Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Have you read the law? Here is a link to the Arizona legislature web site to read SB 1070:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Commentary from the Phoenix police union's "Phoenix Law Enforcement Association" web site:

SB 1070 Myth vs. Fact

"...Hypocrisy in a blender is the anthem of Arizona's critics with Mexican authorities moving to the head of the line. While publically condemning Arizona's new law, apparently Mexican leaders have overlooked their own tough Immigration Law - Article 67 which requires their law enforcement officers to determine the lawful presences of "foreigners" before engaging any matters...."

http://www.azplea.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's what? 14 pages in large text? I don't understand how you couldn't read through that in under 10 minutes, which is why I find these critics even more stupid.


... I don't disagree with what the bill is after, I just believe it will be found unconstitutional.

JMU DJ wrote: I don't disagree with what the bill is after, I just believe it will be found unconstitutional.

+1

danefan wrote:

JMU DJ wrote: I don't disagree with what the bill is after, I just believe it will be found unconstitutional.

+1

Wanna bet your tin hat, DF?

native wrote:

danefan wrote:
+1

Wanna bet your tin hat, DF?

I'll gladly buy you a beer if we ever meet, as long as its based on the final outcome in the SCOTUS. In the meantime I'll also wager the avatar of your choice for a month.

We'll know sooner rather than later.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... ate2-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A group of civil rights organizations led by the ACLU also alleges that the law interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the U.S. Constitution, according to a complaint filed today in federal court in Phoenix. The group claims in addition that the statute infringes the free-speech rights of day laborers in the state.

Especially when the Feds join the ACLU side of the argument.

Don't focus on the crap in the lawsuit (free speech, profiling, etc...). The Consitutional powers argument is the one that will bring the law down.

Looks like the folks in California haven't read their own law...The California Penal Code has language virtually identical to the requirements of Arizona's SB1070 Law.

Can they boycott themselves??

---

"Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status."

Bronco wrote:Looks like the folks in California haven't read their own law...The California Penal Code has language virtually identical to the requirements of Arizona's SB1070 Law.

Can they boycott themselves??

"Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status."

Holy shit, that's funny as HELL. So, not only have they not read OUR law, they haven't read their OWN law!!

This doesn't surprise me in the least. LA's been off-kilter for decades, if not longer. Now you see why us NorCalers can't stand LA.

Bronco wrote:Looks like the folks in California haven't read their own law...The California Penal Code has language virtually identical to the requirements of Arizona's SB1070 Law.

Can they boycott themselves??

---

"Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status."

A couple differences between the two laws (well at least SB1070 and the text of the CA law you have above), all of which are the sticking points for many on the AZ law:

1. In CA the suspect has to be arrested on something else before they are questioned about their immigration status. The Arizona bill has an incredibly vague "lawful contact" standard, which is not defined anywhere in AZ law.

2. The CA law specifically says that they should cooperate with the Feds. It doesn't allow the state to act unilateraly.

3. The CA law does not make it a state crime to violate a Federal law. The AZ bill does.

The CA law is nothing more than an administrative procedure to provide illegals to the Feds. The AZ bill is an attempt to make its own border enforcement laws, which are in the exclusive purview of the Feds. The bills are different.

Fox News this morning covered the Mexican President's address before a joint session of the Congress, where he supposedly blasted us for this law. There was a debate over whether or not there was justification for him to address our legislature. The CA law did not come up at all.

Our local papers covered the joint US-Mexico First Lady trip to a grade school in the DC area. Why, I don't know. Doesn't seem newsworthy to me. Nice thing to do, but not exactly newsworthy.

Why the heck would somebody in Louisiana with 1600+ work related e mails on an oil spill in my inbox take the time to read Arizona's law on handling illegal immigrants? All I need to know is that they have a right to do something. There are times when, as a practical matter, you're better off just going with summaries as they are reported and I haven't heard anything in the summaries of what the Arizona law requires that disturbs me.

I'm divided on this issue. I have a Mexican wife who got a speeding ticket (25 MPH on a 20 MPH school zone) driving my daughter to school. My daughter was running late and they were in a hurry. My wife was not carrying her green card with her and if she lived in Arizona this would have potentially caused major problems. This is what I believe is the biggest problem with the Arizona bill. It creates a situation in which any immigrant (legal or illegal) would have to be on top of their game all the time. Any legal immigrant living in or entering Arizona will always have to make sure they have their paperwork on them at all times, which is a pretty sorry way live IMO.

txstatebobcat wrote:I'm divided on this issue. I have a Mexican wife who got a speeding ticket (25 MPH on a 20 MPH school zone) driving my daughter to school. My daughter was running late and they were in a hurry. My wife was not carrying her green card with her and if she lived in Arizona this would have potentially caused major problems.

I don't believe that to be true. If your wife became a citizen tomorrow, she wouldn't carry any residence card at any time. The police can still establish her status through other channels.

89Hen wrote:

txstatebobcat wrote:I'm divided on this issue. I have a Mexican wife who got a speeding ticket (25 MPH on a 20 MPH school zone) driving my daughter to school. My daughter was running late and they were in a hurry. My wife was not carrying her green card with her and if she lived in Arizona this would have potentially caused major problems.

