this happening?
The people see the problem and want a solution. How do the lawmakers feel?
But why would the fine people of AZ want this law, that even their friendly neighborhood small business owner detests?
But why not rely on the Federal Government to take care of everything?[quote]
the (Federal) government concentrated on “smart, effective immigration enforcement” focused on removing illegal immigrants who committed crimes,[/quote]
But does that stop the thousands of illegals from being there? Working illegally? Stealing? Murdering? Getting medical care they cannot pay for? The list of illegal immigrant problems is extensive…what gets me is that by BEING there, without proper documentation, they ARE breaking the law.[/quote]
Yes, yes, but being there illegally is already an offence. Working illegally is already an offence. As are, obviously, stealing and so on. Lacking proper documentation was not previously an offence, and that is a very worrying change for the reasons I’ve noted earlier.
Furthermore when you focus on those who work illegally, you are taking resources away from the focus on those who (whether American, legal residents, or illegal immigrants) are committing crimes, from stealing to drugs to murder. In my view those are more serious problems. This can lead to an increase in more serious crimes, for two reasons:
Diversion of resources
Discouraging II from reporting crime to authorities, and discouraging them from acting as witnesses.
Take for instance the county where the sheriff toughest on II is – crime in his area has gone up, and not down, while his people focused on rounding up and incarcerating those present to work illegally:
[quote]FBI figures for 2006 and 2007 indicate an overall drop in crime rates in Arizona of around 2%, while in Sheriff Arpaio’s Maricopa County crime rates increased by a fifth over the same period. [/quote] (BBC: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7950220.stm)
In fact, I have seen statistics showing that crime rates are significantly lower among immigrants.
[quote] In reality, as the illegal immigrant population has grown, crime has, well, gone south.
Since 1986, the year of the infamous amnesty for illegal immigrants, the U.S. murder rate has plunged by 37 percent. (In Chicago, the number of homicides went from 747 in 1986 to 460 last year.) Forcible rape is down 23 percent. Drunk driving fatalities are off by more than half. You are safer today than you were before all those undocumented interlopers arrived…it’s also because people who come here from other countries are actually more law-abiding than the norm.
A 2007 report by the Immigration Policy Center noted that “for every ethnic group, without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are the least educated. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.”
Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson, who has focused his research on Chicago neighborhoods, documents that felonious behavior is less common among Mexican-Americans, who constitute the biggest share of Latinos, than among whites. …
Unz points out that in the five most heavily Hispanic cities in the country, violent crime is “10 percent below the national urban average and the homicide rate 40 percent lower.” In Los Angeles, which is half Hispanic and easily accessible to those sneaking over the southern border, the murder rate has plummeted to levels unseen since the tranquil years of the early 1960s.[/quote] Source.
So I don’t buy the purported links of II to crime. And I know I’d rather have the police keeping my family and property safe than have them busting the guy who washes the dishes at my neighborhood restaurant.
What the overly strict II law will do is prevent cooperation with police, prevent witnesses from coming forward, and prevent children (who IMO should not be punished for their parents’ illegal immigration) from getting education and health care. Those children are then more likely to fall into poverty later, which then does breed crime.
[quote]Second and third generation Latinos, contrary to what you might expect, fall into more crime than immigrants.[/quote] same source as above
If you want to cut II and don’t mind how much this will hurt US businesses and raise the cost of produce, dining out, etc., then it makes more sense to me to implement stricter border control at the Federal level, if the US and state economies really don’t need the II labor, that is, (and the later is not a question fully resolved) than to implement such harsh laws which erode civil liberties at the state level once II’s have already gotten past the border.
Yeah, except it would also dismantle civil liberties and promote racial profiling.
Then we’ll have evidence against the argument that illegals only occupy jobs legals won’t take.
Fair enough, but it is still a step in that direction, such labels are rightfully used to chastise governments which take steps in those directions. And I suspect it is driven in part by xenophobia and ethnic prejudice; that’s my opinion – others are welcome to disagree. Although claiming not to, the law essentially requires prejudicial action (racial profiling) against Hispanics, and it forbids the release of a person from detention if their immigration status cannot be verified (read the bill if you don’t believe me). Oh joy, indefinite detention again! To compare that to a police state, a fascist regime, is not unreasonable in my opinion, because it is a very dangerous step in that direction. Is such hyperbole ‘in bad faith’, or ‘unhelpful’? I say no – it’s important to raise a big red flag when civil liberties begin to erode. Does that mean I reject the nation’s right to control immigration, or that people who want to do so are xenophobes, racists, fascists, etcetera? No. But to the extent to which we see extremity of word and action against II, I think it should certainly raise eyebrows.
