I have no idea why you're bringing up the concept of less government. We're talking about immigration -- a potential national security issue -- not some welfare programme.
You are giving the government greater power over your person and your privacy. This is bigger government
And "illegal alien" isn't an ethic group, FYI.
It is a law that will disproportionately affect and even specifically targets Hispanics, even if they are here legally. You might recall some things called Jim Crow laws.
@ Blinking Spirit: I was talking merely within the scope of AZ citizens. Obviously there would be a different requirement for non-AZ citizens -- maybe an enhanced Drivers License.
Just on this alone, what are the constitutional issues on one state obstructing the free movement of US citizens residing in another state across its territory? Also would that not be a serious interstate commerce issue?
already require tax documentation filled out that is already illegal to process without verifying someone's status as a legal or work visa status person.
most of these workers are undocumented or work under the table. either that or if they can afford it they get fake SSN's.
Sure, we can screw everyone on their freedoms to worry about illegals
asking for a drivers license is not screwing anyone on their freedom's. more so they have to have probable cause to ask anyway.
IE you walking down the street is not probable cause.
a group of guys standing outside of home depot or lowes more than likely is probably cause.
a truck or van filled with people is more than likely probable cause.
your SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
Yes and most of them have fake social security numbers as well.
This is a law that specifically targets members of certain ethnic groups.
Not really because there are people that try to come over here from asia, china etc... this law doesn't pertain to one peticular group. it is none specific. it applies to anyone that does not belong here.
Not to mention that opens up the possibility of faking the ID's to obfuscate any detection of illegals in the first place
many of them get fake ID's. that is why states have tried to pass voter registration cards to ensure that these people are not voting in elections.
And frankly, who the hell writes a check besides at the bank these days anyhow?
the same could be said of going to the convience store without your wallet.
again most people have not paid attention to the probable cause aspect. even the Gov. herself said that she would not stand for racial profiling. there has to be probable cause. meaning that you are doing something for them to notice you.
walking down the street or going to the convience store is not probable cause. i don't know anyone that goes anywhere without their wallet anyway.
i always have my wallet on me no matter where i go.
This just isn't true. My friend was pulled over while I was in the car, but the officer didn't even talk to me
depends on why you were pulled over.
How dare they be impoverished and looking for work? Real scum of the earth, those people.
then maybe they should take steps in their own country to improve the working situation yes? We have laws that say you cannot enter this country without the proper paper work. they are willfully ignoring these laws. more so we have an uptick in the mexico criminal element that keeps coming across.
The problem is these people put more strain on the system and do not contribute in propping up that system. hospitals, schools, etc are under more strain because they have to support people that do not pay taxes and use far more resources than what they put in. also many of these people end up in jail for criminal activities. which only increases the burden on the system. spanish teachers have to be brought in because kids don't speak english. at home they speak spanish. it creates a world of difficulties for the schools.
as far as medical they run to the emergancy room. hospitals on the borders are closing because they are required to treat these people. they don't get compensated because they are illegal.
it isn't just a matter of them coming here for work
here is a list of how immigration to mexico. they enforce this with extreme accuracy as well.
here are some of my favorites.
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society
of economic and social benefit to society
Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents.
A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally
A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison.
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.
Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment.
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned
Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.
Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress."
then maybe they should take steps in their own country to improve the working situation yes?
There is a REASON they are coming here. Obviously that opportunity does not exist in their country. There is a tendency to represent these people as evil law breakers. All they want is a better life.
We have laws that say you cannot enter this country without the proper paper work. they are willfully ignoring these laws.
There is a REASON they are coming here. Obviously that opportunity does not exist in their country. There is a tendency to represent these people as evil law breakers. All they want is a better life.
then they can start by respecting our country and our laws. they can file for the needed paper work to come here legally. they are law breakers. some are evil some are not. in the end they still broke the law.
Can you blame them?
yes they broke the law. if i break the law i get a fine or go to jail. they broke the law. they came here without authorization. their reason doesn't matter.
just like my reason for breaking the law won't matter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I'm not really sure why ForceOfTheDragon's solution was trolling and iRebels was not...
Anyway, iRebel you just sound like you are really angry and are not thinking about the consequences. Mandating racial profiling is a bad thing. Because whether you like it or not, not all brown skinned people are undocumented workers.
Mandating racial profiling is a very bad thing -- this bill doesn't mandate racial profiling. Being Mexican isn't a "reasonable" basis to inquire about someone's immigration status. The Governor already outlined that racial profiling isn't going to be tolerated -- and it shouldn't be tolerated.
Are there going to be cops who abuse the new law? Absolutely. And I hope they'll be dealt with in such a fashion that prevents it from happening again.
@ Vaclav: Why couldn't you simply of said all this from the get go? You raise two points I hadn't stopped to think about.
First, having not worked in retail before, I've never been in a position to check ID, nor am I familiar with any training that's associated with it. So let me ask you this: When you're training a new employee, approximately how long much time do you need to properly train said employee? Specifically, how much training time do you devote to instructing them to check ID correctly?
The counterfeit ID point I didn't stop to think about it because I'd assume, in this day and age, faking IDs would be extremely technical and expensive -- making it more difficult for illegals to obtain them. But it's a fair point.
@ Zaphrasz:
It's going to "disproportionately affect" Mexicans because Mexican citizens are the ones disproportionately breaking Federal and State law. What is your point?
@ azmod:
If you drive across Arizona, you're going to need a drivers license. If you fly (side note, do you need ID to fly within the US? I have never flown within the country; only international) into Arizona and rent a car, you need a drivers license. If you fly in, get a cab and rent a hotel, you're going to need a credit card to pay for the room (and probably need ID).
