Arizona Clears Strict Immigration Bill

Here’s an interesting twist on the subject.

[quote] Fleeing Drug Violence, Mexicans Pour Into U.S.

. . . a brutal war between drug gangs has forced dozens of fearful families from the Mexican town of El Porvenir to come to the border seeking political asylum, and scores of other Mexicans have used special visas known as border-crossing cards to flee into the United States. They say drug gangs have laid waste to their town, burning down houses and killing people in the street.

Americans are taking in their Mexican relatives, and the local schools have swelled with traumatized children, many of whom have witnessed gangland violence. . .

“It’s very hard over there,” said Vicente Burciaga, 23, who fled El Porvenir a month ago with his wife, Mayra, and their infant son after gang members burned down five homes in their neighborhood and killed a neighbor. “They are killing people over there who have nothing to do with drug trafficking,” he said. “They kill you just for having seen what they are doing.”

. . . In El Paso alone, the police estimate that at least 30,000 Mexicans have moved across the border in the past two years because of the violence in Juarez and the river towns to the southeast. So many people have left El Porvenir and nearby Guadalupe Bravos that the two resemble ghost towns, former residents say. . . .

“This is an emergency situation, a war,” said Jorge Luis Aguirre, a journalist who himself has asked for asylum after his life was threatened in 2008 in Ciudad Juárez. “It’s a question of life and death for these people.”

But few Mexicans are granted asylum. Over the last three federal fiscal years, immigration judges heard 9,317 requests across the country, and granted only 183. . . .[/quote]
nytimes.com/2010/04/18/us/18border.html?hp

Yeah, people around the world are ready to complain about the way US treats illegal immigrants, but what about the endemic corruption of Mexico thanks to decades and decades of PRI statism and corruption? The political class there is just as dirty and corrupt as Asia’s basket case, the Philippines.

And let’s not forget the legal workers from Mexican backgrounds and how they have treated illegal immigrants. Cesar Chavez, a hero to many on the union left, didn’t have any problems with his brother beating up illegal immigrants. Not to mention the shamelessness of his heirs, who have used the family name to make millions out of their foundation.

I have no problem with strict enforcement for people that have entered without documentation. Round them up and throw them back across the Rio Grande!!!

However, given the demographic realities and labour shortages of most countries in the developed world (including the need for many wage poor service positions that make the economy run), I’m all for improving opportunities to allow workers to come into a country legally.

And, I’ll be hard on the US here. They’ve been awful in speeding up the processes. Bill Gates has mentioned many times his frustration with the visa system in the US. The US education system is not producing enough graduates to feed growing IT industries. A thriving economy needs seamless borders for workers. But then again, who has been the biggest opponents of the free movement of workers into the US legally? The unions, the unions, and the unions. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: They don’t want foreign competition coming into the US and will often get really nativist. I’m all for increased labour pools coming into the US from overseas, just not illegally.

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Here’s an interesting twist on the subject.

[quote] Fleeing Drug Violence, Mexicans Pour Into U.S.

. . . a brutal war between drug gangs has forced dozens of fearful families from the Mexican town of El Porvenir to come to the border seeking political asylum, and scores of other Mexicans have used special visas known as border-crossing cards to flee into the United States. They say drug gangs have laid waste to their town, burning down houses and killing people in the street.

Americans are taking in their Mexican relatives, and the local schools have swelled with traumatized children, many of whom have witnessed gangland violence. . .

“It’s very hard over there,” said Vicente Burciaga, 23, who fled El Porvenir a month ago with his wife, Mayra, and their infant son after gang members burned down five homes in their neighborhood and killed a neighbor. “They are killing people over there who have nothing to do with drug trafficking,” he said. “They kill you just for having seen what they are doing.”

. . . In El Paso alone, the police estimate that at least 30,000 Mexicans have moved across the border in the past two years because of the violence in Juarez and the river towns to the southeast. So many people have left El Porvenir and nearby Guadalupe Bravos that the two resemble ghost towns, former residents say. . . .

“This is an emergency situation, a war,” said Jorge Luis Aguirre, a journalist who himself has asked for asylum after his life was threatened in 2008 in Ciudad Juárez. “It’s a question of life and death for these people.”

But few Mexicans are granted asylum. Over the last three federal fiscal years, immigration judges heard 9,317 requests across the country, and granted only 183. . . .[/quote]
nytimes.com/2010/04/18/us/18border.html?hp[/quote]
Yeah, that’s not good. It’s amazing that one of the main things Americans WANT imported from Mexico, drugs, is the thing they CAN produce in high volumes cheaply, but illegal to sell in the US.