Viewing it as a ‘war’ carries its own risks, and this bill, which tramples civil liberties and encourages racial profiling, is an example of that mentality. I sincerely hope that the governor has the good sense not to sign it now that the legislature has passed it.
There are other areas where the authorities can and should be focusing, such as violent crime and theft, drugs, and the infrastructure, run by II and Americans alike, which profits from II. Busting the transportation network that delivers II inland, for instance, was a better solution than criminalizing lack of paperwork and holding suspected II (read ‘anyone who looks Latino and lacks papers’) incarcerated indefinitely.
[quote]Smugglers have long gotten crucial help from some seemingly legitimate businesses that supply them with cars, lodging, plane tickets and other services.
The accomplices have included landlords and rental agents who provide homes for smugglers to hide immigrants; taxi drivers near the border who bring immigrants to the closest cities; used-car dealerships that let smugglers register vehicles under false names; and travel agencies that sell blocks of plane tickets for immigrants.[/quote] AP source
Crack down on all of that first, I say, rather than an impoverished person with children to feed.
They also passed a law that won’t allow Obama on the ballot in 2012 unless he shows them his birth certificate.[/quote] Arizona to allow concealed weapons without permit
Arizona shall be known as the State of Siege, or the Siege State. Or just Cuckooville, USA.
They also passed a law that won’t allow Obama on the ballot in 2012 unless he shows them his birth certificate.[/quote] Arizona to allow concealed weapons without permit
Arizona shall be known as the State of Siege, or the Siege State. Or just Cuckooville, USA.[/quote]
Do you think this has something to do with the hoards of illegal immigrants pouring into AZ hoping to be included into a perceived Obama Amnesty?
Btw, I have a question, if we can say factually that the border is porous (check) and the illegal immigrants coming through the AZ border are mainly Mexican and Central American, ie “Hispanic” (is that the correct term? Or Latino?) how is a Law made to stop them racist or the cops that enforce the Law guilty of racial profiling?
Does the Law cover Indians and Filipinos coming through the border as well? I imagine it does
Wiki gives us this on illegal immigrants in 2006:
[quote]Country of origin Raw number Percent of total Percent change 2000 to 2006
…Mexico …6,570,000 …57 …69%
…El Salvador …510,000 …4 …9%
…Guatemala …430,000 … 4 …8%
…Philippines …280,000 …2 …4%
…Honduras …280,000 …2 …5%
…India …270,000 …2 …5%[/quote]
Yet, I figure MOST of the II coming over the AZ border are from South of the Border. So, who exactly should the cops be looking for? Well, I’d say Mexicans, El Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Hondurans on the streets of AZ cities or in the fields or kitchens…
Do all these people look alike? IDK
Are they all exhibiting the same illegal behaviors? Yes. They are all entering the US illegally.
Does the cost of say, looking for, finding, detaining and transporting them back to their own country exceed or fall below that of paying for their crimes, incarcerations, births, education, health care and other living expenses that are picked up through taxation and that may continue for decades?
I’m a big fan of immigration to the US btw. I think it’s good for the country to have people willing to work their way to, or simply enjoy a better life for themselves and their families. I think it makes the US great.
The more the merrier.
Most of the top 10 are from “Hispanic” countries. These are LEGAL immigrants.
Again, most LEGAL immigrants at a glance come from Hispanic countries. Most ILLEGAL immigrants seem to come from the same Hispanic countries.
I wonder how the first group views the second, especially now that should this AZ Bill pass, legal immigrants may suffer the embarrassment and humiliation of having to show their driver’s license or Green Card or whatever legal ID the US or AZ governments issue them when they are standing on a corner in Winslow AZ, seeing the sights. But actually, unless they have cause to suspect them, the cops won’t bother them.
The law is drawn to stop a certain kind of BEHAVIOR, not a certain kind of people. Yet a certain kind of innocent people may suffer from the actions of racially and ethnically similar people…who probably hope the “race card” saves their butts from deportation.
