Arizona Immigration law SB1070

Arizona Immigration law SB1070

Very recently, the state of Arizona passed a bill (now law) that is by far the most strong immigration law the US has ever seen.
Many, like myself, see this as John McCain's last ditch attempt to hold onto his long-held Senate seat. Others disagree.
Irregardless, it has been the subject of much controversy here of late and has the Hispanic/Latino population quite riled up.


From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

"Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.
Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it. Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws, which Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon, to avoid “irresponsibility by others.” The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status. The political debate leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, and Mr. Obama’s criticism of the law — presidents very rarely weigh in on state legislation — underscored the power of the immigration debate in states along the Mexican border. It presaged the polarizing arguments that await the president and Congress as they take up the issue nationally.

Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was worried about the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona. Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.” As hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza, the governor, speaking at a state building a few miles away, said the law “represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.” The law was to take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, meaning by August. Court challenges were expected immediately.

Hispanics, in particular, who were not long ago courted by the Republican Party as a swing voting bloc, railed against the law as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling. “Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe,” a statement by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, predicting that the law would create “a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.”

While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.
Ms. Brewer acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law. But she sided with arguments by the law’s sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a leading magnet of illegal immigration. She said racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, “We have to trust our law enforcement.”
Ms. Brewer and other elected leaders have come under intense political pressure here, made worse by the killing of a rancher in southern Arizona by a suspected smuggler a couple of weeks before the State Legislature voted on the bill. His death was invoked Thursday by Ms. Brewer herself, as she announced a plan urging the federal government to post National Guard troops at the border.

President George W. Bush had attempted comprehensive reform but failed when his own party split over the issue. Once again, Republicans facing primary challenges from the right, including Ms. Brewer and Senator John McCain, have come under tremendous pressure to support the Arizona law, known as SB 1070. Mr. McCain, locked in a primary with a challenger campaigning on immigration, only came out in support of the law hours before the State Senate passed it Monday afternoon. Governor Brewer, even after the Senate passed the bill, had been silent on whether she would sign it. Though she was widely expected to, given her primary challenge, she refused to state her position even at a dinner on Thursday for a Hispanic social service organization, Chicanos Por La Causa, where several audience members called out “Veto!”
Among other things, the Arizona measure is an extraordinary rebuke to former Gov. Janet Napolitano, who had vetoed similar legislation repeatedly as a Democratic governor of the state before being appointed Homeland Security secretary by Mr. Obama.

The law opens a deep fissure in Arizona, with a majority of the thousands of callers to the governor’s office urging her to reject it.
In the days leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a Democrat, called for a convention boycott of his state. The bill, sponsored by Russell Pearce, a state senator and a firebrand on immigration issues, has several provisions. It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced. States across the country have proposed or enacted hundreds of bills addressing immigration since 2007, the last time a federal effort to reform immigration law collapsed. Last year, there were a record number of laws enacted (222) and resolutions (131) in 48 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The prospect of plunging into a national immigration debate is being increasingly talked about on Capitol Hill, spurred in part by recent statements by Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the majority leader, that he intends to bring legislation to the Senate floor after Memorial Day. But while an immigration debate could help energize Hispanic voters and provide political benefits to embattled Democrats seeking re-election in November — like Mr. Reid — it could also energize conservative voters. It could also take time from other Democratic priorities, including an energy measure that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has described as her flagship issue. Mr. Reid declined Thursday to say that immigration would take precedence over an energy measure. But he called it an imperative: “The system is broken,” he said. Ms. Pelosi and Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, have said that the House would be willing to take up immigration policy only if the Senate produces a bill first.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Well, you have to hope that they follow the law as written, but what you claim really can be coupled to virtually any law that the police need to enforce.

IMO: (SB 1070) is just a degrading, discriminatory and outrageous bill, this bill shows a profound racist and xenophobic character, allowing the police to use racial profiling to detain any person if they have 'reasonable suspicion' that a person may be an illegal alien.. like the same 'reasonable suspicion' or 'reasonable doubt' that it was used to discriminate black people, just because their skin color .. actually i belive that we are going backwards instead of forward in time.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

After all is said & done it's American Law, made to protect America, & the rest of the world will just have to deal with it----it's tough titty when they have ta chew the milk! Like, do you think most Americans care one little centavo?.. ..Give them full rights to shoot on sight

Maybe someone else does not care a penny the opinion of others.. but I think: knowing the opinions of others, and give them due respect is the virtue by which we recognize and we have this on a regular basis the dignity of persons, as being unique and unrepeatable with intelligence, will, freedom and ability to offer respect to others and their opinions and their rights according to their condition and circumstances ... because the reason of stupidity is the power of shame and ignorance, bearing in mind that we are not wise in our own views in the fact that ours, as long as the majority is against us for our opinions (we must listen) .

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

..Give them full rights to shoot on sight..

It seems a totally unfortunate comment.. Sad, but that's the thought that has led us to live under the shadow of ignorance and discrimination that so much time was put into practice against black people (potentially here in our own country)... Fortunately, that's only part of the past, and although (if) few still thinks with strange ideas against the black race, have no choice but to smile acting like they don't..

(We all) who those live today in the united states, we are descendants of immigrants .. the true owners of this country are Native Americans, those who were almost exterminated in the beginning of the colonization of this country.. cost us a lot to get here today, and it is really sad to see that there are still remnants of these past habits.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yeah, but what sort of reforms would you suggest?

Well, I ain't usatonycuba, but I have a suggestion. Throw more than a few of the employers of illegals into prison. Many more than a few. The idea that jobs won't be done without illegals is a myth that benefits both employers and illegals.

That's still "racial profiling". You're targeting employers not of anglos, but of Mexicans primarily. Attacking the livelihoods of Latinos.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Mostly employers who can get away with paying below minimum wage and no benefits.

So much for the "minimum wage laws don't affect businesses" argument.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/05/25/2010-05-25_phoenix_mayor_bill_gordon_under_247_police_watch_because_of_immigration_law_deat.html

Looks as though the mayor of Phoenix is a tad worried about the effects of the new law?

Mind you, if anyone looks "reasonably suspicious" it is the mayor of Phoenix.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yeah, but what sort of reforms would you suggest?

Well, I ain't usatonycuba, but I have a suggestion. Throw more than a few of the employers of illegals into prison. Many more than a few. The idea that jobs won't be done without illegals is a myth that benefits both employers and illegals.

That's still "racial profiling". You're targeting employers not of anglos, but of Mexicans primarily. Attacking the livelihoods of Latinos.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Mostly employers who can get away with paying below minimum wage and no benefits.

So much for the "minimum wage laws don't affect businesses" argument.

So, illegal businesses should be legalised? Arguments keep getting stronger here.

Originally posted by ersi:

So, illegal businesses should be legalised? Arguments keep getting stronger here.

What do you mean by "illegal businesses"? Marijuana growing? Meth labs?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by ersi:

So, illegal businesses should be legalised? Arguments keep getting stronger here.

What do you mean by "illegal businesses"? Marijuana growing? Meth labs?

Isn't employing illegals illegal in your country? If it isn't, then sorry, my bad again

Originally posted by fanfaron:

That's still "racial profiling". You're targeting employers not of anglos, but of Mexicans primarily. Attacking the livelihoods of Latinos.

No, it isn't. If you find a business in breach of labour laws, hit 'em with a fine or whatever the penalty is. A small fine isn't much of a deterrent compared to the savings from employing underpriced labour, however.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

So much for the "minimum wage laws don't affect businesses" argument.

That's an argument? I was under the impression that it was more along the lines of "don't ruin businesses".

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

So much for the "minimum wage laws don't affect businesses" argument.

That's an argument?

One he just pulled out of his arse, as usual.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

[…] the most strong immigration law the US has ever seen

…is weaker than the comparable federal law. It just so happens that the federal government seems, shall we say, indisposed to enforcing it?

Perhaps the Obama administration will package a sort of Don't ask, don't tell for immigration reform?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yeah, but what sort of reforms would you suggest?

Well, I ain't usatonycuba, but I have a suggestion. Throw more than a few of the employers of illegals into prison. Many more than a few. The idea that jobs won't be done without illegals is a myth that benefits both employers and illegals.

That's still "racial profiling". You're targeting employers not of anglos, but of Mexicans primarily. Attacking the livelihoods of Latinos.

The trick here is to make sure that all employers must make efforts to ensure that their workforce is legal and on the books. Why not make it illegal to pay your employees in cash? If you make it so that workers must have a bank account in the USA, and that the bank is able to report on wages being paid into that account where it is believed that the account owner is not entitled to work in the USA then you create an extra layer of difficulty for the illegal worker. Furthermore, an employer found to be making payments cash-in-hand would give the authorities reasonable suspicion that a worker is illegal. Finding this out is probably the most difficult part, but why not take a leaf out of the UK police's book and make the populace into grasses. You can even offer cash rewards for it.

My only concern with targeting employers is that they'll start racial profiling and cease employing anyone who looks too hispanic because they don't want to draw attention to themselves - the law-abiding may have nothing to hide but they still don't want to increase their chances of any investigation and all the hassle that carries with it.

For the record, about 10 years ago I spent a year working in Australia and had to go to the effort of creating a bank account; my bank (National Australia Bank) required that I had a work visa before I could open an account. It was no more difficult than proving my identity since my passport fulfilled both these requirements.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

So much for the "minimum wage laws don't affect businesses" argument.

That's an argument?

One he just pulled out of his arse, as usual.

No, that's your forte, Macallan. But look up "price floor" and connect the dots.

Originally posted by Redem:

That's an argument? I was under the impression that it was more along the lines of "don't ruin businesses".

They can though, right? Otherwise minimum wage would be $50 per hour.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

[…] the most strong immigration law the US has ever seen

…is weaker than the comparable federal law. It just so happens that the federal government seems, shall we say, indisposed to enforcing it?

Perhaps the Obama administration will package a sort of Don't ask, don't tell for immigration reform?

Well, I read that Obama's sending 1200 National Guard troops to shore up the border. I await the tortured logic to show that this isn't racial profiling, since he's not sending the same number of troops to the Canadian border.

We already have 20,000 border police at that border so the additional 1200 troops won't make a real difference.

The 1200 troops is Obama's "dog and pony" show event to placate the immigration hard liners. That decision again shows that Obama is basically weak, that he can be easily intimidated into questionable actions.

If Obama thinks that the 1200 will give him additional support, think again. Here are the comments from a regular (not conservative) newspaper site:
northendlb wrote:
he probably sent them to keep arizona from sending the ilegals back
5/25/2010 4:04:38 PM
Recommend(7)

GenePoole wrote:
It's probably to help them cross the border
5/25/2010 3:56:21 PM
Recommend(4)

PaladinNJ wrote:
Is he sending the Guard to keep the illegals out or to make sure Arizona keeps them in?
5/25/2010 3:24:28 PM
Recommend(11)

OAPartyRock wrote:
Can we bill Mexico for this?
5/25/2010 3:20:29 PM
Recommend(14)

zeppi wrote:
Then legal taxpaying citizens won't have to wait hours at the emergency room to see a doctor.
5/25/2010 3:16:30 PM

Originally posted by WastedCharlie:

The trick here is to make sure that all employers must make efforts to ensure that their workforce is legal and on the books.. ..Why not make it illegal to pay your employees in cash?

Good point, but based on U.S. law, employers should only require an employee, social security card and a valid state identification, and in specific cases .. proof of residency (depending on the type of work) ... in most cases, an employer have not way to verify the immigration status of an employee, employers only report to the IRS, employee information and thus exercised the payment of taxes through their paychecks.

Remember that the IRS does not openly share information from their databases with other Federal Agencies, the IRS works as "a private bank account", which information can be only delivered , with a Federal Court order in a specific case.. ..even The President hasn't the authority to request information from IRS databases.

But I think it should be creation of a way for an employer to have an automatic reply from IRS, or at least in short time, whether: the data of the employee who recently entered the system are (valid or not valid) data in the IRS database... that way, the data they submit will be matched against IRS records for accuracy... that way an employer would have the way of knowing whether the employee has legal documents to work in US.. and if they (employer) do not respect these reports, to profit from illegal immigrants, paying them a lower salary, then the law should Judging and prosecute them: for making the exploitation of human beings, for their personal benefit.

Originally posted by usatonycuba:

an employer have not way to verify the immigration status of an employee, employers only report to the IRS, employee information and thus exercised the payment of taxes through their paychecks.

Doesn't the report to IRS do the trick about the nature of the employee? Here the employers are not required to verify the immigration status either, but reports to tax authorities definitely do the trick. You can only hire *illegal* employees by *not* reporting their salaries to the tax authorities. So, again, if there is a problem, it lies equally with the businesses. And since the businesses are "citizens" and should abide to law, they should be taken on first. And you'll see that nothing more is needed.

Originally posted by ersi:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by ersi:

So, illegal businesses should be legalised? Arguments keep getting stronger here.

What do you mean by "illegal businesses"? Marijuana growing? Meth labs?

Isn't employing illegals illegal in your country? If it isn't, then sorry, my bad again

Apparently not, when the mayor of LA says that it contributes to the economic might of the area...and whose city is boycotting Arizona for its law. It appears that Arizona is the only culprit here.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I don't quite get the logic: it's wrong to go after illegal immigrants who are seeking to work illegally in the US, but it's right to go after employers who are seeking to hire those same illegal immigrants.