I don't believe that to be true. If your wife became a citizen tomorrow, she wouldn't carry any residence card at any time. The police can still establish her status through other channels.

She has three years before she is eligible for citizenship should she decide to go that route which I doubt will happen. Becoming a US citizen wasn't a condition for her accepting my marriage proposal.

I'm divided on this issue. I have a Mexican wife who got a speeding ticket (25 MPH on a 20 MPH school zone) driving my daughter to school. My daughter was running late and they were in a hurry. My wife was not carrying her green card with her and if she lived in Arizona this would have potentially caused major problems. This is what I believe is the biggest problem with the Arizona bill. It creates a situation in which any immigrant (legal or illegal) would have to be on top of their game all the time. Any legal immigrant living in or entering Arizona will always have to make sure they have their paperwork on them at all times, which is a pretty sorry way live IMO.

I'm guessing things would've worked out OK for your wife under the Arizona life even though there would've been some inconvenience.

Look, we have a serious problem with illegal immigration into this country. There is no perfect solution. But if we are going to address it at all we need to do things like Arizona is doing. We also need to admit that it's far more likely that somebody who looks Mexican and has difficutly speaking English is here illegally than somebody who looks anglo and speaks with a Georgia drawl or somebody who looks afro and speaks eubonics is. It's ridiculous that in this country we can't "profile" and use common sense.

txstatebobcat wrote:I'm divided on this issue. I have a Mexican wife who got a speeding ticket (25 MPH on a 20 MPH school zone) driving my daughter to school. My daughter was running late and they were in a hurry. My wife was not carrying her green card with her and if she lived in Arizona this would have potentially caused major problems. This is what I believe is the biggest problem with the Arizona bill. It creates a situation in which any immigrant (legal or illegal) would have to be on top of their game all the time. Any legal immigrant living in or entering Arizona will always have to make sure they have their paperwork on them at all times, which is a pretty sorry way live IMO.

Before we were married, my wife forgot her green card when we went to Mexico with her two kids. She had to wait at the border with the four year old while I came back with the two year old to find her papers, then return to the border with her papers. What a royal pain in the arse!!!

Big fvcking deal. It was her own fault.

It was not the government's fault.

It was not the fault of a draconian immigration law.

It was not because of a lack of "human rights" or "social justice" in America.

It was not the fault of hundreds of millions of LAW ABIDING U.S. citizens and businesses.

It wasn't because the dog ate the fvcking homework.

IT WAS HER OWN DAMM FAULT AND SHE TOOK FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT WITHOUT BLAMING SOMEONE ELSE.

Presidente Obama's support of a foreign sovereign and illegal aliens in lieu of support for his own people and the state of Arizona is inexcusably treasonous.

St.John- I agree with you on that things would more than likely have worked out alright with regards to my wife since she her English is great. However the problem with this law is that the police can interpret this law in any number of ways in essence it all just depends on what kind of mood the cop is at the time.

Native- Native I just hope you don't live in Arizona. If your wife forgot her papers on something as important as leaving the country then it would only be a matter of time where you would have to go running to the police station.


Personally I believe that if Arizona or any other state wishes to get rid of their illegal aliens then all they would have to do is institute a law regarding social security verification at places of employment. This, along with actual implementation of fines for businesses employing illegals (30,000 per illegal last I checked) would provide immediate results. Much faster and with less controversy than the Arizona law currently in place.

JohnStOnge wrote:We also need to admit that it's far more likely that somebody who looks Mexican and has difficutly speaking English is here illegally than somebody who looks anglo and speaks with a Georgia drawl or somebody who looks afro and speaks eubonics is. It's ridiculous that in this country we can't "profile" and use common sense.

Why don't we feel the same way about Middle Easterners at airports then??? When was the last time that someone that didn't look Middle Eastern tried to bring a plane down???

txstatebobcat wrote: Personally I believe that if Arizona or any other state wishes to get rid of their illegal aliens then all they would have to do is institute a law regarding social security verification at places of employment. This, along with actual implementation of fines for businesses employing illegals (30,000 per illegal last I checked) would provide immediate results. Much faster and with less controversy than the Arizona law currently in place.

That would require corporations and government to actually DO SOMETHING........sorry buddy, Joe American is gonna have to "opt out" (prove their citizenship).......AGAIN. You'll never see the REAL root of the problem (those that provide the jobs) having to lift a finger on this issue.

Corporate and government MOFOs.

txstatebobcat wrote:St.John- I agree with you on that things would more than likely have worked out alright with regards to my wife since she her English is great. However the problem with this law is that the police can interpret this law in any number of ways in essence it all just depends on what kind of mood the cop is at the time.

Native- Native I just hope you don't live in Arizona. If your wife forgot her papers on something as important as leaving the country then it would only be a matter of time where you would have to go running to the police station.

Personally I believe that if Arizona or any other state wishes to get rid of their illegal aliens then all they would have to do is institute a law regarding social security verification at places of employment. This, along with actual implementation of fines for businesses employing illegals (30,000 per illegal last I checked) would provide immediate results. Much faster and with less controversy than the Arizona law currently in place.