The huge difference in the number of, for example, Mexicans legally immigrating in 2006 (173k) and the number of II from Mexico (6.5 Million) is shocking. Obviously AZ citizens and the majority of their State legislators think a tipping point has been reached.
The AZ law, if passed and enforced, will force the Feds to change the immigration policy of the US or help AZ stem the flood.
And it’s about time.
Alternatively, they could do nothing…and seek only to overturn the State Law.
Now THAT would be interesting.
oh, and btw Dragonbones, the term “wetbacks” is a slur. :no-no:
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]At the time I lived there, both Newport Beach and Costa Mesa did not allow their PDs to ask about the legal status of citizenship of people they stopped or questioned. I think CM was an official “sanctuary city” then. There were one hell of a lot of ‘anchor babies’ being born there. Medical facilities and local hospitals were overwhelmed by illegals and the cost of treating them free of charge – paid for by US taxpayers. Several hospitals in Orange county, Cali closed for this reason.
Illegal is just what it says - - ILLEGAL. Welcome to America…sign the book on the way in.
My parents were legal immigrants.[/quote]
So if your parents were illegal it would be okay? Just using your logic here…
So the Feds are trying to show they are willing to do something…going after [quote]four shuttle companies on Tucson’s south side Thursday morning as part of a major bi-national operation targeting an illegal immigrant smuggling network.[/quote]
Hmm. Not the owners of businesses per se, or the illegals already in AZ, but human smugglers.
[quote]
The arrested were owners and employees of four Tucson shuttle companies, and a fifth from Phoenix, that transported thousands of illegal immigrants from the border to Tucson and Phoenix[/quote]
Good start?
[quote]
“This is an intimidating tactic,” said Carmen Sanchez, who lives nearby and came to watch. “This is putting fear into the Hispanic community.”[/quote] azstarnet.com/news/local/border/ … 002e0.html
And this:
Mexico doesn’t like the new Bill either, but I’m confused as to why[quote]
PHOENIX - Mexican Embassy officials are voicing concerns over what they call the potentially dire effects an immigration bill pending in the Arizona State Senate may have on the civil rights of Mexican nationals.
Embassy spokesman Ricardo Alday said initiatives that exclusively criminalize immigration create opportunities for an undue enforcement of the law through racial profiling.
The bill would require police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.
Other provisions target government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, people that hire illegal immigrants as day laborers and people that knowingly transport them.[/quote]
I’m not sure HOW the Bill criminalizes immigration… azstarnet.com/article_9d9aac9c-4 … 03286.html
Op-ed doesn’t like it (and I assume its readers don’t either)[quote]
The bill, SB 1070, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. Local police officers would be required to question people about their immigration status if they had reason to suspect they are here illegally. Those who fail to produce documents could be arrested, jailed for up to six months, and fined $2,500, the Associated Press reported Thursday.
SB 1070 also would prohibit motorists from blocking traffic in negotiating for day labor on street corners.[/quote]
So no indefinite detentions. That’s good to know. I don’t think it should take 6 months to clear up someone’s legality. Fingers crossed
Their bone:[quote]
Backers of the measure, lead by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, argue that because the federal government is failing to adequately police immigration, the state must step in.
We disagree. Immigration is a federal issue and properly should be enforced by the federal authorities. There’s no question they could do a better job at enforcing the law than they are, and they must do so.
Civil libertarians and immigrant-rights groups say the Arizona bill will spur racial profiling. We agree, and we doubt that many of its provisions are constitutional.[/quote]
The hyperbole:
[quote]
Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, told the AP the bill is “giving police officers a green light to harass anyone who looks or sounds foreign.”[/quote]
Not really…and most immigrants, being foreign…sound foreign. And how foreign can Spanish sound in AZ?[quote]
She told the Times “A lot of U.S. citizens are going to be swept up in the application of this law for something as simple as having an accent and leaving their wallet at home.”[/quote]
Maybe…but I doubt they will be shipped off to Honduras.
[quote]
We must not see Arizona devolve into a police state or a state where racial harassment and profiling is mandated by law. This is a bad bill and must not become law.[/quote] azstarnet.com/article_a10573e6-0 … b47ed.html
Is this like when the tea partiers said death panels would result from Obamacare?