That's a strawman. The objection is to blanketing targeting people based on race to check if they are illegally in the country. If there is adequate evidence that someone is in illegally, then race need not be a factor, and action may be taken. If there is no adequate evidence without considering race, then you should not be demanding that they prove themselves innocent on the spot. It's unjust.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by ersi:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by ersi:

So, illegal businesses should be legalised? Arguments keep getting stronger here.

What do you mean by "illegal businesses"? Marijuana growing? Meth labs?

Isn't employing illegals illegal in your country? If it isn't, then sorry, my bad again

Apparently not, when the mayor of LA says that it contributes to the economic might of the area...and whose city is boycotting Arizona for its law. It appears that Arizona is the only culprit here.

Good defense of determined unprincipled action there. My compliments, Fanfaron.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I don't quite get the logic: it's wrong to go after illegal immigrants who are seeking to work illegally in the US, but it's right to go after employers who are seeking to hire those same illegal immigrants.

That's a strawman.

Nah, no strawman there. He honestly doesn't get the logic.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I don't quite get the logic: it's wrong to go after illegal immigrants who are seeking to work illegally in the US, but it's right to go after employers who are seeking to hire those same illegal immigrants.

That's a strawman. The objection is to blanketing targeting people based on race to check if they are illegally in the country. If there is adequate evidence that someone is in illegally, then race need not be a factor, and action may be taken. If there is no adequate evidence without considering race, then you should not be demanding that they prove themselves innocent on the spot. It's unjust.

No, it isn't. You're against targeting Latino illegals, but yet I assume you're for targeting their employers, effectively deporting them anyway. Let me tell you what employers will be targeted: restaurants, construction companies and landscaping services. That's profiling.

Originally posted by ersi:

Nah, no strawman there. He honestly doesn't get the logic.

It might help if you'd come up with some sort of coherent argument first before posting.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

No, it isn't. You're against targeting Latino illegals, but yet I assume you're for targeting their employers, effectively deporting them anyway. Let me tell you what employers will be targeted: restaurants, construction companies and landscaping services. That's profiling.

How is that what you just did NOT profiling? Besides, do you prefer these businesses to operate with illegal work force? Again, like in all previous debates, no coherence can be detected in you. Only determination.

Originally posted by ersi:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

No, it isn't. You're against targeting Latino illegals, but yet I assume you're for targeting their employers, effectively deporting them anyway. Let me tell you what employers will be targeted: restaurants, construction companies and landscaping services. That's profiling.

How is that what you just did NOT profiling?

They're both profiling, which is the point. Do try to keep up, OK?

Originally posted by ersi:

Besides, do you prefer these businesses to operate with illegal work force? So far, no coherence has been detected in you.

What do my "preferences" have to do with anything? That's not the standard.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Well, I read that Obama's sending 1200 National Guard troops to shore up the border. I await the tortured logic to show that this isn't racial profiling, since he's not sending the same number of troops to the Canadian border.

It is, due to the geographical location of the deployment, only going to be directed to that border. So what? Or better yet, who cares? It's years late, & symbolic only, done solely to politically appease & pacify. A resentfully poor attempt I might say at that.

Once again we will see the wretchedly misguided concept of 'Political Correctness' rear it's ugly, and as usual, devoid of any coherent thought, head!

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

…is weaker than the comparable federal law. It just so happens that the federal government seems, shall we say, indisposed to enforcing it? ...Perhaps the Obama administration will package a sort of Don't ask, don't tell for immigration reform?

I think we should get some data and information about our country's economic reports on past periods of government and see how and in which situation the country was when our President took place on the Oval Office.

It is not easy to state and local laws create conditions for overcoming the obstacles imposed by the United States Constitution to enforce federal laws locally... until today, the vast majority of state and local laws enacted against immigrants have been invalidated by the courts. . (In the cases, of the local police acting as federal agents)

A state law can not dictate immigration policy or force changes in its application to the Federal Government. It is absolutely unconstitutional .. and this last point is what really has worried the Federal Government of our country from this whole matter.

Originally posted by ersi:

Doesn't the report to IRS do the trick about the nature of the employee? Here the employers are not required to verify the immigration status either, but reports to tax authorities definitely do the trick. You can only hire employees by not reporting their salaries to the tax authorities. So, again, if there is a problem, it lies equally with the businesses. And since the businesses are "citizens" and should abide to law, they should be taken on fIRSt. And you'll see that nothing more is needed.

Whenever there is a law, there will be someone who wants to break it, but to punish a guilty person, there should be a law that is fair, according to crime .. without mass action, which affects all alike, and hurts both the guilty and the innocent.

Then the law would have a more equal and true purpose, jailing employers who lie about the information they provide to the Federal Government (IRS in this case) ..The Federal Government has rights in federal matters, so as it is with the state government .. reports generated by an employer (for employee data) is a matter for private and reliable count .. and if applicable, that an employer used false evidence and then would be a particular problem for the company .. not a problem for governments to exercise the law... putting behind bars, those that actually encourage and create gaps.. those who really are creating the means by which our laws are broken

Our federal law has deep and clear background,.. so, in order to give rise to Federal issues on local issues .. it should be handled very carefully .. the IRS has quite sensitive policies, and is a matter of creating pathways for (without breaking the rules) to handle this matter more effectively.

Originally posted by ersi:

My bad again.

You got that right, at least. Nice job.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

No, it isn't. You're against targeting Latino illegals, but yet I assume you're for targeting their employers, effectively deporting them anyway. Let me tell you what employers will be targeted: restaurants, construction companies and landscaping services. That's profiling.

No, it is not. You are missing the point again. I am not against targeting "Latino illegals", I am against targeting Latinos, and demanding that they prove they are not illegals in an on the spot check up. If there is evidence to warrant action, take it, if not, then let people go about their business.
Checking up on people simply because they look Latin is racial profiling, checking up after actual evidence is found/presented is not.
Same with employers, if you have evidence that someone is employing illegal immigrants, then take action. If you do not, then it is not fair to check around every stereotypical business you think illegal immigrants might look for and check their employees. The latter is racial profiling.

These are not particularly subtle differences.

Originally posted by Redem:

if you have evidence that someone is employing illegal immigrants, then take action.

Hmmmm...what sort of evidence would that be? A signed confession from an employer?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

You're against targeting Latino illegals, but yet I assume you're for targeting their employers, effectively deporting them anyway.

So, you're for deporting Latino illegals, but against deporting them effectively. Keeps getting curiouser and curiouser, but the incoherence is consistent.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Redem:

if you have evidence that someone is employing illegal immigrants, then take action.

Hmmmm...what sort of evidence would that be? A signed confession from an employer?

Don't you have laws for that? Or at least a standard? Well, then the problem is totally self-caused.

Edit:
The corresponding law (or set of principles) is called labour law. If formalised and regulated sufficiently, illegal workers, along with many other aspects of grey/black economy can be detected easily. It's all a matter of enforcement. When this lacks, blame yourself.

Originally posted by ersi:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

You're against targeting Latino illegals, but yet I assume you're for targeting their employers, effectively deporting them anyway.

So, you're for deporting Latino illegals, but against deporting them effectively. Keeps getting curiouser and curiouser, but the incoherence is consistent.

Do you know how to friggin' read? I said above that I'm for the "path to citizenship" approach. Maybe if you stopped to think a little before you try to dream up some lame sarcastic pseudo-argument you'd have a little more coherence yourself.

Originally posted by ersi:

Don't you have laws for that? Or at least a standard? Well, then the problem is totally self-caused.

Whatever that means.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I said above that I'm for the "path to citizenship" approach.

Indeed you did (once), but you tied it to "beefing up the border". Besides that, you have said many times (not just once) that "anything less than citizenship would be obvious racism", "anything less than open borders is racism" and such, so your stance is still incoherent at best. But really, why not accept someone's best... If you have a definition or a description of your "path to citizenship", then let's hear.

Edit:
About illegal workers (who come in several flavours, and they don't all depend on citizenship), I repeat once again that the correct approach is regulation of labour (minimum wages, tax reports, prohibiting slavery, etc). When this enforcement is lacking, it begets grey economy where illegal immigrants are one of the aspects. Problems due to lack of enforcement are self-caused, i.e. blame yourself, not others.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Hmmmm...what sort of evidence would that be? A signed confession from an employer?

I'm not hugely au fait with police work in the US, but such things as the use of forged documents leading to investigating the true identity of a person would be an example.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18552_so-you-want-to-be-american-5-circles-immigration-hell.html

This Cracked article seems somewhat relevant.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18552_so-you-want-to-be-american-5-circles-immigration-hell.html

This Cracked article seems somewhat relevant.

Interesting Article

And they finally captured this one....

Illegal Dora.jpg

Originally posted by ersi:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I said above that I'm for the "path to citizenship" approach.

Indeed you did (once), but you tied it to "beefing up the border". Besides that, you have said many times (not just once) that "anything less than citizenship would be obvious racism", "anything less than open borders is racism" and such, so your stance is still incoherent at best. But really, why not accept someone's best... If you have a definition or a description of your "path to citizenship", then let's hear.

Good grief, you really do need to learn how to read for comprehension. There's nothing at all inconsistent with "beefing up the border" and granting a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants already here.

They can read, but aren't willing to agree outwardly. They probably actually agree, except they want the procedure switched around, & modified a tiny bit.

Immediate citizenship, then we'll consider talking about beefing up the borders!

I just love it when foreigners think they have any legitimate say in how Americans are supposed to enforce our own laws, as if it's their (the foreigner's) lives or economy that are at stake-----or their culture & way of life will take a hit! Then again, they might just be wanting to prepare their nests for when they leave their sinking ships they now call home & emigrate-----emigrate to where millions upon millions upon millions have done over many, many years, to work, to live, & to enjoy 'The American Dream' & a much better way of life------ ------------legally, I happily add.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by ersi:

If you have a definition or a description of your "path to citizenship", then let's hear.

Good grief, you really do need to learn how to read for comprehension. There's nothing at all inconsistent with "beefing up the border" and granting a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants already here.

I repeat: If you have a definition or a description of your "path to citizenship", then let's hear.

After that we can discuss reading comprehension.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I just love it when foreigners think they have any legitimate say in how Americans are supposed to enforce our own laws, as if it's their (the foreigner's) lives or economy that are at stake-----or their culture & way of life will take a hit!

But we, as Americans, believe strongly in Freedom of Speech, so we can read and respect their opinions on subjects even if we disagree with them strongly.

Originally posted by ersi:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by ersi:

If you have a definition or a description of your "path to citizenship", then let's hear.

Good grief, you really do need to learn how to read for comprehension. There's nothing at all inconsistent with "beefing up the border" and granting a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants already here.

I repeat: If you have a definition or a description of your "path to citizenship", then let's hear.

After that we can discuss reading comprehension.

There are several proposals past and present. Use that search engine thingy, man! It's easy!

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I just love it when foreigners think they have any legitimate say in how Americans are supposed to enforce our own laws, as if it's their (the foreigner's) lives or economy that are at stake-----or their culture & way of life will take a hit!

But we, as Americans, believe strongly in Freedom of Speech, so we can read and respect their opinions on subjects even if we disagree with them strongly.

Amen!

What they say my not be legitimate in the eyes of most, but regardless I applaud & respect their right to say it! Respect is earned, not because one shows up, but because one does their level best to excel. They have done their level best!

I Want these pathetic MO-FOS to quit playing politics with our country and UP HOLD the God damned Laws.

Eric H. Holder, Jr. was sworn in as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States on February 3, 2009 by Vice President Joe Biden. President Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate Mr. Holder on December 1, 2008.

Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted so-called "sanctuary policies." Generally, sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the distinction between legal and illegal immigration--so illegal aliens often benefit from city services too.

These cities have adopted "sanctuary" ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status

Washington, D.C.;
New York City;
Los Angeles;
Chicago;
San Francisco;
Santa Ana;
San Diego;
Salt Lake City; Dallas;
Houston;
Austin;
Detroit;
Jersey City;
Minneapolis;
Miami;
Denver;
Baltimore;
Seattle;
Portland;
New Haven;
Portland, Maine.

The following information IS compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security reports:
* 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.
* 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.
* 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.
* 24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals
* 40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals
* 48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals
* 29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually
* 53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.
* 50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens
* 71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes".
* 47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.
* 63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens
* 66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.
* 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the US to illegal alien parents in just one year, making 380,000 babies automatically US citizens.
* 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers

And we haven't even touched food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicare/Medicaid costs, education costs (including special bilingual teachers and extra police to patrol the halls), traffic problems, etc.,

I my view, People that are in this country Illegally are Parasites on the resources of My Country and my My Walle

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

I Want these pathetic MO-FOS to quit playing politics with our country and UP HOLD the God damned Laws

Yep, those bleeding heart liberals are sending us all on a one way roller coaster ride into the depths of hell for sure!

Only one quote comes to mind (printable that is)-------"Our Country's Government has been abducted by a band of Calculating Traitorous Scum!"

It's not the liberals that are building a ridiculously costly fence that won't stop a squirrel crossing the border. You would need a new "great wall of mexico" to stop them, and even you, I think, you baulk at that cost.

You whine about enforcement whilst simultaneously demanding tax cuts. What proposals are you suggesting, then. Please keep them both legal and effective, and tell us how you propose to fund them.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yeah, but what sort of reforms would you suggest?