At the risk of sounding insensitive to the plight of the asylum seekers, is ALL Mexico as rife with drug related gang violence as Northern Mexico? Can’t they go South? Go North, family is broken up, fear of cops and deportation…not a good situation for the kids.

Surely ALL of Mexico isn’t so bad…
another article on the same. Drug Cartels chasing them out.
elpasotimes.com/ci_14898706?source=pkg

I saw another current article that the narc-trifficantors are moving back into the Carribean because of the recent increase in anti-narco actions by the Mexican and US agencies.

Deja Vu all over again…lol.

On a related Arizona note, the new Guv just further confirmed her belief in the US Constitution:

azcdl.org/html/news.html

Looks like the 2007 law is working for the most part:[quote]
Officials from 12 of the state’s 15 counties said last week that they have not taken legal action against any businesses for failure to comply with the law. Officials in two counties – Apache and Coconino – could not be reached for comment.

Proponents of Arizona’s tough laws against illegal immigrants say the lack of prosecutions is a sign of the law’s success in deterring border crossers. Critics of the measure, which went into effect in 2008, say the law has only pushed illegal immigrants deeper underground in the work force.[/quote]

Sheriff Joe is working hard to use the teeth in the law[quote]
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Atty. Andrew Thomas have boasted about their strict enforcement of the act. After dozens of raids, complaints have been brought against three businesses. A sandwich shop was ordered to close for two days for violating the law. A Phoenix water park was found to have violated the law, but it went out of business before the case was settled. A third case involving a furniture manufacturing company is still working its way through the court system.[/quote]

But enforcement of the law isn’t as important in other areas[quote]
But south in Nogales, where the economy relies heavily on the produce packing industry, Silva said other issues are more urgent than enforcing the workers act, such as “crimes where people are being hurt.”[/quote]
It’s interesting I think that the field work is kind of getting a by, which is understandable, and the focus is on the small businesses.
Hopefully, the legal immigrant workers are better protected from their illegal kin. Doing things the legal way should be rewarded.[quote]
Arizona has the highest number of employers participating E-Verify, a federal online system that verifies the status of new hires. The Arizona Legal Workers Act requires business to participate in the system. More than 30,000 employers are enrolled, almost double the number enrolled in California, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

“Businesses are complying with the law and going about their business,” said Glenn Hamer, chief executive of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.[/quote]
However, the Feds still are not doing a competent job[quote]
He said compliance is why there hasn’t been an “explosion” of cases in the past two years, but he also acknowledged that the federal online system has been found to be inaccurate.

A December 2009 report for the Department of Homeland Security found that 54% of unauthorized workers who submitted to E-Verify received erroneous work authorizations.[/quote]
latimes.com/news/nationworld … 7355.story
For me this is the issue. If the Federal Government is not going to do its job, the State of AZ has every right to step up and do what needs to be done.
:bravo:
Good on them.

Sounds like there’s a classic preemption case here, where Federal law occupies the entirety of the field (or something along those lines), thus preempting any state law on the matter. I’m no expert, though, so if I’m wrong feel free to correct me.

Could be, but if the Feds want control, they best do something to stake claim to the authority. AZ isn’t a vacuum.

And now this:[quote]
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Two Republican senators proposed Monday sending 3,000 more US National Guard soldiers to quell violence spilling over the border between their home state of Arizona and Mexico.

In a 10-point plan for beefing up security in the area, Senators John McCain and John Kyl also called for permanently adding 3,000 US Custom and Border Protection Agents to the Arizona/Mexico border[/quote]
:bravo:

oh…

:thumbsdown:

[quote]They also called for completing construction of 700 miles of fencing along the border and beefing up unmanned aerial vehicle patrols so that they could be run 24 hours a day.

“Violence has dramatically increased over the last two years,” McCain said at a joint press conference with Kyl and two sheriffs from Arizona border areas.

[b]Of the roughly one million people detained after illegally crossing into the United States from Mexico, 600,000 were nabbed in Arizona, and 17 percent of them had existing criminal records in the southwestern state, said McCain.

Moreover, “those crossing the border are increasingly armed,” he warned.

“You can’t live in Arizona and not have this problem everyday in the newspapers. People are fed up,” said Ky[/b]l.

McCain, once an ardent supporter of overhauling US immigration laws, faces an unusually vigorous challenge for the Republican Senate nomination this year from conservative former representative JD Hayworth.[/quote]
McCain’s foot-dragging may be the end of him as a public servant.


We don’t need a thinker. We need a doer!

This, we know already.