No, (ethnic) slurs are those which denigrate an ethnicity. “Wetback”, on the other hand, is used even by people of my own ethnicity (Hispanic) to refer to those crossing the Rio Grande illegally. If used a reference to people who engage in a particular illegal behavior and not to their ethnicity, especially when used BY people of that ethnicity, it cannot therefore be an objectionable racist slur. If used by an Arizona redneck to denigrate all Hispanics, it would certainly become such a slur.
They should not be criminalizing lack of documents itself (when other bases for detention and deportation of trouble-makers exist), and should not be authorized to check people further inland for documents without reasonable grounds – that is a violation of civil liberties. They should not be authorized to detain indefinitely as the current bill stipulates, which is a clear violation of civil liberties.
Now the positives:
They should be looking for Latinos AT the border.
They should require employers to show proof of legal working status for their employees.
Agreed
[quote]Again, most LEGAL immigrants at a glance come from Hispanic countries. Most ILLEGAL immigrants seem to come from the same Hispanic countries.
I wonder how the first group views the second[/quote]
That’s a good question. I believe feelings vary. Some think they should be shipped back, and that security should be tighter at the border. Some understand the plight of the poor who are just trying to make ends meet or find a better life for themselves and their children, and are more forgiving, willing to turn a blind eye, or even help them. Some are very pleased when II can get across, because that means they can be reunited with their own family members and friends.
That’s not what the AP is reporting. Nor the OP-Ed I quoted above.[quote]
The bill, SB 1070, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. Local police officers would be required to question people about their immigration status if they had reason to suspect they are here illegally. Those who fail to produce documents could be arrested, jailed for up to six months, and fined $2,500, the Associated Press reported Thursday.
SB 1070 also would prohibit motorists from blocking traffic in negotiating for day labor on street corners.[/quote]
[quote]Purpose
Requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to fully comply with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and gives county attorneys subpoena power in certain investigations of employers. Establishes crimes involving trespassing by illegal aliens, stopping to hire or soliciting work under specified circumstances, and transporting, harboring or concealing unlawful aliens, and their respective penalties.
Background
Federal law provides that any alien who 1) enters or attempts to enter the U.S. at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, 2) eludes examination by immigration officers, or 3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the U.S. by a willfully false or misleading representation is guilty of improper entry by an alien. For the first commission of the offense, the person is fined, imprisoned up to six months, or both, and for a subsequent offense, is fined, imprisoned up to 2 years, or both (8 U.S.C. § 1325). [/quote]
I thought this sounded familiar. I read this article recently and wasn’t going to bring this part up…as it’s kind of partisnarky. I didn’t because it’s kind of old, NOV 2007:[quote] npr.org/templates/story/stor … d=16727312
“We have 140,000 businesses in Arizona. Every time they hire someone, they have to go through this procedure, and it was never meant to be mandatory,” said Julie Pace, a Phoenix attorney who represents 12 major business groups opposing the law — contractors, farmers, hotel owners and state and local chambers of commerce. (This is the law going after businesses that hire illegals.)
The groups sued to stop the law from taking effect, arguing that it is unconstitutional because only the federal government can make immigration law. And they say the law’s economic consequences are being felt even though it hasn’t taken effect.
“People are concerned about starting businesses in Arizona. We’ve already seen a loss of companies coming here. They’re shutting down, or they’re taking their money to different states to open their businesses,” Pace said. [/quote]
I will have to check if the businesses are still running from AZ in 2010.
So, who would sign this bad for business and illegal aliens Bill into Law?
who is now[quote]
Janet Napolitano is the third and current United States Secretary of Homeland Security,[/quote]
who also[quote]
set records for total number of vetoes issued. In 2005, she set a single session record of 58 vetoes, breaking Jane Dee Hull’s 2001 record of 28.[12][13] This was followed in June 2006, less than four years into her term, when she issued her 115th veto and set the all-time record for vetoes by an Arizona governor. The previous record of 114 vetoes was set by Bruce Babbitt during his nine years in office.[13][14] By the time she left office, the governor had issued 180 vetoes.[15][/quote]
but why did she let this one go?[quote]
State legislators and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano said they passed the law because it is what voters want. [/quote]
And they said it was a work in progress…