Well, I ain't usatonycuba, but I have a suggestion. Throw more than a few of the employers of illegals into prison. Many more than a few. The idea that jobs won't be done without illegals is a myth that benefits both employers and illegals.

That's still "racial profiling". You're targeting employers not of anglos, but of Mexicans primarily. Attacking the livelihoods of Latinos.

Please note the word "illegals." If hiring illegal aliens is not against the law, then there is no case. If it is against the law, explain how that's profiling.
.........................................

Employers are required to keep an I-9 form on file for every new employee that gets hired; also known as the Employment Eligibility Verification Form, this document can and should be used by an employer to verify an employee’s identity and work authorization status within the United States.

These days, authenticating the information as submitted on an I-9 is easier than ever thanks to a system known as E-Verify. The E-Verify system is an Internet program that allows employers to simply log on and use the information reported on an I-9 to determine the eligibility of an employee to work in the United States. The service is free and makes the verification process so straightforward that employers have fewer excuses than ever not to fulfill such obligations.
http://local.yodle.com/articles/what-are-the-penalties-for-hiring-illegal-immigrants
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an illegal alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each illegal alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
assists an illegal alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
encourages that illegal alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
http://www.mnforsustain.org/immigration_hiring_law_excerpts_from_us_code.htm

They are among the estimated 2.5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States who are not from Latin America but from Asia, Europe, Canada, Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere. They make up nearly a quarter of the nation's undocumented population, yet in the current immigration debate, they have been all but invisible.
http://www.hacer.org/current/US313.php

They're illegals, too.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Yep, those bleeding heart liberals are sending us all on a one way roller coaster ride into the depths of hell for sure!

That's rather difficult to see, seeing as how hell does not exist.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

"Our Country's Government has been abducted by a band of Calculating Traitorous Scum!"

I'm glad to see you think this a year and a half after it was explicitly true.
(Yeah, that's right, I see sending our fellow Americans to their deaths for imperial wars traitorous. Darth Cheney calculated it all, after all. I won't even get into the huge recession he caused.....)

Originally posted by Redem:

I think, you baulk at that cost.

Come now Redem, surely you've cottoned on by now?
Hypothetically, if the liberal Republican Mitt Romney was to become President in '12 (I won't even mention the hypocrisy that would go with him proposing to build a huge concrete wall) and got his proposal to build a 50 foot fence along the border, it wouldn't be "adding to our deficit", it would be "protecting our country and our freedoms".

Personally, rather than 50 foot fence, or a 20 foot brick wall, I would prefer a mote 100 feet wide at it's narrowest filled with highly caustic acid to deep-fry the bastards that attempt to cross it illegally. Whatever the outcome it's going to provide some great entertainment!

On a more personal note, my cousin & his boys (from a small town in N. Eastern Tennessee) just left for the Arizona Border yesterday to join up with the militia already there, armed to the hilt, ready to protect America come hell or high water--by any means necessary. No injunctions will dampen their spirits or resolve.

Yeah! Shoot those poor brown folk simply looking for a better life! Yee-hawww!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

On a more personal note, my cousin & his boys (from a small town in N. Eastern Tennessee) just left for the Arizona Border yesterday to join up with the militia already there, armed to the hilt, ready to protect America come hell or high water--by any means necessary. No injunctions will dampen their spirits or resolve.

I guess it runs in the family. And they'll shoot to kill? And end up in prison. Nice. Actually, I think not. They'll just go back home and regale the boys at the local bar with tales of daring. "Well, no, I didn't actually see any Spics, which is lucky for them! Jethro! Another round for the boys!"

Actually, these guys are acting out as programmed by Southern history. I don't think that anybody has been shot by these ninnies...yet.
.........................................

"I want this border issue solved, but I don't want these guys out here, acting up and playing Wyatt Earp," Bisbee, Ariz. resident Mike Anderson told the Republic Tucson Bureau as he held a sign that read: "Minutemen: Angry White Men With Nothing Better To Do."

This one goes back to the Bush days. Bush called them vigilantes. I prefer nut-cases.

Isn't this Arizona thing developing into State v Federal? I noted a news item that indicated DC was suggesting Arizona was challenging it's authority?

Yeah! Shoot those poor brown folk simply looking for a better life! Yee-hawww!

darn tootin'

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

The following information IS compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security reports:
* 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.
* 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.
* 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.
.... and so on
And we haven't even touched food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicare/Medicaid costs, education costs (including special bilingual teachers and extra police to patrol the halls), traffic problems, etc.,

I my view, People that are in this country Illegally are Parasites on the resources of My Country and my My Walle

You cite the above and I can cite the following

But the rate of violent crime at the border, and indeed across Arizona, has been declining, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as has illegal immigration, according to the Border Patrol. While thousands have been killed in Mexico’s drug wars, raising anxiety that the violence will spread to the United States, F.B.I. statistics show that Arizona is relatively safe. That Mr. Krentz’s death nevertheless churned the emotionally charged immigration debate points to a fundamental truth: perception often trumps reality, sometimes affecting laws and society in the process.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelimsem2009/table_4al-ca.html


Judith Gans, who studies immigration at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona, said that what social psychologists call self-serving perception bias seemed to be at play. Both sides in the immigration debate accept information that confirms their biases, she said, and discard, ignore or rationalize information that does not. There is no better example than the role of crime in Arizona’s tumultuous immigration debate.

“If an illegal immigrant commits a crime, this confirms our view that illegal immigrants are criminals,” Ms. Gans said. “If an illegal immigrant doesn’t commit a crime, either they just didn’t get caught or it’s a fluke of the situation.”
Ms. Gans noted that sponsors of Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law have made careers of promising to rid the state of illegal immigrants through tough legislation.

“Their repeated characterization of illegal immigrants as criminals — easy to do since they broke immigration laws — makes it easy for people to ignore statistics,” she said.

I actually looked at the FBI crime stats and found that indeed crime in Arizona is declining.

I'd like to see the FBI links to YOUR assertions.

Personally, I find the immigration debate to be overblown hyperbole. People here (in the USA) are have been manipulated and scared on a non-issue. Anything to divert from the real issues. We have just as many illegals now as we have had 10 years ago, but then no one talked about it and no one was bothered over it. Now its a hot button issue because you have been propagandized of this issue.

I see some illegals in my community. The ones I see are hard working laborers - lawns, building houses, large retailers night work (stocking shelves), hotel workers (housekeeping).

As for benefits - they rarely collect. The whole point of being illegal is to work here, partake in the American dream while avoiding government scrutiny. Most illegals that work illegally pay social security (they pay about 20 billion a year in social security taxes) and withholding taxes. Social security is making a profit on them since they pay in but will not be able to collect.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Isn't this Arizona thing developing into State v Federal? I noted a news item that indicated DC was suggesting Arizona was challenging it's authority?

Yes.

Immigration policy like foreign policy or citizenship is a Federal responsibility by custom and law.

Actually, before the civil war citizenship was a state matter. People coming off the boat were met by representatives of the local political ward boss and were given money, taken to the local judge for their citizenship and were registered to vote that same day. They had to promise their future election vote as directed by their local political ward boss.

Which is why I get cracked up when so many pontificate on the need for all those rules for citizenship. I'm sure many of their ancestors were "instant" citizens. In many cases, people were citizens simply by claiming they were born here. A 120 years and more ago we did not have the papers or bureaucracy to really check births. If you went to vote and you claimed you were born in the US in some other state, no one would ask you for a birth certificate (normally people did not have them in their possession and with home births many did not even certificates). Basically, you got off the boat and if you wanted to be, you would be a citizen. The only time citizenship was really questioned was when dealing with an ethnic group such as Orientals.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Isn't this Arizona thing developing into State v Federal? I noted a news item that indicated DC was suggesting Arizona was challenging it's authority?

Not developing. It has been from the gitgo.

The Arizona argument has been that the federal government hasn't owned up to it's responsibility. I'm inclined toward sympathy to that argument. That said, there are legal ways for people to become immigrants.

I'm for amnesty for our illegals; that is, allowing them to freely return to their home of origin without prejudice.

Some here suggest that doing so is biggoted...that is, anti-Hispanic, or something similar. Bull hockey!

How do you feel about the much less extensive problem with Eastern Europeans into the UK job market?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Isn't this Arizona thing developing into State v Federal? I noted a news item that indicated DC was suggesting Arizona was challenging it's authority?

Not developing. It has been from the gitgo.

The Arizona argument has been that the federal government hasn't owned up to it's responsibility. I'm inclined toward sympathy to that argument. That said, there are legal ways for people to become immigrants.

I'm for amnesty for our illegals; that is, allowing them to freely return to their home of origin without prejudice.

Some here suggest that doing so is biggoted...that is, anti-Hispanic, or something similar. Bull hockey!

How do you feel about the much less extensive problem with Eastern Europeans into the UK job market?

Bravo! Perfectly said! I can't agree with you more!

I would only add that the overall security of the entire country may stand in the balance depending upon how well either the State(s), or the Flaccid Federal Government, adequately addresss the 'immigration issue'---as in securing the borders, enforcing 'real' laws, & maintaining proper channels for entry--whether temporary or permanent.

I believe in amnesty for the, give or take, 11 Million or so illegals; that is, allowing them to freely return to their home of origin without prejudice. To get in line if they wish to return 'LEGALLY'.

In order to facilitate that last part, I would suggest that immigrants from Mexico be given a larger quota allotment, in direct proportion to the numbers that take advantage of said 'amnesty' plus an additional 2% on top of that, & return to Mexico but are wishing to return permanently (the greater majority).

To clarify: Not aimed specifically to those Mexicans that return to Mexico via acceptance of 'amnesty', but to all Mexicans wishing entrance into the USA including those that previously returned.

So basically, your offer to them is "go back to living in abject poverty". Grandstanding aside, it is an utterly impractical and nonsensical "offer". It will not work, and your attitude will continue to make sure that they will be the American underclass. As for securing the border, any plans yet? How many hundreds of billions are you prepared to spend building and manning a wall adequate to the task you demand of it? As well as a navy to patrol the water ways, of course.
How many more racist laws are you willing, or eager as the case seems to be, to enact to deal with those already in the country? And where do you plan on holding those caught while their cases are heard in the courts?

How much money do you think is worth it to sate your frustrated anger?

Of course, an actual amnesty would be a more realistic plan, would get those illegal workers paying taxes in full and being productive members of society instead of having to keep out of sight as much as possible. But we can't have that, they're brown and they speak funny.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I would only add that the overall security of the entire country may stand in the balance depending upon how well either the State(s), or the Flaccid Federal Government, adequately addresss the 'immigration issue'---as in securing the borders, enforcing 'real' laws, & maintaining proper channels for entry--whether temporary or permanent.

Oh God, spare me from this.

Its always security - the need to fight in Afghanistan/Iraq, the need to keep them locked up in Gitmo, the need to get rid of the the illegals, the need to keep 12 aircraft carriers, the need to maintain over 700 military bases in foreign countries.

When did this country change? Change from the generation that had the courage to fight the industrial might of the Axis power to our current generation of the scared and the nervous, a generation that emptied the stores of duct tape because some government official said housed needed to be sealed to keep out anthrax?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

On a more personal note, my cousin & his boys (from a small town in N. Eastern Tennessee) just left for the Arizona Border yesterday to join up with the militia already there, armed to the hilt, ready to protect America come hell or high water--by any means necessary.

I see. Can we thank old Georgie boy for their apparent unemployment?

Originally posted by BernG:

When did this country change? Change from the generation that had the courage to fight the industrial might of the Axis power to our current generation of the scared and the nervous, a generation that emptied the stores of duct tape because some government official said housed needed to be sealed to keep out anthrax?

1960 perhaps?
(Though the Imperialism started in 1953)

Redem, you have a right to your opinions, but in the end it's not your country or your back yard, so what you said was expected---utterly irrelevant yes, but expected more so.

BernG, I know it must be a hard pill to swallow, but facts are facts. Just because a high profile breach has not occured in the recent past should not mean we are immune from one. If National Security is not the number one issue--btw, this is my personal opinion that it is--an opinion which is widely held by many many of my fellow citizens, then it ranks right up there just shy of the top. If I had said it was an economic issue--which in a way it is as well--I somehow feel you would have also sobbed profusely & uncontrollably with your "Oh God, spare me from this..." whinge.

Dawg, I somehow knew you would be smarter, & retort from a different front.

Yes 2 of the boys are unemployed--but not hurtin', but the other 6 are on leave--with no pay--at their request. My cuz is independently wealthy (just for the curious he made his small fortune the hard way over 30 years selling hardware--not guns--but from nuts & bolts up to Caterpillar earth movers) & he's footin' the trip. Don't ya hate the 'rich'!

Sorry fellas, the great majority of us American Citizens do not now, or ever will, subscribe to any notion of 'wide open borders'. This is not a Camelot, or any other mythical fairytale world out there. I'm absolutely sure that most American Citizens firmly believe that admittance into this Great Bountiful Land is not the right of the world's population, but a privilege granted by it's citizens through strict laws & procedures. No other forms of entry are acceptable, or permissible, & I personally know there are quite a few good Americans that will be more than happy to lend a hand in securing it's borders so that this never changes regardless of, & in spite of, your vehement objection.

Originally posted by Redem:

Of course, an actual amnesty would be a more realistic plan, would get those illegal workers paying taxes in full and being productive members of society instead of having to keep out of sight as much as possible. But we can't have that, they're brown and they speak funny.

