Arizona signs immigration bill into law

[Chaotic42]

Re protests, I agree that this is a pro-illegal crowd. They might as well have signs that say, "I want the USA to be as big of a shithole as central America." In many ways they are really just cultural / ethnic expansionists.


Anyone know what percentage of the US is okay with unlimited immigration / amnesty for illegals in polls?

I'm really curious as to why every other culture is sacred, but American culture has no value and if you try to preserve it, you're a racist. Everyone wants to be a Something-American.

 

[Patranus]

I can't wait for Arizona to return the favor to California and start boycotting California.

I wonder what California is going to do when it has no electricity.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm really curious as to why every other culture is sacred, but American culture has no value and if you try to preserve it, you're a racist. Everyone wants to be a Something-American.

Dont you know? There is no real America. What we have we stole from the indiginous people, and because we are so diverse and all.

At least thats what the loonies say.

 

[RedCOMET]

I know I'm coming to the party very late, But i got the impression that the AZ law just giving the AZ leos the ability to enforce federal law. I thought it was the states responsibly to follow Federal Law. Does Federal immigration law say only the Federal govt is allowed to enforce this law?

It sounds like AZ is just recognizing a shortfall in its laws and is taking measures to ensure that all the laws of the state and the union are being enforce.

 

[Patranus]

I know I'm coming to the party very late, But i got the impression that the AZ law just giving the AZ leos the ability to enforce federal law. I thought it was the states responsibly to follow Federal Law. Does Federal immigration law say only the Federal govt is allowed to enforce this law?

It sounds like AZ is just recognizing a shortfall in its laws and is taking measures to ensure that all the laws of the state and the union are being enforce.

Correct.

The "progressives" just need an opportunity to play the race card because they know the Democrats are going to get destroyed in November.

 

[her209]

From 2007:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/26/immigrants.ruling/index.html

Federal court throws out limits on illegal immigrants

ALLENTOWN, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A federal court Thursday struck down ordinances passed by Hazleton, Pennsylvania, that were intended to limit where illegal immigrants could live and work.

Last year, Hazleton passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance, which would have fined landlords who rented to undocumented immigrants and would have penalized companies that employed them.

Under another law, tenants would have had to prove they were citizens or lawful residents, register with the city and pay for a rental permit in order to receive an occupancy permit.

The ordinances were copied by other cities.

The court ruled that Hazleton cannot enact any ordinances dealing with illegal immigration because they conflict with the supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution.

"Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community. Since the United States Constitution protects even the disfavored, the ordinances cannot be enforced," U.S. District Judge James M. Munley wrote in the 206-page opinion.

Mayor Lou Barletta, who spearheaded the opposition, said he will appeal the ruling. "This fight is far from over," he told reporters outside the courtroom. "Hazleton is not going to back down. ... We will take it all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to."

Barletta drafted the act last year after "a high-profile murder, the discharge of a gun at a crowded city playground, and drug busts" allegedly involving illegal immigrants, he wrote on his Web site, www.smalltowndefenders.com.

"Illegal aliens in our city create an economic burden that threatens our quality of life," he wrote. "With a growing problem and a limited budget, I could not sit back any longer and allow this to happen. I needed to act!"

Hazleton's population was 23,000 in 2000. Since then, it has risen to an estimated 30,000 to 33,000, with many of the newcomers being Mexican immigrants, according to Munley.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania was among several groups that filed the suit on behalf of Hazleton residents, landlords and business owners.

The groups contended that only the federal government has the right to regulate immigration or to deprive residents of the rights to equal protection. In addition, they said, the ordinances violated state and federal housing laws.

The ordinances, Munley said, "penalize landlords, tenants, employers and employees without providing them the procedural protections required by federal law, including notice and an opportunity to be heard."

"Our analysis applies to illegal aliens as well as to legal residents and citizens. The United States Constitution provides due process protections to all persons," he wrote, emphasizing "all."

The city exceeded its police powers by enacting unconstitutional ordinances, wrote Munley, whom President Clinton appointed to the federal bench in 1998.

Barletta said he would "continue to fight for the people of this community and other cities around the country."

"It's almost amusing to me that the judge would say we can't do what the federal government should be doing, when in fact the federal government is not doing their job," he told CNN's Lou Dobbs.

A spokesman for the ACLU of Pennsylvania expressed satisfaction with the ruling.
advertisement

"Hazleton-type laws are designed to make life miserable for millions of immigrants," said Vic Walczak, legal director for the group and a lead attorney in the case. "They promote distrust of all foreigners, including those here legally, and fuel xenophobia and discrimination, especially against Latinos."

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, added, "Political leaders, like Mayor Barletta, must stop scape-goating undocumented immigrants for all the problems we confront in our local communities."

Precedent already set? I wonder if this ever made it to the SCOTUS.

 

[palehorse]

From 2007:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/26/immigrants.ruling/index.html

Precedent already set? I wonder if this ever made it to the SCOTUS.