[quote]
U.S. Sen. John McCain on Monday called the bill a “tool that I think needs to be used.” His office later said that wasn’t an endorsement.[/quote]
wtf

[quote]
“It’s also a commentary on the frustration that our state Legislature has that the federal government has not fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities to secure our borders,” the Arizona Republican said.[/quote]
Ah, ok.

[quote]
Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor, D-Phoenix, predicted the legislation would cause chaos by spawning suspicion among neighbors, friends and relatives about who might be in the country illegally.

“Our state will be going completely backward,” she said.[/quote]
To when, a time when laws were enforced and good decent citizens didn’t aid illegals? Or something else?

[quote]
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund has all but promised a legal challenge if the legislation becomes law.

The organization claims the measure is unconstitutional because the federal government is responsible for immigration enforcement.[/quote]
Right.

[quote]
“The bill is so vague that it encourages investigation and arrest of people … who essentially have done nothing wrong but because of their racial profile,” said Gladys Limon, an attorney for the Los Angeles-based group.[/quote]
Wrong. Being there illegally is illegal.

Interesting. Funding, budget and staff differences?

Whoa

[quote]Brewer’s predecessor, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who is now President Barack Obama’s Homeland Security secretary, vetoed similar proposals.[/quote] And is still doing little about the problem.

[quote]
The bill is regarded as carrying political high stakes for Brewer, who faces challenges from fellow conservatives in the Aug. 24 Republican primary.[/quote]Refer up to 3-1 in favor.

[quote]Arizona police use the human smuggling law from time to time to charge suspects.[/quote]Not any more…big bust days ago.
But this big thing from this article imo was this:[quote]
Other
provisions allow citizen lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws
, and make it illegal for people to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.[/quote]
So citizens can sue the State and Federal government. That is new!

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[quote]Could be, but if the Feds want control, they best do something to stake claim to the authority. AZ isn’t a vacuum.

[/quote]

No, all that has to happen is that someone who has standing and is harmed by this law and can clear the various procedural hurdles bring a suit in federal court, at which point this law is invalidated due to the doctrine of preemption.

[quote]Lawmakers in the Arizona Senate voted 17 to 11 to approve the bill, widely regarded as the toughest measure yet taken by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration.

The state’s House of Representatives approved the measure last week.
Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, has five days to veto the bill or sign it into law.
[/quote]

Let’s see what the Feds say/do/promise in the next 5 days. The squeeze is on.

I believe this is the Bill that passed and was sent to the Governor.
azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp … b1070s.htm

[quote=“Dr. McCoy”]
They also passed a law that won’t allow Obama on the ballot in 2012 unless he shows them his birth certificate.[/quote]
I 've been poking around in the Arizona State Legislature website this morning, doc.

They did NOT pass this Law. It is still just a bill.

It DID pass the State House on 4/20/2010.

The Bill may be “directed at Obama” to placate an…ahem…concerned group of citizens, but if passed into Law, it will require ALL Presidential and VP candidates to provide proof of his or her “natural birth citizenship.”

Meh. I’d rather see their college transcripts.

“… 55,322 criminal aliens were arrested a total of at least 459,614 times, averaging over eight arrests per alien. The Department of Justice expressed its surprise at the ‘extremely high’ rate of re-arrests for criminal aliens when it found that that 73 criminal aliens in a study group were arrested a total of 429 times.”
…quoting a Government Accounting Office (GAO) study.
gao.gov/new.items/d05646r.pdf

High Immigration Harms Many American Workers
numbersusa.com/content/learn … n-wor.html

Arizona taxpayers owed $1 billion from illegal immigration
kvoa.com/news/arizona-taxpay … migration/

“The cost of illegal immigration has exhausted the Arizona State Treasury. In order to pay for the federal government’s responsibility of securing our national borders and incarcerating individuals who enter the United States illegally and commit crimes, the state has incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of debt to pay these bills,” said Treasurer Dean Martin."

But hey, they’re just doing the jobs LEGAL citizens won’t do…riiiiight:unamused:

There’s your problem.

This a major part of the debate that is generally swept aside, and yet the economics are fairly simple.

The demand for drugs in the US is phenomenal. On the occasion the government is able to take down a drug operation, the results follow a predictable pattern: supply lowers, price and profits soar, new drug suppliers are enticed to the market and existing suppliers expand operations; the government responds aggressively to the increased trade, and the process repeats itself.

Of course, the suppliers we’re talking about are criminal organizations. Legalizing the drug trade would destroy them. Legitimate businesses would take their place and the violence surrounding the drug trade would dissipate, as happened to the alcohol market after the end of prohibition. The remaining question is how deleterious the legalization would be on society. Demand would likely increase, but to what extent? Would the results be similar to what the Chinese experienced after the Opium Wars?