The last sentence is a complete non-starter, so I'll simply bypass it...after having said this.

First, tell Arizonans that illegals are "out of sight".
Second, most are probably paying taxes. That isn't the issue for me. The issue for me is that there's a legal path to citizenship, and it doesn't start with sneaking across the border.

If I accept your realistic plan, will you share with me whether it has any limits. Should we simply make it policy that anybody lucky enough to make it here and who wants to become a citizen should be allowed to do so? If that's the case then we should simply give up the notion of borders and put out the welcome sign. And why stop with our southern neighbors? There are plenty of Asians and Africans who would love to "apply," that is, get on a boat or airplane and come on over.

Do you know if there are any Western countries that don't have immigration rules?

Currently about 70,000 undocumented Canadians work in the United States.

In my view, they are not welcome here and should not be allowed to have U.S. jobs. And they are not brown.

And here's another fact from that veritable fount of wisdom, the Governor of Arizona, the scurge of the brown menace:

The Arizona governor, seemingly determined to repel every last tourist dollar from her pariah state, has sounded a new alarm about border violence. "Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert either buried or just lying out there that have been beheaded," she announced on local television.

Ay, caramba! Those dark-skinned foreigners are now severing the heads of fair-haired Americans? Maybe they're also scalping them or shrinking them or putting them on a spike.

However,

But those in fear of losing parts north of the neckline can relax. There's not a follicle of evidence to support Brewer's claim.

The Arizona Guardian Web site checked with medical examiners in Arizona's border counties, and the coroners said they had never seen an immigration-related beheading. I called and e-mailed Brewer's press office requesting documentation of decapitation; no reply.

Brewer's mindlessness about headlessness is just one of the immigration falsehoods being spread by Arizona politicians. Border violence on the rise? Phoenix becoming the world's No. 2 kidnapping capital? Illegal immigrants responsible for most police killings? The majority of those crossing the border are drug mules? All wrong.

This matters, because it means the entire premise of the Arizona immigration law is a fallacy. Arizona officials say they've had to step in because federal officials aren't doing enough to stem increasing border violence. The scary claims of violence, in turn, explain why the American public supports the Arizona crackdown.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902342.html

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Redem, you have a right to your opinions, but in the end it's not your country or your back yard, so what you said was expected---utterly irrelevant yes, but expected more so.

BernG, I know it must be a hard pill to swallow, but facts are facts. Just because a high profile breach has not occured in the recent past should not mean we are immune from one. If National Security is not the number one issue--btw, this is my personal opinion that it is--an opinion which is widely held by many many of my fellow citizens, then it ranks right up there just shy of the top. If I had said it was an economic issue--which in a way it is as well--I somehow feel you would have also sobbed profusely & uncontrollably with your "Oh God, spare me from this..." whinge.

Dawg, I somehow knew you would be smarter, & retort from a different front.

Yes 2 of the boys are unemployed--but not hurtin', but the other 6 are on leave--with no pay--at their request.

I don't worry about the Mexicans because I and I suspect most Americans are not competing for the jobs they are taking (unless you have a hankering to do housekeeping in budget hotels/motels or doing lawn work or cleaning toilets or washing restaurant dishes).

The ones you should be worried about are the corporations who are outsourcing everything they can and when they have positions which are required to be filled here they then import cheap labor on the H1B visa program. Those are the real jobs Americans are unsuccessfully competing against.

How fortunate for the corporations that the American public has been fixated on illegal immigrants and not outsourced jobs.

Anyone wanting to visit, or reside in America 'legally' should be & are welcome, the rest of those scabby bastards who wish to come in 'illegally' should do so at their own peril of life & limb, & also be subject to the full extent of punishment applicable by existing law---be it Arizona Law or the Federal Immigration Law, which are virtually identical. The only real difference is that Arizona is willing to enforce theirs!

What part of the word ILLEGAL don't you understand?



il·le·gal
   /ɪˈligəl/ Show Spelled[ih-lee-guhl]
–adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.
–noun
3. Informal . illegal alien.

Synonyms
unlawful; illegitimate; illicit; unlicensed. Illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, illicit, criminal---all can be described as actions not in accord with law.
Illegal refers most specifically to violations of statutes or, in organized athletics, codified rules: an illegal seizure of property; an illegal block ( in football ).
Unlawful means not sanctioned by or according to law: an unlawful claim to the inheritance; to take unlawful advantage of the trading situation.
Illegitimate means lacking legal or traditional right or rights: an illegitimate child; illegitimate use of privileged knowledge.
Illicit, which originally meant simply “not permitted,” now most often applies to matters regulated by law with specific emphasis on the way things are carried out: illicit conversion of property; an illicit attempt to control the market.
Criminal most often refers to violation of the statutes of penal as opposed to civil law. All felonies are criminal as are all crimes sometimes punishable by death such as murder, arson, and kidnapping: a criminal act.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

If National Security is not the number one issue--btw, this is my personal opinion that it is--an opinion which is widely held by many many of my fellow citizens, then it ranks right up there just shy of the top.

Can you break this down for me? Immigration is a national security issue? We almost spend more on defense (46.5% of the world total) than the rest of the world collectively, and immigration is our top national security issue? Where did we go wrong?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

If National Security is not the number one issue--btw, this is my personal opinion that it is--an opinion which is widely held by many many of my fellow citizens, then it ranks right up there just shy of the top.

Can you break this down for me? Immigration is a national security issue? We almost spend more on defense (46.5% of the world total) than the rest of the world collectively, and immigration is our top national security issue? Where did we go wrong?

Maybe if you expressed it a tad differently you question might not need an expansive answer. Lets see now...try this:

Illegal Immigration is a National Security issue?

Yes.

We almost spend more on defense (46.5% of the world total) than the rest of the world collectively, and Illegal immigration is one of our top National Security issues ?


Yes.

Where did we go wrong?

I dunno, did we?

Maybe it might be that we do not enforce our laws, giving outsiders the impression that it's easy to enter the USA for illegal purposes?

Maybe it would be easier to walk in unopposed, carrying a small suitcase, rather than having to enroll in an expensive flying class where landing safely is not of a paramount issue?

Who knows, maybe he's just a run of the mill, good natured, well intentioned, typical isotope salesman trying to make a living & support his family back in wherever he comes from. Ya think?

Maybe you can enlighten me?

I have no problem with legitimate 'Legal' Immigration. It's the 'Illegal' form of Immigration that troubles me, & makes America less secure.

I don't see where you examined or explained the national security ramifications of illegal immigration. Can you do that?

At least we agree that illegal immigration is unacceptable.

You forget that these scary furriners are a threat by their mere existence.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I don't see where you examined or explained the national security ramifications of illegal immigration. Can you do that?

At least we agree that illegal immigration is unacceptable.

Hmmmm, let's say this fellow lived down the road. Lets call him ...hmm....I know, lets call him Jethro. Now Jethro was a model citizen, & just went about doing his every day comings & goings, living life to the fullest, bothering nobody, just a typical happy American Citizen. One day 4 Illegals, who had just crossed the border under the noses of the lazy Federals, came upon Jethro's tidy humble little dwelling. They broke down Jethro's hand made little door, savagely slaughtered his entire family of 6 amongst the Christmas presents neatly placed by the Christmas tree, all for the sport of it. Then the 4 Illegals planned their trip to Phoenix, where they planned to explode their suitcase bomb full of radioactive material during the annual Christmas tree lighting as tens of thousands watched with holiday excitement.

Did Jethro & his family deserve this?

Should the Federal Government have done a better job protecting them---providing the security they deserved?

Do the residents of Phoenix deserve what was to happen to them because the Federals didn't think enforcing the law by adequately securing the borders was an important enough or high enough priority?

Could something similar to this have happened anywhere in America? Sure it could have, don't kid yourself that you're immune.

What does it take for anyone to understand that even though the possibility of this ever happening is extremely remote, it could happen, & it isn't all that far fetched or out of the realm of possibility?

This example may be extreme to some, but post 9/11 nothing would surprise me as being too far over the top anymore.






BTW.....these Illegals weren't Mexican at all, they were Palestinian's dressed to look like Mexicans, pissed off at the mayor of Phoenix because she didn't send them an 8x10 signed glossy of herself the year before, but hey they could have been Mexican if you would have let your imagination run away with you.

Originally posted by Redem:

As for securing the border, any plans yet? How many hundreds of billions are you prepared to spend building and manning a wall adequate to the task you demand of it? As well as a navy to patrol the water ways, of course.

Please Redem, has he not been clear enough? http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=5604852

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Well I ain't usatonycuba either, but here is my suggestion. I say build towers all along the border(s) that can comfortably hold 3 people. Now, place 3 highly trained sharpshooters/snipers fully armed to the teeth with the latest technology (night vision, motion detection listeners, etc...etc....etc.....) in each tower. Give them full rights to shoot on sight

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=6178622

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Personally, rather than 50 foot fence, or a 20 foot brick wall, I would prefer a mote 100 feet wide at it's narrowest filled with highly caustic acid to deep-fry the bastards that attempt to cross it illegally. Whatever the outcome it's going to provide some great entertainment!

Both of these things were tried in Soviet Union (well, there were isolated mine fields instead of full-out acid ditches, but this is merely a technicality). SF may not be fully aware of where his ideas are coming from, but he is entirely in the spirit and character.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Can you break this down for me? Immigration is a national security issue? We almost spend more on defense (46.5% of the world total) than the rest of the world collectively, and immigration is our top national security issue? Where did we go wrong?

Dawg suggested annos 1960 and 1953. In fact, the USA has been an empire since its very inception. I have said this before. Since its very inception the USA has been expanding violently, butchering natives on the way. This is how the original 13 states became 50, plus protectorates, "allies" and such. Now that Americans think they own the world (save for a few formal details still under discussion in some isolated pockets of resistance), the whole world is treated like Gitmo. This is the perspective how Americans understand both security and immigration - as long as it's not crushed, it's an "issue".

Originally posted by ersi:

SF may not be fully aware of where his ideas are coming from, but he is entirely in the spirit and character.

Coupling this with this comment from the Obama thread, ( http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=6166932 ) I shall have to start addressing SF as Comrade SF. (However ironically amusing that may be )
Thanks for the info, Ersi.

Originally posted by ersi:

This is the perspective how Americans understand both security and immigration - as long as it's not crushed, it's an "issue".

Please re-word this as "Far-Right leaning Americans".

Originally posted by ersi:

Dawg suggested annos 1960 and 1953. In fact, the USA has been an empire since its very inception.

Indeed. Manifest Destiny comes to mind.
The only reason I suggest '60 is because although President Ike said:

Originally posted by President Eisenhower:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

in all actuality, the first war perpetrated via the military-industrial complex was President Truman's Korean War in '53. President Kennedy and each President since has allowed the military-industrial complex to influence war decisions. It is quite a tragedy.

Originally posted by ersi:

Since its very inception the USA has been expanding violently, butchering natives on the way.

Also quite true. If I may be so bold to say it, I daresay that Native American genocides top that of the Holocaust genocides.

Originally posted by ersi:

Now that Americans think they own the world

This American does not think that he owns the world.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Redem, you have a right to your opinions, but in the end it's not your country or your back yard, so what you said was expected---utterly irrelevant yes, but expected more so.

Yes, you can ignore my questions simply because I'm not from the US, but only once you and your fellow countrymen are similarly silent on matters outside the US. Until then, I think I'm going to exercise my right to say whatever I wish, within the rules of this forum.

Do you have any response other than a veiled "you have no right to an opinion"?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

If I accept your realistic plan, will you share with me whether it has any limits. Should we simply make it policy that anybody lucky enough to make it here and who wants to become a citizen should be allowed to do so? If that's the case then we should simply give up the notion of borders and put out the welcome sign. And why stop with our southern neighbors? There are plenty of Asians and Africans who would love to "apply," that is, get on a boat or airplane and come on over.

If I were designing the system? No limits. But that's just me.
Realistically, an amnesty would apply to those already in the country, assuming a clean criminal record, alongside a reformed immigration system that actually permitted people to work in the US if they could find work ahead of time or to apply to emigrate with a reasonable chance of success.
Coupled with this should be efforts to redress the issues that are driving people out of Mexico and into the US in the first place, issues which the US has had a hand in.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Do you know if there are any Western countries that don't have immigration rules?

Nope, but I do know of none that have a policy that resembles what teabaggers would enact given half a chance. With good reason, it would be expensive, ineffective and cruel.
The latter being entirely the point, I would think.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

This example may be extreme to some, but post 9/11 nothing would surprise me as being too far over the top anymore.

You realise, the 9/11 attackers were legally in the country? Your cited example is bordering on the farcical.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Do you know if there are any Western countries that don't have immigration rules?

Nope, but I do know of none that have a policy that resembles what teabaggers would enact given half a chance. With good reason, it would be expensive, ineffective and cruel.
The latter being entirely the point, I would think.

The Dutch one is expensive, ineffective, and cruel, as are the British and American systems. Of course compared to certain opinions voiced it's practically welcoming all with rose petals.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

What does it take for anyone to understand that even though the possibility of this ever happening is extremely remote, it could happen, & it isn't all that far fetched or out of the realm of possibility?

And this is a national security issue? It's very difficult to take you seriously if you manufacture such nonsense and call it a national security issue.