Bobcat, your recommendation to go after the businesses is spot on, but your "fears" for legal residents are way off target.

The controversy over the Arizona law is caused NOT by the law itself, but by the illegal immigration lobby of cheating businesses, cheating illegals and their families, hispanic organizations which support racist preferences for their illegal constituents and families, and the demokrat political class looking for even greater numbers of illegitimate votes.

A cop's mood is a factor in every law enforcement action. This is not a reason for failure to enforce the law. Innocent people are ultimately protected by the law and their innocence, NOT by a failure to enforce the law. This faux issue is just a smokescreen, as is your "fear" for your wife. If she is a legal resident she probably has a driver's license, which is easily verifiable by law enforcement. Even if she does not drive and does not hold a driver's license, her status as a legal resident is easily verifiable, IF she is a legal resident.

If I were required to run down to the police station it would be a very small price to pay in return for removing 12 million lawbreakers from the country, reducing crime, reducing identity theft, forcing lawbreaking employers to follow labor and immigration laws, generating more legitimate tax revenue, making more jobs available to law abiding citizens, and eliminating billions of dollars of drain on the economy.

LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AND LEGAL IMMIGRANTS HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR. The Arizona law merely mirrors federal law at the state level and forces sanctuary cities to stop actively evading federal immigration law. The only people who will be hurt by the Arizona law are the lawbreaking ILLEGAL ALIENS, their friends and families who aid and abet lawbreaking, and lawbreaking employers.

Go back and tell your precinct captain that the smokescreen demokrat talking points are not working.

Why don't we feel the same way about Middle Easterners at airports then???

We should. To act as though the ethnicity of a person has no bearing on the "likelihood" that the person in question represents a certain problem is ridiculous. That does not mean that a person is KNOWN to be a problem. But to create a situation in which you ignore ethnic associations in focusing your efforts is just downright stupid.

JohnStOnge wrote:
We should. To act as though the ethnicity of a person has no bearing on the "likelihood" that the person in question represents a certain problem is ridiculous. That does not mean that a person is KNOWN to be a problem. But to create a situation in which you ignore ethnic associations in focusing your efforts is just downright stupid.

Because it punishes all members of that race or ethnicity even if they are innocent. If all Middle Easterns, brown people, or people with a funny last name have are screened more thoroughly solely because of their race or ethnicity... it's discrimination. Plain and simple.

I thought you loved liberty, JSO? Doesn't discrimination infringe on liberty? "...immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority." Isn't racial profiling "arbitrary exercise of authority?" Why are you against taking liberty away from certain segments of the population?

And someone's race certainly doesn't meet the "probable cause" test of the 4th amendment... an amendment I'd expect libertarians to display particular strict constructionist principles for:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Being hispanic, middle eastern, brown skinned, or speaking with an accent isn't probably cause.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
We should. To act as though the ethnicity of a person has no bearing on the "likelihood" that the person in question represents a certain problem is ridiculous. That does not mean that a person is KNOWN to be a problem. But to create a situation in which you ignore ethnic associations in focusing your efforts is just downright stupid.

Because it punishes all members of that race or ethnicity even if they are innocent. If all Middle Easterns, brown people, or people with a funny last name have are screened more thoroughly solely because of their race or ethnicity... it's discrimination. Plain and simple.

I thought you loved liberty, JSO? Doesn't discrimination infringe on liberty? "...immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority." Isn't racial profiling "arbitrary exercise of authority?" Why are you against taking liberty away from certain segments of the population?

And someone's race certainly doesn't meet the "probable cause" test of the 4th amendment... an amendment I'd expect libertarians to display particular strict constructionist principles for:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Being hispanic, middle eastern, brown skinned, or speaking with an accent isn't probably cause.

As usual, your fears are both off target and unfounded. Just a smokescreen to deflect attention from Obama's gross incompetence and protect lawbreakers?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
We should. To act as though the ethnicity of a person has no bearing on the "likelihood" that the person in question represents a certain problem is ridiculous. That does not mean that a person is KNOWN to be a problem. But to create a situation in which you ignore ethnic associations in focusing your efforts is just downright stupid.

Because it punishes all members of that race or ethnicity even if they are innocent. If all Middle Easterns, brown people, or people with a funny last name have are screened more thoroughly solely because of their race or ethnicity... it's discrimination. Plain and simple.

I thought you loved liberty, JSO? Doesn't discrimination infringe on liberty? "...immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority." Isn't racial profiling "arbitrary exercise of authority?" Why are you against taking liberty away from certain segments of the population?

And someone's race certainly doesn't meet the "probable cause" test of the 4th amendment... an amendment I'd expect libertarians to display particular strict constructionist principles for:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Being hispanic, middle eastern, brown skinned, or speaking with an accent isn't probably cause.

Jelly is the type in random screening at an airport would screen the 80 some yr old great grandma with a walker over the 20-30 something middle eastern male...

BDKJMU wrote:
Jelly is the type in random screening at an airport would screen the 80 some yr old great grandma with a walker over the 20-30 something middle eastern male...

Is random a confusing concept?