Okami’s points at the beginning of this discussion are well taken. This is not a theoretical exercise for Arizona, a state facing a dire situation. And the reality is that the drug laws are still in force and are not going to be overhauled any time soon. Without support from the White House, the Arizonian governor may take the desperate measure of passing this bill into law.

I agree with Dragonbones that authorizing the police to stop people in the streets and demand to see their papers is simply un-American. And as one of our resident legal experts has already explained, to whatever extent this bill contradicts federal law, it will be nullified by the federal courts under Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. However, I believe this bill should be a wake up call to the Obama Administration to take action. Some recommended steps:

  1. Order the National Guard to establish a defensive perimeter across the entire southern border, not just in Arizona.
  2. Require all federal agencies to enforce Homeland Security’s monitoring policies.
  3. Scrap the virtual fence project and replace it with a permanent, multi-tiered defensive structure (i.e., layers of fencing with patrol roads and extensive monitoring equipment).
  4. Increase the number of CBP agents by the thousands.

Drastic measures? Sure, but a secure border is better than police walking our cities around demanding to see documents.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]“
Arizona taxpayers owed $1 billion from illegal immigration
kvoa.com/news/arizona-taxpay … migration/

“The cost of illegal immigration has exhausted the Arizona State Treasury. In order to pay for the federal government’s responsibility of securing our national borders and incarcerating individuals who enter the United States illegally and commit crimes, the state has incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of debt to pay these bills,” said Treasurer Dean Martin."
[/quote]
This part is going to come into play sooner or later:[quote]
As Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano submitted numerous invoices to the federal government for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Plan (SCAAP) from FY1994 to FY2008. Today State Treasurer Dean Martin announced that he is now pursuing those same claims with now Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.[/quote]
So JN knows the situation very well. I imagine Dean Martin hopes she can get Obama’s ear and work out some effective solutions that piss off everyone equally.[quote]
As Governor, Janet Napolitano in her March 17, 2008 invoice said, “the federal government is required by law to pay these costs, but has failed to pay more than pennies on the dollar.”

“The updated invoice, including accrued interest, is over one billion dollars,” said Treasurer Dean Martin. “Illegal immigration has literally broken the bank here in Arizona. Napolitano is now responsible for securing our borders and is in a position to make good on the bill that she said the federal government owed. It’s time for this bill to be paid before legal remedies are pursued to recoup this long overdue debt to Arizona taxpayers.”[/quote]
One might draw the conclusion that JN was nominated because of her insider knowledge, as in the problem itself, the economic effects and what the people are AZ want done about it and that the Obama administration knew if was a significant problem with Constitutional ramifications and they wouldn’t be able to ignore it away.

[quote]Drastic measures? Sure, but a secure border is better than police walking our cities around demanding to see documents.[/quote]and probably less expensive…

Oh I doubt that. Activating the National Guard, building a massive, multi-tiered fencing structure across the entire southern border, and increasing the number of federal agents by the thousands is going to be much, much more expensive than Arizona’s bill. But so what? I’d rather pay a little more in taxes than authorize police to hassle anyone who looks Hispanic.

Jim Wallis of Sojourners sometimes makes a pretty decent point on political issues, so I read his article on the bill. I wonder, are the following points accurate?

[quote=“Huffington Post”]Senate Bill 1070 would require law enforcement officials in the state of Arizona to investigate someone’s immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person might be undocumented. I wonder who that would be, and if anybody who doesn’t have brown skin will be investigated. Those without identification papers, even if they are legal, are subject to arrest; so don’t forget your wallet on your way to work if you are Hispanic in Arizona. You can also be arrested if you are stopped and are simply with people who are undocumented – even if they are your family. Parents or children of “mixed-status families” (made up of legal and undocumented, as many immigrant families are out here) could be arrested if they are found together. You can be arrested if you are “transporting or harboring” undocumented people. Some might consider driving immigrant families to and from church to be Christian ministry – but it will now be illegal in Arizona.

For the first time, all law enforcement officers in the state will be enlisted to hunt down undocumented people, which will clearly distract them from going after truly violent criminals, and will focus them on mostly harmless families whose work supports the economy and who contribute to their communities. And do you think undocumented parents will now go to the police if their daughter is raped or their family becomes a victim of violent crime? Maybe that’s why the state association of police chiefs is against SB 1070.[/quote]

I little trust laws that compel state officials to take punitive action. Mandatory sentencing laws, for instance, have led to gross injustices. Officials operating with some discretion will sometimes screw the pooch, but the outcomes are worse if they are unable to use their discretion.