The dogma of the group Hutaree states that they are warriors which are training to fight the antichrist and the followers of the antichrist. According to BBC News, the website of the group says that they are “preparing for the end time battles to keep the testimony of Jesus Christ alive.” The website also contains video of military-style training.
http://www.examiner.com/x-27431-World-News-Examiner~y2010m3d29-Christian-militia-terrorists-in-US-charged-in-plot-against-police-officers

The difference? This actually happened. We must, for the good of the country, suppress Christian groups as a threat to national security. After all the group was attempting to "expand their war against the group’s enemy, namely the United States."

This is really getting interestinger and interestinger.
.........................................
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902342.html?wpisrc=nl_pmopinions

Maybe somebody should lock up the governor.

And the plot thickens!
.........................................

MLB should move the 2011 All-Star game out of Arizona
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/11/AR2010071103040.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

Originally posted by Jaybro:

This is really getting interestinger and interestinger.
.........................................
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902342.html?wpisrc=nl_pmopinions

Maybe somebody should lock up the governor.

Shows how well you read these posts considering I posted this above.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by ersi:

SF may not be fully aware of where his ideas are coming from, but he is entirely in the spirit and character.

Coupling this with this comment from the Obama thread, ( http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=6166932 ) I shall have to start addressing SF as Comrade SF. (However ironically amusing that may be )
Thanks for the info, Ersi.

In an effort to further promote an aura of mutual respect that you are jokingly promoting today, I will also be calling a few of you by the title of Comrade, a title for which ya'll have done so much to earn.

Hey.......Commissar Dawg has a cute twang to it!

Now all we have to find for you is your Jane Fonda & you'd be complete!

On a more sober note, I don't need any help in formulating my ideas, & the ones I pointed out were of my own design, which I might say I am quite proud of. As I said before...I ain't got no stinkin' problem with LEGAL Immigration, but God help the first illegal that wanders past my cross hairs. I'll stamp his return ticket sure 'nuff

Originally posted by Redem:

Yes, you can ignore my questions simply because I'm not from the US, but only once you and your fellow countrymen are similarly silent on matters outside the US. Until then, I think I'm going to exercise my right to say whatever I wish, within the rules of this forum.

Do you have any response.....

I'm glad that you will say what you want, but in the same vein find it within your heart to accept my right to ignore your tripe. I won't honor that falderal you attempted to elevate to the level of a question with a response.

I'll take that as a no, then.

Originally posted by BernG:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

This is really getting interestinger and interestinger.
.........................................
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902342.html?wpisrc=nl_pmopinions

Maybe somebody should lock up the governor.

Shows how well you read these posts considering I posted this above.

I read them well enough but I don't read them all. Sorry if I jumped all over your post.

For those of you who are agonizing over the jobs the illegals are taking or have taken from American citizens, those of you who are looking for jobs or have friends looking for jobs, here is the opportunity to take back some of the jobs from the illegals.

Its estimated that 75% of agriculture grown in this country is picked and processed by illegals. So when you eat a vegetable or fruit grown here, its a pretty good bet that the illegals has their hands on your food.

You are now are offering the opportunity to take back the jobs illegals are doing. Instead of whining about them, go to this web site to apply for those jobs
http://takeourjobs.org/

"There are two issues facing our nation--high unemployment and undocumented people in the workforce--that many Americans believe are related. Missing from the debate on both issues is an honest recognition that the food we all eat - at home, in restaurants and workplace cafeterias (including those in the Capitol) - comes to us from the labor of undocumented farm workers.

Agriculture in the United States is dependent on an immigrant workforce. Three-quarters of all crop workers working in American agriculture were born outside the United States. According to government statistics, since the late 1990s, at least 50% of the crop workers have not been authorized to work legally in the United States.

As a result the UFW has initiated the "Take Our Jobs" campaign.

Farm workers are ready to welcome citizens and legal residents who wish to replace them in the field. We will use our knowledge and staff to help connect the unemployed with farm employers. Just fill out the form to the right and continue on to the request for job application."

You are all My children, play nice.

Originally posted by BernG:

You are now are offering the opportunity to take back the jobs illegals are doing.

I say, start enforcing the law...I'm an "enforce-the-law" kind of guy. Massive fines for growers who hire illegals. And we need to hire the enforcers to make sure the job is done effectively.

Personally, I have no problem with paying $12 for an apple. It's good for real American workers!
And if you don't think the wages would satisfy most Americans, read and weep:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla., Jan 27 (Reuters) - Three of the largest U.S. timber companies were accused in lawsuits filed on Thursday of paying some 6,000 foreign workers in the United States less than the federal minimum wage and failing to pay overtime.
The workers got $100 to $200 a week for 60 or 70 hours of work and had to use part of that for transportation, housing and work tools, the lawsuit alleged.
http://www.iplexingtonplant.org/ip_sued_over_migrant_workers_wages.htm

Makes me want to go out and buy a 2X4!

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by President Eisenhower:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

In my Collection I've got 3 M-1 carbines One manufactured by IBM, One by Singer sewing Machines, And My favorite ROCKOLA juke box company...

Yes we have extensive Military complex cause obviously the rest of the world can't keep a lid on the various shitcans in the world.

I'm for with draw and cutting expenditures for our Military. Unless you want to rent them. Let the world go it's way. Work on our problems at home.

Put that worthless UN in Geneva, Drop out of NATO.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

The Dutch one is expensive, ineffective, and cruel, as are the British and American systems. Of course compared to certain opinions voiced it's practically welcoming all with rose petals.

Dutch budget deficit set to soar
The largest party in the governing coalition has finally agreed that the strict rules capping the Netherlands' budget deficit will have to be relaxed.

http://www.expatica.com/nl/finance_business/banking/Dutch-budget-deficit-set-to-soar_13668.html

Control Growth?

Originally posted by TheNoodleyFather:

You are all My children, play nice.

KMA

Originally posted by Redem:

You whine about enforcement whilst simultaneously demanding tax cuts. What proposals are you suggesting, then. Please keep them both legal and effective, and tell us how you propose to fund them.

We have a Shitload of surplus land mines.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

I'm for with draw and cutting expenditures for our Military. Unless you want to rent them. Let the world go it's way. Work on our problems at home.

Amen brah!

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

Put that worthless UN in Geneva, Drop out of NATO.

We needn't drop out of the UN, heck, I may need that job one day!

Originally posted by BernG:

As a result the UFW has initiated the "Take Our Jobs" campaign.

Farm workers are ready to welcome citizens and legal residents who wish to replace them in the field. We will use our knowledge and staff to help connect the unemployed with farm employers. Just fill out the form to the right and continue on to the request for job application."

Hmmm..... pay a guy $2.00 an hour... or minimum wage + taxes + insurance+ Medical +.....Yeah right...

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

We have a Shitload of surplus land mines.

So you're suggesting mining the border in an attempt to curb illegal immigration?

Swatting flies with ICBMs comes to mind.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

We needn't drop out of the UN, heck, I may need that job one day!

Your generation should be thinking about an effectual system. I hear it's really nice over there. the UN as it is now just makes noise and screws up parking in lower Manhattan.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

The Dutch one is expensive, ineffective, and cruel, as are the British and American systems. Of course compared to certain opinions voiced it's practically welcoming all with rose petals.

Dutch budget deficit set to soar
The largest party in the governing coalition has finally agreed that the strict rules capping the Netherlands' budget deficit will have to be relaxed.

http://www.expatica.com/nl/finance_business/banking/Dutch-budget-deficit-set-to-soar_13668.html

Control Growth?

Um, you're aware that this article is 1.5 years old? The new Purple+ government will almost certainly get VVD economic policies.

Anyway, what the heck does that have to do with immigration? Whether or not particular limits are good or not is completely different from how they are implemented. Not to mention they took a Chinese woman's passport away due to "settling danger." Seriously, are we in the fucking DDR? (as if anyone would WANT to settle in the DDR)

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Personally, I have no problem with paying $12 for an apple. It's good for real American workers!

you must be stinking rich

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Um, you're aware that this article is 1.5 years old? T

Ahhh shit I checked the date upper left of the article.. I guess they've had nothing new to report .

Originally posted by Frenzie:

how they are implemented. Not to mention they took a Chinese woman's passport away due to "settling danger." Seriously, are we in the fucking DDR? (as if anyone would WANT to settle in the DDR)

Conclusions Based On This List

Dutch people have less rights in their own country than EU citizens from any other country. I see no reason why things should be any different for Dutch citizens than for EU citizens.


Thats screwed... pretty much what is going on here... But it seems Illegals here think they have more rights.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

Conclusions Based On This List

Dutch people have less rights in their own country than EU citizens from any other country. I see no reason why things should be any different for Dutch citizens than for EU citizens.


Thats screwed... pretty much what is going on here... But it seems Illegals here think they have more rights.

Well, see how we're living in Belgium? We love it here, and it's definitely better than living back in Utrecht would've been, but it's a direct result of this nonsense. In the Netherlands I couldn't have lived together with my American wife. Well, their loss.

Originally posted by Redem:

Swatting flies with ICBMs comes to mind.

We do thing in a big way here in the U.S. least thats what other countries seem to think.

Maybe a big ditch and fill it full of the BP garbage from the GOM.

I ask all you folks other from the U.S.


If a Woman from U.S. gives birth in your country. Is that child a considered a citizen of your country?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

In the Netherlands I couldn't have lived together with my American wife.

Please tell me you're kidding
Not even Germany is that insane

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

If a Woman from U.S. gives birth in your country. Is that child a considered a citizen of your country?

Depends. If the father is german then yes. If she has german ancestry both mother and child can (relatively) easily become german citizens.
Otherwise - no.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

garbage from the GOM.

He's not dead yet, probably ran out of booze or something

Some background (not likely previously) discussed (here): Obama v. Arizona article.

The administration's primary obstacle is De Canas v. Bica (1976), in which the Supreme Court emphatically declared that federal immigration laws did not prohibit the states from enforcing the policies embodied by those federal immigration laws. (In that case, the state law was a California prohibition against the employment of illegal aliens.) The Court reviewed the text and history of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, and found no indication that "Congress intended to preclude even harmonious state regulation touching on aliens in general, or the employment of illegal aliens in particular." According to the Court, states may enforce laws consistent with federal immigration laws, so long as the state does not "impose additional burdens not contemplated by Congress."
(from the article)

Good read. I hadn't known of that finding & subsequent ruling, but it's quite clear.

S.B. 1070 does not "conflict" with federal law: It neither interferes with the accomplishment of federal immigration statutes nor creates legal standards that contradict the federal statutes.

This is going to be more interesting than I thought.

And please note: that ruling was 8-0 (Justice Stevens didn't participate).

As I said elsewhere:

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Consider the tortured reasoning in DoJ's complaint against Arizona's SB 1070: (I paraphrase the gist) "We are omniscient; our every action and inaction is carefully calculated to achieve the result we desire. Arizona's law might complicate the perception of our caprice as wisdom…"

It appears as if the administration doesn't care about the outcome, only the theater provided during the run-up to November's elections.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

It appears as if the administration doesn't care about the outcome, only the theater provided during the run-up to November's elections.

That's a distinct possibility, but in light of President Obama's 'Katrina in the Gulf', a loss here seems like sure political suicide.



Is this Administrations judgment that bad, or are they just that arrogant to believe they are immortal?

why not find a way so all people can be free?? all gods people . so i am not with this.

Originally posted by floridagurl:

why not find a way so all people can be free?? all gods people . so i am not with this.

As long as you have two people in one room you are guaranteed to eventually have strong differences of opinion. It's human nature.

Perfect harmonious living is an ever illusive dream only realized by the dead.

With this Immigration issue one could say all people are 'free', it's just that some people 'freely' choose to exist illegally.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

[…] a loss here seems like sure political suicide

It seems unlikely in the extreme that the case would reach the Supreme Court in time to be decided before the next presidential election, let alone the upcoming mid-terms. So, this loss is more like a sub-prime loan on a win…

Originally posted by Frenzie:

In the Netherlands I couldn't have lived together with my American wife. Well, their loss.

Please expand on this. The basic law must have something to do with Islamophobia. Or am I wrong?

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

In the Netherlands I couldn't have lived together with my American wife.

Please tell me you're kidding
Not even Germany is that insane

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Please expand on this. The basic law must have something to do with Islamophobia. Or am I wrong?

Read this blog post explaining the matter to some extent.

One thing the so-called right is always talking about is Moroccans and Turks "importing brides," so I guess you might say there's some Islamophobia involved. That said, in practice it's more of a Western/non-Western thing. I received an e-mail from a guy whose now-Chinese wife got her passport taken away by the Dutch police due to "settling danger," even though they were going to live in Belgium. They had planned their wedding in Belgium the next day and due to this action they got problems in Belgium due to lack of identification. I'd say it's plain xenophobia (mostly against non-whites), although being Islamic (or originating from an Islamic country) might make things even worse.

Here in Belgium there may also be xenophobia (or just plain meanness), as I heard from a Moroccan-Dutch woman who's living here with her boyfriend or husband, but here the law isn't based on it: it's just some individual public servants who simply have to do their job despite their personal feelings. In the Netherlands those public servants who think it's all ludicrous will still have to act according to the xenophobic laws.

I don't understand how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be stepped on by the US, the Netherlands and so many other countries that claim to uphold its principles. At least Iran is honest about it.