From that article, the most important paragraph is this one:

"It's almost amusing to me that the judge would say we can't do what the federal government should be doing, when in fact the federal government is not doing their job," he told CNN's Lou Dobbs.

So whether it's a precedent, or not, Barletta was still absolutely correct.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I support illegal immigration if you don't commit crimes, make an honest effort to work, and have American values. Oh look, I just described 90% of all illegal immigrants in the country. The outrage over this bill can't possibly be related to that reality! Never!

Illegal immigration is by definition, committing a crime.

Few have American values. ie. integrating into society.
Minimal English language skills - their children are usually unable to communicate in English - require ESOL classes (at taxpayer expense).
Many require their children who have ben exposed to English to translate for them.

I will not fault the parents for speaking Spanish (nor native tongue) - however, they can make a decent effort in learning English. Many adult (not senior) legal immigrants (not citizens) learn to have some English communication within a year and can communicate decently within 3-4. Because they want to.

 

[Red Dawn]

Frankly I could give a shit about the illegals, it's those who are here lagally or are4 Americanj Citizens who's rights will be trampled on that has me worried about this law. Even though they say it won't happen you know damn well that this will increase racial profilling and even if it's only a few do0zen Americanjh's or legal Aliens who get their rights abused, that's not acceptable.

What needs to be done is for the Feds to get their ass in gear and do something about the pourus border. Stationing the National Guard there is one option.

 

[palehorse]

What needs to be done is for the Feds to get their ass in gear and do something about the porous border. Stationing the National Guard there is one option.

I agree with you completely. However, this time they had better give them ammunition and permission to actually defend themselves and our sovereignty. The last time time they moved the Guard to the border they failed to do so. That's simply unacceptable and ultimately f'n pointless.

 

[Svnla]

Legal immigrants want ILLEGALS to be legals....LEGALLY (myself include):

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0502-immigrant-20100502,0,2603120,full.story


Another thing, enter/stay in the US without permission is against EXISTING US laws. Not if, and, or but about it.

Here it is: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act

INA: ACT 211- DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS



Sec. 211. [8 U.S.C. 1181]


(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (c) no immigrant shall be admitted into the United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid unexpired immigrant visa or was born subsequent to the issuance of such visa of the accompanying parent, and (2) presents a valid unexpired passport or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality, if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General. With respect to immigrants to be admitted under quotas of quota areas prior to June 30, 1968, no immigrant visa shall be deemed valid unless the immigrant is properly chargeable to the quota area under the quota of which the visa is issued.

Let me ask everyone. Are we a nation of laws? Are we going to reward people that did not follow the laws and now demanding amnesty/path to citizenship? Millions of LEGAL immigrants like myself (and I am NOT white) spent years and tons of money and effort and did it the right way. Why shouldn't ILLEGALS expect to do the very same thing (follow the laws of the land) instead of screaming "RACIST" and/or making excuses?

Why shouldn't we, as a nation of laws and freedom, have the RIGHT to control our borders and immigration flow? Just as any sovereign nations on earth would do.

 

[spidey07]

Legal immigrants want ILLEGALS to be legals....LEGALLY (myself include):

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0502-immigrant-20100502,0,2603120,full.story


Another thing, enter/stay in the US without permission is against EXISTING US laws. Not if, and, or but about it.

Here it is: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act

Let me ask everyone. Are we a nation of laws? Are we going to reward people that did not follow the laws and now demanding amnesty/path to citizenship? Millions of LEGAL immigrants like myself spent years and tons of money and effort and did it the right way, why shouldn't ILLEGALS do the very same thing instead of screaming "RACIST"?

It's really very simple. They do not believe in the rule of law. It's ingrained in their culture.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

illegal immigration is by definition, committing a crime.

few have american values. Ie. Integrating into society.
Minimal english language skills - their children are usually unable to communicate in english - require esol classes (at taxpayer expense).
Many require their children who have ben exposed to english to translate for them.

I will not fault the parents for speaking spanish - however, they can make a decent effort in learning english. Many adult (not senior) legal immigrants (not citizens) learn to have some english communication within a year and can communicate decently within 3-4. Because they want to.

QFT. I'm tired of people saying "But...but...they're law abiding citizens!" BS! Illegal immigration, as Common Courtesy points out clearly, is ILLEGAL and therefore, a crime.

 

[her209]

It's really very simple. They do not believe in the rule of law. It's ingrained in their culture.

Businesses and people that knowingly hire them don't believe in the rule of law either. Its ingrained in their culture.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Businesses and people that knowingly hire them don't believe in the rule of law either. Its ingrained in their culture.

And AZ law will punish those who knowingly hire illegals.

 

[her209]

And AZ law will punish those who knowingly hire illegals.