The assumption of guilt if someone isn’t carrying ID papers, or is in the company of illegal migrants is a horrendous policy. It would compel individuals to treat anyone whose status they’re uncertain of with suspicion – which hardly contributes to a healthy, vigorous society – and opens the door to abuse. Can’t gather the evidence to shut down a friendly, though illegal, weekly poker game? Lean on an undocumented worker: “You get yourself into that game and I won’t ship you and your family back south of the line.” Soon as the illegal is in the game, well, who gave him a ride to the game? You feeding him at this little card tournament? He crashing on the sofa when the game wraps up at 3:00 am? That’s “transporting and harbouring”; don’t need evidence of your other wrongs now. Ridiculous, I know. And inevitable. It will happen.

Remember the film Dirty Pretty Things? Fantastic film on the abuses inflicted on illegal immigrants in London. This bill would create conditions in which it would be so much easier to abuse illegal migrants, perhaps in line with what’s depicted in that film. Teenage girl gets a job at a fast food joint. Greasy manager wants some action, gets shot down. Well, have a look at her records: “Hmm… I’m not sure that everything’s in order. I know you were born here, but are you sure your parents came here legally? Maybe I should make a few calls… just in case. I wouldn’t want to get into trouble. No? Why not? You’re asking me to take a risk… what are you going to do for me?” Again, ridiculous. And inevitable. It happens in more relaxed jurisdictions, under easier conditions.

The potential for causing unwarranted misery seems to outweigh the (I think dubious) benefits.

Getting back on topic - illegal aliens and Arizona, USA - as might be expected, the Mexican gov’t slams Arizona immigration law. Another example of “FOLLOW THE MONEY” and see who squeals the loudest.

Of course, the Demo party in Congress of the current regime is now starting a push, US Congress may push immigration over climate bill, to get new voters on the roles as soon as possible. (bad news for the ‘Warmists’).

As to the worth of increased border security…

[quote]Justice Department Reports 60 Percent Increase in Number of Drug-Smuggling Tunnels at U.S.-Mexican Border
[i]"The number of tunnels being used to smuggle illegal drugs across the Southwestern border grew by more than half from 2008 to 2009, according to a March 25 report from the National Drug Intelligence Center.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents stationed along U.S.-Mexico border discovered 26 illegal tunnels – a 60 percent increase over the 16 tunnels that authorities discovered in 2008.

Most of the subterranean routes were discovered in Arizona, with 20 found in the “Tucson Sector” – a 262-mile long section of the border from the New Mexico state line to Yuma County, Ariz., the NDIC reported in its 2010 annual drug assessment.

“The proliferation of the underground tunnels is an indication that smugglers see them as an effective venue to bring in contraband into the U.S.,” the report said. "[/i][/quote]

To question the validity of the need for increased border security borders(heh heh heh) on the ludicrous. These same tunnels used by the drug cartels are also used by the coyotes to bring in illegals.

[quote]According to the NDIC assessment, drug abuse, including the toll on the environment from the production of drugs, comes at a $215 billion annual cost for the U.S.

“Most illicit drugs available in the United States and thousands of illegal immigrants are smuggled into the United States across the nearly 2,000-mile Southwest Border,” the report noted. [/quote]

[quote=“Jaboney”]Jim Wallis of Sojourners sometimes makes a pretty decent point on political issues, so I read his article on the bill. I wonder, are the following points accurate?

The potential for causing unwarranted misery seems to outweigh the (I think dubious) benefits.[/quote]

I think the opposition likes to play up the random stops to check papers aspect of the proposed Law, J. The first lawsuit against it will probably be some citizen who spent his morning building a Jimmy Carter house and looks like hell in his filthy pants and torn Carlos Santana tshirt and is stopped outside a 7-11 where he’s taking a long drag on a smoke and drinking an iced-tea.

There must be reasonable suspicion. Being there occupying space cannot be reason enough. Looking illegal cannot be enough.

Gathering on corners waiting for pickup work. Bingo. Gotcha.

And don’t you think there’ would be less illegal on illegal crime if there were fewer illegals crossing over?

Wallis wrote:[quote]
This radical new measure, which crosses many moral and legal lines, is a clear demonstration of the fundamental mistake of separating enforcement from comprehensive immigration reform. We all want to live in a nation of laws, and the immigration system in the U.S. is so broken that is serving no one well. But enforcement without reform of the system is merely cruel. [/quote]
I won’t argue those points. That’s what pretty much the supporters of the Bill are and have been saying. It’s just hard to hear them through the chorus of Spike Lee movie everything you do is racist by default card playing.

4 days to go…