Can we all agree (here) that hypocrisy is rampant?

Judge blocks controversial parts of Immigration Law 1070

District Court judges do the damnedest things! And often of earth-shattering effect… (Remember this one?) You can get a PDF of Judge Bolton's ruling here.
She (cleverly?) includes several citations that obviate her stated reasoning… Hm.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

District Court judges do the damnedest things! And often of earth-shattering effect… (Remember this one?) You can get a PDF of Judge Bolton's ruling here.
She (cleverly?) includes several citations that obviate her stated reasoning… Hm.

Interesting ruling that the Supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution requires that parts of SB1070 be set aside even though the parts set aside may have substantially the same goals as Federal law.

However, reading it, its obvious its not really her ruling. What she did was take precedent from previous court cases and apply it here. Legal plagiarism.

I don't expect this to be set aside unless the Supreme Courts overrides previous precedent from the circuit appeals courts, setting new precedent.

However, these precedents were established a long time ago and therefore the law of the land for a long time. Therefore, the chance of being overridden is very small.

Sorry, BernG, but you seem as confused as Judge Bolton… She doesn't bolster her reasoning with precedential citation; she shows clearly how it should be demolished. Pushing it –squeeky wheels and all– on down the line…?

(I shall have to read a fair sampling of her opinions, to determine if this is at all likely.)

Why would it be racism?

Apologies. Wrong place answer!

The people breaking law are sanctuary cities, not Arizona.

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Personally, I have no problem with paying $12 for an apple. It's good for real American workers!

you must be stinking rich

I don't do drugs or buy beer, so apples is pretty much it...no matter the cost.

Apples would cost $12 if the pickers weren't illegals. I used to live adjacent to an apple orchard. In the early Fall the migrants would come in by the truckloads. I did work for a local consortium of charitable outreaches, and we had droves of the workers in for clothing, assorted gee-gaws, and food. Nice people. Humble. The women were wonderful with their children. I have no idea how they got by or where they disappeared to when the harvest was over. At any rate, they didn't take a job that any local citizen would have held in their absence.

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

The people breaking law are sanctuary cities, not Arizona.

The U.S. Congress decried and prohibited such explicitly in 1996… See? All ya gotta do is pass a law!

What Judge Bolton’s Injunction Doesn’t Say

In enjoining Arizona’s landmark immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton maintains the Obama administration’s carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens. Almost nowhere in the government’s briefs or the judge’s ruling is the arrest and detention of illegal aliens addressed. This fiction is transparent, however. The real threat posed by S.B. 1070 was that it would disrupt the de facto amnesty that the executive branch has accorded to the vast majority of illegal aliens. It would start to implement congressional mandates and the public will that the immigration laws be enforced. For that reason, it had to be stopped.

So determined was Judge Bolton to follow the Obama administration’s political strategy regarding the law’s putative impact on legal immigrants that she exploited a drafting error in the law that Arizona had already acknowledged and repudiated. S.B. 1070 authorizes local law-enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals they have lawfully stopped, if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country illegally, and if the inquiry into immigration status is practicable. S.B. 1070 also required that “any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Arizona stated in its brief and testified in court that the legislative intent behind that sentence regarding arrestees was that only people for whom there is already reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally would have their immigration status checked after arrest. The section does not apply to every arrestee.

READ it all HERE.

As you are reading this, the Arizona Legislature is drafting new legislative wording to the sections of S.B.1070 that were struck down by Judge Bolton. When passed, & it will eventually pass sooner rather than later, the new wording will replace the old sections & take effect immediately--no waiting period like the initial law.

The Arizona Legislature has sworn to continue to work tirelessly to overcome the Federal Government's each & every attempt to stop the State from protecting it's borders & citizens. They will only stop when the Federal Government stops, not a minute before.

Some lady might say with a wink " States Rights, you betcha! "

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The real threat posed by S.B. 1070 was that it would disrupt the de facto amnesty that the executive branch has accorded to the vast majority of illegal aliens.

Which Executive Branch started this practice?
Was it President Bush or President Obama?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The real threat posed by S.B. 1070 was that it would disrupt the de facto amnesty that the executive branch has accorded to the vast majority of illegal aliens.

Which Executive Branch started this practice?
Was it President Bush or President Obama?

I honestly don't know who was first of all time. All I know for sure is that someone else probably started it, but both Bush & Obama are the most recent willing parties in perpetuating it!

Multiple wrongs do not make it right.

On Jun 28, 2010, cert. was granted to U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria. It'll be heard in the upcoming session.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

On Jun 28, 2010, cert. was granted to U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria. It'll be heard in the upcoming session.

I don't know anything about that but we have a lot of Agri activity in our area and the farmers follow State law. I tend to think holding employers responsible is a crock. They are there to grow Apples,Cherries, Peaches and such. When there is a problem Emigration turns their heads. All a bunch of crap. It is the Fed responsibility. This is how Arizona got where they are. The Feds under the last and present administrations are just a bunch of incompetent yahoos on somebody's payroll for election money. I laugh because all, or most of the uninformed nitwits on here blame the State of Arizona.

Well, classicdenny77, the problem goes back at least to the early '80s. And the case I mentioned above is a crucial one… And, about our posters here, few –if any– have any experience or expertise regarding constitutional law; of course, everyone is an expert on matters political!

The horror and the human rights violations are happening already, even outside Arizona. This a sign of what's to come.
http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12903328

Is this really what you support Oakdale, Smiley? Is this the type of America your really want. US citizen afraid to leave their homes? Businesses raided and every customer harassed. This article doesn't say it, but on Tv they just mentioned most of the people were not even illegal immigrants. This is the American that you, Sarah Palin and the TP are cheering in.

as Vegas, NV- A local family says they were broken up following an immigration raid this week by Homeland Security. Now others in the Hispanic community say they're afraid they could be next.

Today we're learning more about the raid at a local bus station. It wasn't the only one. Several other similar small businesses were also raided with a total of 31 people detained by border patrol agents.

Now the Hispanic community is afraid they will become victims of what they call abuse and profiling. The owner of Las Vegas Shuttles remembers men walking into his business, and demanding documents from everyone.

"It doesn't make any sense at all because this isn't a border city," says Emmanuel Corrales, the owner.

Border patrol agents searched and treated everyone with disrespect says Corrales.

"You don't expect to be treated like a stranger in your own country. I'm a U.S. citizen myself and I don't expect to be here in a bus station and getting asked for my documents," he says.

Now he says the Hispanic community lies in a state of fear.

"They don't want to travel. They don't want to go out. They don't want to get their haircut."

Friday night, Hispanic leaders from several community organizations and churches called an emergency meeting.

"(We) had a conversation about how do we get out those facts the easiest from what is a rumor to what is true," says Michael Flores with Progress Now Nevada.

A big part of getting that information out includes the churches.

"A lot of the pastors feel that they have a big obligation because they have so many members that are undocumented, and they feel as pastors they need to speak up for their members," says Flores.

As they try to calm the community from fears of being deported or harassed.

"I saw what happened yesterday. I saw the way they treated all my clients. I didn't like it. I didn't feel well. I saw the way they treated me. I'm not comfortable in this city. I'm not comfortable in this country. I love this country, but I'm not comfortable today," says Corrales.

Action News spoke with the Department of Homeland Security. All they would tell us is that they specifically picked "transportation sites that are used as a means to further illegal trafficking" of drugs or humans.

When asked if they found drug traffickers or human smugglers known as coyotes, all they say is that of those captured some did have criminal or immigration records.

Oh yeah..and this is great for the economy as well...
http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12905771

Las Vegas, NV- There are businesses in our community that cater specifically to the Latino community of Las Vegas. Now they say it's hard for them to see success if their customers are scared away.

"It doesn't make any sense at all because this isn't a border city," says Emmanuel Corrales, owner of Las Vegas Shuttles.

Hispanics in the Las Vegas community are confused and scared after 31 people were picked up in a raid by border patrol agents.

"There's a sense of fear and anger amongst Hispanic people like myself," says Corrales.

Las Vegas Shuttles was one of those places raided, where the owner says agents were rude and pushy with almost every documented customer in his station. Only one person was taken by Homeland Security....

Hrmmm...the Arizona law could wind up standing hispanic this way

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Well, classicdenny77, the problem goes back at least to the early '80s.

This is why denny77 is now a classic. -----> http://my.opera.com/Denny77/blog/

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

And, about our posters here, few –if any– have any experience or expertise regarding constitutional law

True, but some of us have read the Constitution more than once, and quite thoroughly at that, I might add. (Which can't be said for most Teabaggers)
A good point though.

To Sanguine (who isn't very…), and unfortunately thedawgfan also: I intend to reply, tomorrow, to the insinuations you've made. But, for now, I'd ask a pertinent question: Did anyone get the number of the turnip truck you fell off of?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

And, about our posters here, few –if any– have any experience or expertise regarding constitutional law

Including OakdaleFTL who just likes to pretend, drop vague hints and then cop out, hoping nobody notices.

Well, Mac, I'm not a member of the bar — in any state; furthermore, I have no credits transferable to the Law School at Harvard or Chicago University… That said, I do have the same number of scholarly articles published as a certain professor of Constitutional Law we both know of, named Obama. And I've been reading at an adult level for five decades, during a substantial portion of which I've paid some attention to just these sorts of matters.
I find them interesting. (Of course, I began with Bastiat's The Law. But Levi's Introduction to Legal Reasoning quickly brought me back to reality. Not to mention the Federalist Papers and the constitution they argued for.)

So, touché — except for your gist: I do hope some notice, and that they have interesting informed thoughts in response. (Not that I expect such…but someone may be prompted to explore. Otherwise, it seems noone's interested.) And, seriously, if you can't get all you need to understand this post on your own, you have neither the interest nor the attention span necessary to generate a serious post…until some newspaper article gives you your opinion.
Tsch. I've just done the same thing you did! Shame on me… (It's like when Joe Biden, chair of the Senate's Judiciary Committee during Justice Thomas's confirmation hearing, began to quote from a raw FBI file for the record: I know better; but I sometimes get carried away.) So, here's three links to bring you up-to-speed, should you so desire:

Blog post comment (gossip and speculation),
Petition for review by SCOTUS (A rip-roaring read!), and
Strategic Facial Challenges, by David H. Gans (Could Congress have been clearer or would it not matter? Modern trends).

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Is this really what you support Oakdale, Smiley? Is this the type of America your really want.

What I want is immaterial.

What should happen is simple.

The Federal Government should, through the Attorney General's Office, prosecute & enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. It's that simple, no sitting around the campfire singing Cumm-bye-yahhs playing nicety nice with our lawbreaking 'friends', just enforce the laws on the books. You're legal,,,,yer in. You're illegal,,,,yer out--go home apply through the proper channels, get the right papers, come back, & then you will be let in.

Why? Because you are legal.

You say you need money to support your family, if you become legal yer in---earn as much as you can, otherwise Tight Sneakers Sherlock, piss up a rope---yer outa here!

What I would like to see is a wall from the Gulf of Mexico (just east of South Bay, Texas) all the way to the Pacific Ocean, like the one's on the Israeli borders, with manned surveillance, patrols, checkpoints & the like. Why? Two simple words------IT WORKS!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The Federal Government should, through the Attorney General's Office, prosecute & enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. It's that simple,

Yes, yes, yes, summed up th whole thing.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

What I would like to see is a wall from the Gulf of Mexico (just east of South Bay, Texas) all the way to the Pacific Ocean, like the one's on the Israeli borders, with manned surveillance, patrols, checkpoints & the like. Why? Two simple words------IT WORKS!

Maybe, it would also cost hundreds of billions to build and man such a wall. The crappy fence already built on parts of the border cost billions enough. A proper wall? You could bankrupt the country over some idiotic racist inclinations.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The Federal Government should, through the Attorney General's Office, prosecute & enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. It's that simple, no sitting around the campfire singing Cumm-bye-yahhs playing nicety nice with our lawbreaking 'friends', just enforce the laws on the books.

They already do. What they're not doing, that you want them to do, is harass legal immigrants in the hopes of finding illegal ones.
Probable cause. Arizona needs to learn it.

Originally posted by Redem:

They already do

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEH

Yes yes, ignore the reality. Pretend they're doing absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by Redem:

Yes yes, ignore the reality. Pretend they're doing absolutely nothing

It is what you do...not what you say you do....

I suppose it is a manufactured problem...probably a attempt to dethrone the Obama administration....Arizona is trying to take over the country.....Starting with Arizona.

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

It is what you do...not what you say you do....

Indeed. I'm simply imaging the border patrols and immigration officials that work at it all.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

What I would like to see is a wall from the Gulf of Mexico (just east of South Bay, Texas) all the way to the Pacific Ocean, like the one's on the Israeli borders, with manned surveillance, patrols, checkpoints & the like. Why? Two simple words------IT WORKS!

How sad.

Having the US of A hide behind a wall. Only societies that are degenerating, marching themselves into the dustbin of history, surround themselves with walls.

I'm sure most Romans (Hadrian's wall), the Chinese government and military elite (The Great Wall) and many East Germans (Berlin and Border walls) thought their walls were a good idea. Gotta keep out those invaders, prevent that cultural corruption, the mongrel like mingling of "others".

Their walls really worked out well for them, didn't it?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

like the one's on the Israeli borders, with manned surveillance, patrols, checkpoints & the like. Why? Two simple words------IT WORKS!