AFAIK, that law (Legal Arizona Workers Act) has been on the books since 2007 but no businesses has been ever been found in violation of said law to date. I find that pretty hard to believe.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

AFAIK, that law (Legal Arizona Workers Act) has been on the books since 2007 but no businesses has been ever been found in violation of said law to date. I find that pretty hard to believe.

Well isn't that just a case of poor enforcement? Just like SB 1070 really is a repeat of federal law that's poorly enforced?

Who knows how enforcement of SB1070 will really turn out to be? Opponents clearly make it seem like it will end up turn the state into some Israeli checkpoint or something where everyone's checked for papers.

 

[blackangst1]

I found a few court cases that apply to AZ law here. Many people have questioned states enforcing federal law...

Gonzales v. City of Peoria from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

“Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.

In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that

“[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”

Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating,

“this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188,

“that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”

And theres quite a few more from the source of my info: http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/Walt...lice_Can_Enforce_Federal_Immigration_Law.html

Go ahead and attack the source if you would like; however, unless you can prove the content is bullshit, it will be a strawman. I think SB1070 will stand.

 

[tiresmokindad]

The arizona rv rentals law doesn't require waiting until someone is stopped for speeding or shoplifting, and it goes much further than demanding their ID. It gives officers the right to stop anyone they deem to be "suspicious" (under their own subjective terms) and demand that they prove their citizenship.

That's far more than "reasonable" suspicion of a crime. Have you ever walked outside and down the street without your wallet? How many people carry their birth certificates and passports with them at all times?

That is exactly what Hitler's Gestapo were doing when they asked to see peoples' papers.

That is exactly what Bush's goons were doing when they mined everyone's Internet traffic, regardless of whether they were American citizens or whether they had a warrant.

Sixty years ago, the turds who supported the Bushwhackos' tyrrany and bills like the Arizona statute would have made good, obedient, heel clicking little nazis. :thumbsdown:

Why do you hate the Constitution? :'(

Personally, I don't hate the constitution. If you have that constitution, do you think you can live free? Can you walk without stealing your wallet? How if you are walking and died in the street, do you think police will recognize your body without your certificate? Do you think your family will recognize you? Well, it is just my opinion.

 

[nick1985]

i support illegal immigration

wtf...

 

[PJABBER]

The Law and the Frog

"Oh Father," said a little progressive Frog to the big one sitting by the side of a pool, "I have seen such a terrible Law! It was big as a mountain, with horns on its head, and a long tail, and it had hoofs divided in two."

"Tush, child, tush," said the old liberal Frog, "that was only Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's Enforcing Federal Immigration Law. It isn't so big either; it may be a little bit taller than I, but I could easily make myself quite as broad; just you see."

So he blew himself out, and blew himself out, and blew himself out.

"Was it as big as that?" asked he.

"Oh, much bigger than that," said the young Frog.

Again the old one blew himself out, and asked the young one if the Law was as big as that.

"Bigger, Father, bigger," was the reply.

So the old liberal Frog took a deep breath, and blew and blew and blew, and swelled and swelled.

And then he said, "I'm sure the Law is not as big as this."

But at that moment he burst.

Reading is, really super swell.

The above video, which is now going viral, is brought to you courtesy of Secure the Border - Support Arizona!

And, in case you haven't read it either... The Law.

 

[PJABBER]

While I have read all kinds of back and forth on this first of many State laws seeking to turn back the tide of illegals, it helps to understand why even little frogs can see this is a pot that has slowly reached the boiling point and why a dozen other States are crafting similar laws.

Consider the Facts

• In 2008, The U.S. Justice Department said recently that Mexican gangs are the "biggest organized crime threat to the United States."
• Until January of 2009, any smugglers carrying under the threshold of 500 pounds were often not prosecuted. Smugglers began purposely carrying smaller loads or coming in just below 500 pounds to try to escape prosecution.
• In 2009, Phoenix had more than 370 kidnapping cases last year, turning it into the kidnapping capital of the U.S. Most of the victims were illegal aliens or linked to the drugs trade.
• Narcotics prosecutions in Arizona have risen 202% in 16 months and that is still not handling all of the arrests that are made according to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
• 1,080 prosecutions will be refused this year in Tucson sector alone. This represents over one third of all unprosecuted cases in the Southwest.
• According to Phoenix Police Department, there has already been 95 home invasion robberies in 2010, following 398 in 2009 and 376 in 2008.
• An estimated 5 to 10 % of all marijuana produced in Mexico is transported by highly organized and compartmentalized Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations each year through the Tohono O’odham Reservation, which accounts for less than 4% percent of the U.S.-Mexico Border. Source: National Drug Threat Assessment 2010

The following is an excellent primer with statistics and a plethora of illustrations showing why illegals are not just Arizona's problem...

The Arizona-Mexico Border - An Update - May, 2010

Read the letters from Governor Brewer to Washington that were never answered.

Read letters from Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano to Washington when she was Governor of Arizona

• Letters from 2006-2008
  
• Letters from 2005

 

[JEDIYoda]

yawn