So you would be in favor of State-sponsered terrorism????
Goodness me, SF, using that particular wall is about the worst one you could have picked. The Israeli's use that wall to "keep out" citizens of the two occupied (whom they pompously deem inferior to them) Palestinian nations.

Originally posted by BernG:

Their walls really worked out well for them, didn't it?

Ironic that so many "conservatives" don't know history...

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The Federal Government should, through the Attorney General's Office, prosecute & enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. It's that simple, no sitting around the campfire singing Cumm-bye-yahhs playing nicety nice with our lawbreaking 'friends', just enforce the laws on the books.

Have taken a bus from Mexico City to Florida. I have and I can tell you the laws are enforced to an almost ridiculous extent. Homeland security agents boarded the bus at like every other stop (and sometimes two stops in a row) to check everyone's documentation. Oh and did you not read what I said about agents raiding Las Vegas businesses catering to hispanic clients? It's not even intelligent for an informed person to say the laws aren't being enforced.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

o the insinuations you've made.

What insinuations were those? The raids happened on the day the law went into effect, hundreds, if not thousands of legal hispanics including US citizens were harassed. You're the one the fell off the turnip truck, I'm afraid. These things can and are happening already.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Have taken a bus from Mexico City to Florida. I have and I can tell you the laws are enforced to an almost ridiculous extent. Homeland security agents boarded the bus at like every other stop (and sometimes two stops in a row) to check everyone's documentation.

Really?
So much for Rightist insinuations that during Obama's term that they all don't work.

Yet again, so much for our liberties.
Where are the Tea People bemoaning the fact that we inch ever closer to Stalinistic standards when we travel?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

It's not even intelligent for an informed person to say the laws aren't being enforced.

Have you not been paying attention to the TP'ers signs? (Yes, it's dangerous to use the word "intelligent and Tea Party anywhere remotely near one another in a sentence, paragraph, etc. )

With this present battle between State and Federal will Arizona be looking for a fort to shell?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

With this present battle between State and Federal will Arizona be looking for a fort to shell?

I doubt it.
They are probably looking for ways to make up for lost revenue from the numerous boycotts that have been enacted against Arizona.

Originally posted by Redem:

Probable cause. Arizona needs to learn it.

You might want to actually read the Arizona Law.

- i -
Senate Engrossed
State of Arizona
Senate
Forty-ninth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2010
SENATE BILL 1070
AN ACT
AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8;
AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 15, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION
13-1509; AMENDING SECTION 13-2319, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE
13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 13-2928 AND
13-2929; AMENDING SECTIONS 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 AND 28-3511, ARIZONA
REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-1724; RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS.
(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)
S.B. 1070
- 1 -
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Intent
3 The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the
4 cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of
5 Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to
8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of
9 aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United
10 States.
11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
12 adding article 8, to read:
13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
15 immigration laws; indemnification
16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
18 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
19 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
32 D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY
33 SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES
34 AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO
35 ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
36 JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
40 F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
41 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
42 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
43 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
44 ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
45 OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
S.B. 1070
- 2 -
1 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
2 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
3 STATE.
4 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
5 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL
6 ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
7 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
8 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
9 COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER
10 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
11 G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
18 ATTORNEY FEES.
19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
22 SUBSECTION.
23 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G
24 AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN
25 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND
26 ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
27 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
28 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
29 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
30 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
31 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
32 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
33 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
34 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
35 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
36 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
37 CITIZENS.
38 Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
39 adding section 13-1509, to read:
40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
S.B. 1070
- 3 -
1 B. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN
2 ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY EITHER:
3 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
5 2. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNITED
6 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES BORDER
7 PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
8 C. A PERSON WHO IS SENTENCED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IS NOT ELIGIBLE
9 FOR SUSPENSION OR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OR RELEASE ON ANY BASIS UNTIL THE
10 SENTENCE IMPOSED IS SERVED.
11 D. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL
12 ORDER THE PERSON TO PAY JAIL COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE
13 FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
14 1. AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION.
15 2. TWICE THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBSECTION IF THE
16 PERSON WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.
17 E. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE ASSESSMENTS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D OF
18 THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
19 WHICH SHALL ESTABLISH A SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT FOR THE MONIES IN THE ACCOUNT
20 ESTABLISHED FOR THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT
21 MISSION APPROPRIATION. MONIES IN THE SPECIAL SUBACCOUNT ARE SUBJECT TO
22 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR DISTRIBUTION FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION
23 ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL
24 IMMIGRATION.
25 F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO MAINTAINS AUTHORIZATION
26 FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
27 G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
28 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
29 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
30 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
31 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
32 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF
33 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
34 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
35 13-105.
36 (d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF
37 TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.
38 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:
39 (a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.
40 (b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
41 THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS
42 ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED
43 STATES CODE SECTION 1229c.
S.B. 1070
- 4 -
1 Sec. 4. Section 13-2319, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
2 13-2319. Smuggling; classification; definitions
3 A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the
4 smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.
5 B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.
6 C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this
7 section:
8 1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under
9 eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen
10 years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous
11 instrument.
12 2. Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or threatened
13 use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for suspension of
14 sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any other basis
15 except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence
16 imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for release pursuant
17 to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.
18 D. Chapter 10 of this title does not apply to a violation of
19 subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.
20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.
24 E. F. For the purposes of this section:
25 1. "Family member" means the person's parent, grandparent, sibling or
26 any other person who is related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to
27 the second degree.
28 2. "Procurement of transportation" means any participation in or
29 facilitation of transportation and includes:
30 (a) Providing services that facilitate transportation including travel
31 arrangement services or money transmission services.
32 (b) Providing property that facilitates transportation, including a
33 weapon, a vehicle or other means of transportation or false identification,
34 or selling, leasing, renting or otherwise making available a drop house as
35 defined in section 13-2322.
36 3. "Smuggling of human beings" means the transportation, procurement
37 of transportation or use of property or real property by a person or an
38 entity that knows or has reason to know that the person or persons
39 transported or to be transported are not United States citizens, permanent
40 resident aliens or persons otherwise lawfully in this state or have attempted
41 to enter, entered or remained in the United States in violation of law.
S.B. 1070
- 5 -
1 Sec. 5. Title 13, chapter 29, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
2 adding sections 13-2928 and 13-2929, to read:
3 13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for
4 work; unlawful application, solicitation or
5 employment; classification; definitions
6 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED
7 ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP
8 PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR
9 IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
10 B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS
11 STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT
12 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF
13 THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
14 C. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED
15 STATES AND WHO IS AN UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN TO KNOWINGLY APPLY FOR WORK, SOLICIT
16 WORK IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR PERFORM WORK AS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT
17 CONTRACTOR IN THIS STATE.
18 D. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.
19 E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
20 1. "SOLICIT" MEANS VERBAL OR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BY A GESTURE OR A
21 NOD THAT WOULD INDICATE TO A REASONABLE PERSON THAT A PERSON IS WILLING TO BE
22 EMPLOYED.
23 2. "UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN" MEANS AN ALIEN WHO DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL
24 RIGHT OR AUTHORIZATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES AS
25 DESCRIBED IN 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324a(h)(3).
26 13-2929. Unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring
27 or shielding of unlawful aliens; vehicle
28 impoundment; classification
29 A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL
30 OFFENSE TO:
31 1. TRANSPORT OR MOVE OR ATTEMPT TO TRANSPORT OR MOVE AN ALIEN IN THIS
32 STATE IN A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY
33 DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE
34 UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
35 2. CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD OR ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD
36 AN ALIEN FROM DETECTION IN ANY PLACE IN THIS STATE, INCLUDING ANY BUILDING OR
37 ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE
38 FACT THAT THE ALIEN HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES
39 IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
40 3. ENCOURAGE OR INDUCE AN ALIEN TO COME TO OR RESIDE IN THIS STATE IF
41 THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT SUCH COMING TO,
42 ENTERING OR RESIDING IN THIS STATE IS OR WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
43 B. A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A
44 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION OR
45 IMPOUNDMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 28-3511.
S.B. 1070
- 6 -
1 C. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1
2 MISDEMEANOR AND IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCEPT
3 THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THAT INVOLVES TEN OR MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS IS
4 A CLASS 6 FELONY AND THE PERSON IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND
5 DOLLARS FOR EACH ALIEN WHO IS INVOLVED.
6 Sec. 6. Section 23-212, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
7 23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition;
8 false and frivolous complaints; violation;
9 classification; license suspension and revocation;
10 affirmative defense
11 A. An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If,
12 in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other
13 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this
14 state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a
15 person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the
16 labor, the employer violates this subsection.
17 B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person
18 to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall
19 not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the
20 complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a
21 complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly knowingly
22 employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county attorney shall
23 investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.
24 If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a prescribed complaint
25 form, the attorney general or county attorney may investigate whether the
26 employer has violated subsection A of this section. This subsection shall
27 not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous complaints that are not
28 submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The attorney general or county
29 attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race,
30 color or national origin. A complaint that is submitted to a county attorney
31 shall be submitted to the county attorney in the county in which the alleged
32 unauthorized alien is or was employed by the employer. The county sheriff or
33 any other local law enforcement agency may assist in investigating a
34 complaint. When investigating a complaint, the attorney general or county
35 attorney shall verify the work authorization of the alleged unauthorized
36 alien with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section
37 1373(c). A state, county or local official shall not attempt to
38 independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to
39 work in the United States. An alien's immigration status or work
40 authorization status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant
41 to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who knowingly files a
42 false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is guilty of a class 3
43 misdemeanor.
S.B. 1070
- 7 -
1 C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney
2 determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:
3 1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United
4 States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.
5 2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law
6 enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.
7 3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney
8 to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint
9 was originally filed with the attorney general.
10 D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be
11 brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the
12 unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county
13 attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of
14 subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second
15 violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is
16 or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a
17 violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212.01, subsection A.
18 E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court
19 shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest
20 practicable date.
21 F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:
22 1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
23 subsection, the court:
24 (a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all
25 unauthorized aliens.
26 (b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year
27 probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien
28 performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file
29 quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county
30 attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business
31 location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
32 (c) Shall order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the
33 county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. The
34 affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated the employment of all
35 unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer will not
36 intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this state. The
37 court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to
38 this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file
39 a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days
40 after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this
41 subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn
42 affidavit with the county attorney. Notwithstanding any other law, on filing
43 of the affidavit the suspended licenses shall be reinstated immediately by
44 the appropriate agencies. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses
45 that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that
S.B. 1070
- 8 -
1 are held by the employer specific to the business location where the
2 unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license
3 specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed
4 work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in
5 general, the licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision
6 are all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary
7 place of business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any
8 other law, the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to
9 the court's order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the
10 attorney general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to
11 subsection G of this section.
12 (d) May order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses
13 described in subdivision (c) of this paragraph that are held by the employer
14 for not to exceed ten business days. The court shall base its decision to
15 suspend under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to it
16 during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider the
17 following factors, if relevant:
18 (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.
19 (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.
20 (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.
21 (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any
22 applicable requirements.
23 (v) The duration of the violation.
24 (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer
25 in the violation.
26 (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.
27 2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
28 subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently
29 revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business
30 location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does
31 not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized
32 alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's
33 business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to
34 permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the
35 employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and
36 notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately
37 revoke the licenses.
38 3. The violation shall be considered:
39 (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the
40 violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court
41 under this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's
42 business location.
43 (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the
44 violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under
S.B. 1070
- 9 -
1 this subsection or section 23-212.01, subsection F for that employer's
2 business location.
3 G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are
4 received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a
5 database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation
6 of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the
7 attorney general's website.
8 H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the
9 court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to
10 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination
11 creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court
12 may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may
13 request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial
14 verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
15 I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment
16 authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a
17 rebuttable presumption that an employer did not knowingly employ an
18 unauthorized alien.
19 J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that
20 it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code
21 section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not
22 knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to have
23 complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b),
24 notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural
25 failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply
26 with the requirements.
27 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS
28 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER
29 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL
30 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS
31 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:
32 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
33 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.
34 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE
35 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
36 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE
37 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO
38 COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
39 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS
40 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
41 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
42 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR
43 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT
44 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
45 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.
S.B. 1070
- 10 -
1 Sec. 7. Section 23-212.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
2 read:
3 23-212.01. Intentionally employing unauthorized aliens;
4 prohibition; false and frivolous complaints;
5 violation; classification; license suspension and
6 revocation; affirmative defense
7 A. An employer shall not intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.
8 If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other
9 independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this
10 state, the employer intentionally contracts with an unauthorized alien or
11 with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform
12 the labor, the employer violates this subsection.
13 B. The attorney general shall prescribe a complaint form for a person
14 to allege a violation of subsection A of this section. The complainant shall
15 not be required to list the complainant's social security number on the
16 complaint form or to have the complaint form notarized. On receipt of a
17 complaint on a prescribed complaint form that an employer allegedly
18 intentionally employs an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or county
19 attorney shall investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of
20 this section. If a complaint is received but is not submitted on a
21 prescribed complaint form, the attorney general or county attorney may
22 investigate whether the employer has violated subsection A of this section.
23 This subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the filing of anonymous
24 complaints that are not submitted on a prescribed complaint form. The
25 attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are
26 based solely on race, color or national origin. A complaint that is
27 submitted to a county attorney shall be submitted to the county attorney in
28 the county in which the alleged unauthorized alien is or was employed by the
29 employer. The county sheriff or any other local law enforcement agency may
30 assist in investigating a complaint. When investigating a complaint, the
31 attorney general or county attorney shall verify the work authorization of
32 the alleged unauthorized alien with the federal government pursuant to
33 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A state, county or local official
34 shall not attempt to independently make a final determination on whether an
35 alien is authorized to work in the United States. An alien's immigration
36 status or work authorization status shall be verified with the federal
37 government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c). A person who
38 knowingly files a false and frivolous complaint under this subsection is
39 guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
40 C. If, after an investigation, the attorney general or county attorney
41 determines that the complaint is not false and frivolous:
42 1. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the United
43 States immigration and customs enforcement of the unauthorized alien.
44 2. The attorney general or county attorney shall notify the local law
45 enforcement agency of the unauthorized alien.
S.B. 1070
- 11 -
1 3. The attorney general shall notify the appropriate county attorney
2 to bring an action pursuant to subsection D of this section if the complaint
3 was originally filed with the attorney general.
4 D. An action for a violation of subsection A of this section shall be
5 brought against the employer by the county attorney in the county where the
6 unauthorized alien employee is or was employed by the employer. The county
7 attorney shall not bring an action against any employer for any violation of
8 subsection A of this section that occurs before January 1, 2008. A second
9 violation of this section shall be based only on an unauthorized alien who is
10 or was employed by the employer after an action has been brought for a
11 violation of subsection A of this section or section 23-212, subsection A.
12 E. For any action in superior court under this section, the court
13 shall expedite the action, including assigning the hearing at the earliest
14 practicable date.
15 F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:
16 1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
17 subsection, the court shall:
18 (a) Order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized
19 aliens.
20 (b) Order the employer to be subject to a five year probationary
21 period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
22 During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in
23 the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new
24 employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the
25 unauthorized alien performed work.
26 (c) Order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses described
27 in subdivision (d) of this paragraph that are held by the employer for a
28 minimum of ten days. The court shall base its decision on the length of the
29 suspension under this subdivision on any evidence or information submitted to
30 it during the action for a violation of this subsection and shall consider
31 the following factors, if relevant:
32 (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer.
33 (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer.
34 (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation.
35 (iv) Whether the employer made good faith efforts to comply with any
36 applicable requirements.
37 (v) The duration of the violation.
38 (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employer
39 in the violation.
40 (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.
41 (d) Order the employer to file a signed sworn affidavit with the
42 county attorney. The affidavit shall state that the employer has terminated
43 the employment of all unauthorized aliens in this state and that the employer
44 will not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien in this
45 state. The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all
S.B. 1070
- 12 -
1 licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the
2 employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney
3 within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are
4 suspended under this subdivision for failing to file a signed sworn affidavit
5 shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with
6 the county attorney. For the purposes of this subdivision, the licenses that
7 are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all licenses that are
8 held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized
9 alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to
10 the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a
11 license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the
12 licenses that are subject to suspension under this subdivision are all
13 licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of
14 business. On receipt of the court's order and notwithstanding any other law,
15 the appropriate agencies shall suspend the licenses according to the court's
16 order. The court shall send a copy of the court's order to the attorney
17 general and the attorney general shall maintain the copy pursuant to
18 subsection G of this section.
19 2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this
20 subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently
21 revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business
22 location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does
23 not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized
24 alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's
25 business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to
26 permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the
27 employer's primary place of business. On receipt of the order and
28 notwithstanding any other law, the appropriate agencies shall immediately
29 revoke the licenses.
30 3. The violation shall be considered:
31 (a) A first violation by an employer at a business location if the
32 violation did not occur during a probationary period ordered by the court
33 under this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer's
34 business location.
35 (b) A second violation by an employer at a business location if the
36 violation occurred during a probationary period ordered by the court under
37 this subsection or section 23-212, subsection F for that employer's business
38 location.
39 G. The attorney general shall maintain copies of court orders that are
40 received pursuant to subsection F of this section and shall maintain a
41 database of the employers and business locations that have a first violation
42 of subsection A of this section and make the court orders available on the
43 attorney general's website.
44 H. On determining whether an employee is an unauthorized alien, the
45 court shall consider only the federal government's determination pursuant to
S.B. 1070
- 13 -
1 8 United States Code section 1373(c). The federal government's determination
2 creates a rebuttable presumption of the employee's lawful status. The court
3 may take judicial notice of the federal government's determination and may
4 request the federal government to provide automated or testimonial
5 verification pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
6 I. For the purposes of this section, proof of verifying the employment
7 authorization of an employee through the e-verify program creates a
8 rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally employ an
9 unauthorized alien.
10 J. For the purposes of this section, an employer that establishes that
11 it has complied in good faith with the requirements of 8 United States Code
12 section 1324a(b) establishes an affirmative defense that the employer did not
13 intentionally employ an unauthorized alien. An employer is considered to
14 have complied with the requirements of 8 United States Code section 1324a(b),
15 notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural
16 failure to meet the requirements, if there is a good faith attempt to comply
17 with the requirements.
18 K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS
19 SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED. TO CLAIM ENTRAPMENT, THE EMPLOYER
20 MUST ADMIT BY THE EMPLOYER'S TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE THE SUBSTANTIAL
21 ELEMENTS OF THE VIOLATION. AN EMPLOYER WHO ASSERTS AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE HAS
22 THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FOLLOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE:
23 1. THE IDEA OF COMMITTING THE VIOLATION STARTED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
24 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS RATHER THAN WITH THE EMPLOYER.
25 2. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE
26 EMPLOYER TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
27 3. THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE VIOLATION BEFORE THE
28 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS URGED AND INDUCED THE EMPLOYER TO
29 COMMIT THE VIOLATION.
30 L. AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ENTRAPMENT IF THE EMPLOYER WAS
31 PREDISPOSED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
32 OFFICERS OR THEIR AGENTS MERELY PROVIDED THE EMPLOYER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
33 COMMIT THE VIOLATION. IT IS NOT ENTRAPMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR
34 THEIR AGENTS MERELY TO USE A RUSE OR TO CONCEAL THEIR IDENTITY. THE CONDUCT
35 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
36 IF AN EMPLOYER HAS PROVEN ENTRAPMENT.
37 Sec. 8. Section 23-214, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
38 23-214. Verification of employment eligibility; e-verify
39 program; economic development incentives; list of
40 registered employers
41 A. After December 31, 2007, every employer, after hiring an employee,
42 shall verify the employment eligibility of the employee through the e-verify
43 program AND SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF THE VERIFICATION FOR THE DURATION OF THE
44 EMPLOYEE'S EMPLOYMENT OR AT LEAST THREE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS LONGER.
S.B. 1070
- 14 -
1 B. In addition to any other requirement for an employer to receive an
2 economic development incentive from a government entity, the employer shall
3 register with and participate in the e-verify program. Before receiving the
4 economic development incentive, the employer shall provide proof to the
5 government entity that the employer is registered with and is participating
6 in the e-verify program. If the government entity determines that the
7 employer is not complying with this subsection, the government entity shall
8 notify the employer by certified mail of the government entity's
9 determination of noncompliance and the employer's right to appeal the
10 determination. On a final determination of noncompliance, the employer shall
11 repay all monies received as an economic development incentive to the
12 government entity within thirty days of the final determination. For the
13 purposes of this subsection:
14 1. "Economic development incentive" means any grant, loan or
15 performance-based incentive from any government entity that is awarded after
16 September 30, 2008. Economic development incentive does not include any tax
17 provision under title 42 or 43.
18 2. "Government entity" means this state and any political subdivision
19 of this state that receives and uses tax revenues.
20 C. Every three months the attorney general shall request from the
21 United States department of homeland security a list of employers from this
22 state that are registered with the e-verify program. On receipt of the list
23 of employers, the attorney general shall make the list available on the
24 attorney general's website.
25 Sec. 9. Section 28-3511, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
26 28-3511. Removal and immobilization or impoundment of vehicle
27 A. A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization
28 or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is
29 driving the vehicle while any of the following applies:
30 1. The person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked for any
31 reason.
32 2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or
33 permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having
34 a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. This
35 paragraph does not apply to the operation of an implement of husbandry.
36 3. The person is subject to an ignition interlock device requirement
37 pursuant to chapter 4 of this title and the person is operating a vehicle
38 without a functioning certified ignition interlock device. This paragraph
39 does not apply to a person operating an employer's vehicle or the operation
40 of a vehicle due to a substantial emergency as defined in section 28-1464.
41 4. THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND IS
42 TRANSPORTING, MOVING, CONCEALING, HARBORING OR SHIELDING OR ATTEMPTING TO
43 TRANSPORT, MOVE, CONCEAL, HARBOR OR SHIELD AN ALIEN IN THIS STATE IN A
44 VEHICLE IF THE PERSON KNOWS OR RECKLESSLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ALIEN
45 HAS COME TO, HAS ENTERED OR REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW.
S.B. 1070
- 15 -
1 B. A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a
2 vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle
3 and if all of the following apply:
4 1. The person's driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked
5 for any reason or the person has not ever been issued a driver license or
6 permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having
7 a driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction.
8 2. The person is not in compliance with the financial responsibility
9 requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.
10 3. The person is driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident
11 that results in either property damage or injury to or death of another
12 person.
13 C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, while a peace
14 officer has control of the vehicle the peace officer shall cause the removal
15 and either immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle if the peace officer
16 has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of
17 section 4-244, paragraph 34 or section 28-1382 or 28-1383.
18 D. A peace officer shall not cause the removal and either the
19 immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to subsection C of this
20 section if all of the following apply:
21 1. The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently
22 registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the
23 financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.
24 2. The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the
25 arrest.
26 3. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse
27 of the driver:
28 (a) Has a valid driver license.
29 (b) Is not impaired by intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor
30 releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of
31 liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances.
32 (c) Does not have any spirituous liquor in the spouse's body if the
33 spouse is under twenty-one years of age.
34 4. The spouse notifies the peace officer that the spouse will drive
35 the vehicle from the place of arrest to the driver's home or other place of
36 safety.
37 5. The spouse drives the vehicle as prescribed by paragraph 4 of this
38 subsection.
39 E. Except as otherwise provided in this article, a vehicle that is
40 removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C
41 of this section shall be immobilized or impounded for thirty days. An
42 insurance company does not have a duty to pay any benefits for charges or
43 fees for immobilization or impoundment.
44 F. The owner of a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or
45 impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section, the spouse of the
S.B. 1070
- 16 -
1 owner and each person identified on the department's record with an interest
2 in the vehicle shall be provided with an opportunity for an immobilization or
3 poststorage hearing pursuant to section 28-3514.
4 Sec. 10. Title 41, chapter 12, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is
5 amended by adding section 41-1724, to read:
6 41-1724. Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement
7 mission fund
8 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND IS
9 ESTABLISHED CONSISTING OF MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 11-1051 AND
10 MONIES APPROPRIATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADMINISTER THE
11 FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND SHALL
12 BE USED FOR GANG AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND FOR COUNTY JAIL
13 REIMBURSEMENT COSTS RELATING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
14 Sec. 11. Severability, implementation and construction
15 A. If a provision of this act or its application to any person or
16 circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions
17 or applications of the act that can be given effect without the invalid
18 provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are
19 severable.
20 B. The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to
21 have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.
22 C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal
23 laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and
24 respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.
25 Sec. 12. Short title
26 This act may be cited as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe
27 Neighborhoods Act".

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

You might want to actually read the Arizona Law.

Where exactly? It requires people to prove they're innocent if they look brown, or be jailed until they can. This is not how things are done in a free society.

Then again, why am I surprised to see proto-fascists supporting these measures?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

You might want to actually read the Arizona Law.

Because TP'ers know better then Federal Judges? Or maybe the know better then the innocent Hispanics harassed the very day the law was put into effect to catch a few illegal immigrants? You guys response is always "Read (insert law)" that you probably haven't read yourself, or if you have read you fail to grasp the real world implications of the law.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

The Israeli's use that wall to "keep out" citizens of the two occupied (whom they pompously deem inferior to them) Palestinian nations.

My suggestion was noting that the wall worked, & you know it.

It keeps the overwhelming majority, almost all, of the bad guys out.

I don't give a rats ass what the Israeli's do or don't do with their wall. That's their problem & their issue---not this one.

Checkpoints: Got papers, no problem. No papers, but are legal---a small detention while investigating. If legal, once your status is verified, you're in.

Afraid it won't work against illegal immigrants, & or smugglers illegally traversing a walled border at will?

Or maybe that it will work is what you fear most!?

Originally posted by Redem:

Where exactly? It requires people to prove they're innocent if they look brown,

see?

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

(not my caps) It's already been shown that reasonable suspicion means looking brown when the agents from Arizona came here and harassed legal immigrants and non-immigrant hispanics including US Citizens. They caught some illegals, but the people harassed that were legally in this country dwarfed the number of illegals by large margin.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

......if you have read you fail to grasp the real world implications of the law.

That's a matter of personal opinion. Your personal opinion.