Essentially, I am not envisioning a situation where someone would travel to Arizona with absolutely no form of identification, so I'm not seeing how free movement is restricted or interstate commerce is affected.
I don't have any hard numbers on this, but I'm targeted more often than a black guy driving a beat-up sedan with a broken tail-light and no license plate, and Cy's well aware of that.
Mandating racial profiling is a very bad thing -- this bill doesn't mandate racial profiling. Being Mexican isn't a "reasonable" basis to inquire about someone's immigration status. The Governor already outlined that racial profiling isn't going to be tolerated -- and it shouldn't be tolerated.
Are there going to be cops who abuse the new law? Absolutely. And I hope they'll be dealt with in such a fashion that prevents it from happening again.
It's going to "disproportionately affect" Mexicans because Mexican citizens are the ones disproportionately breaking Federal and State law. What is your point?
I didn't say Mexican citizens, I said American citizens of Hispanic heritage. Unless you are saying you have no problem subjugating certain American citizens, of course.
@iRebel:
If you're prepared to accept ID from other states, then what is the point of requiring the super-ID for every-day transactions in the first place? If you believe that it's too easy for an illegal immigrant to acquire a license, then they can just as easily acquire one from a different state.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When you really know somebody, you can't hate them...or maybe it's just that you can't really know them until you stop hating them."
If you drive across Arizona, you're going to need a drivers license. If you fly (side note, do you need ID to fly within the US? I have never flown within the country; only international) into Arizona and rent a car, you need a drivers license. If you fly in, get a cab and rent a hotel, you're going to need a credit card to pay for the room (and probably need ID).
Essentially, I am not envisioning a situation where someone would travel to Arizona with absolutely no form of identification, so I'm not seeing how free movement is restricted or interstate commerce is affected.
Do you have a specific situation in mind?
Bus trip with stop-over in Arizona comes to mind.
Plus a lot of people do not have driver's licenses for valid reasons and many people still do not use credit cards.
First, having not worked in retail before, I've never been in a position to check ID, nor am I familiar with any training that's associated with it. So let me ask you this: When you're training a new employee, approximately how long much time do you need to properly train said employee? Specifically, how much training time do you devote to instructing them to check ID correctly?
Depends on the position - for something like running a register for a grocery chain (like most of my career was) for my degree of training it was only "high-level" importance training that I got directly involved with as HR, but honestly every time there was a substantial law that effected us it was at least 1 hr per employee of training in a small environment. (And this was for relatively "non-complex" things like when the liquor sale laws in PA changed - used to be that "they looked at least 30" was OK for a vendor to be off the hook, while I was working with a location up there it was changed to 40)
The counterfeit ID point I didn't stop to think about it because I'd assume, in this day and age, faking IDs would be extremely technical and expensive -- making it more difficult for illegals to obtain them. But it's a fair point.
ID is very easy to spoof - especially since they're locality based - and even for the states that have one's that are difficult to spoof they're often plagued by exorbitant costs that the taxpayers end up footing most of. (Maryland has very nice security features on our state issued ID's for the recent couple of years, yet to be spoofed that I'm aware - but each one costs nearly $65 to put together partswise but taxpayers shot down every opportunity to increase the fee from the current $30 with one free replacement per renewal period - multiply that by the citizenship of the state and it adds up fast, not to mention the carry over time since they have to replace old ones - they're still not fully in circulation yet since our IDs run 10 years for adults, heck I don't have one [wife does though - but she's a non-driver which have a shorter lifespan allowed])
Quote from azmod »
Bus trip with stop-over in Arizona comes to mind.
Plus a lot of people do not have driver's licenses for valid reasons and many people still do not use credit cards.
The former includes my 37 year old wife, since she's never until recently found the need to drive - after her brother's wedding it's on our itinerary to get her working towards her license though, since the days of me driving are soon going to be gone with the rate my legs are going.
Since it doesn't matter that her state issued ID is out of date for most issues she hasn't updated hers since it went out of date in Dec '08 (last thing it did matter being in date for being Nov. 4th, 2008 - and she's got no interest in this election, so she won't be updating it for that reason) but for a matter like that it could be very harrowing and problematic for her.
The biggest thing with his proposition that bothers me is on the "catch them vs. catch innocents" scale of how it feels it really feels like it would catch and punish tons of innocents.
Sure, lots of people might not go around without their wallet often - but if you've got 2 singles in your pocket and your wallet sitting in your coin tray - it seems pretty simple when you're running into a 7-11 to grab a quick drink to cool off to forget it - and if you let one guy out to just "get his ID from his car" then anyone you'd catch could use the same excuse and they'd be too far away to be caught before response would arrive anyhow.
One innocent being punished, even briefly, in err is terrible. Especially when it does little to solve the core issue.
it seems pretty simple when you're running into a 7-11 to grab a quick drink to cool off to forget it
they are not going to stop you for running into 7-11 to get a drink. that is not probable cause.
probable cause is driving a truck with 2 or 3 guys in the back of it (which is illegal and a safety issue).
probable cause is hanging around the front of home depot and lowes looking for work.
Now the president and democrats are trying to push through an amensty bill in order to buy votes for the elections. it use to be you couldn't get into this country unless you had a trade of some kind. now we just let anyone regardless if they have the ability to support themselves.
we just don't have standards anymore and it is sad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
they are not going to stop you for running into 7-11 to get a drink. that is not probable cause.
probable cause is driving a truck with 2 or 3 guys in the back of it (which is illegal and a safety issue).
probable cause is hanging around the front of home depot and lowes looking for work.
Now the president and democrats are trying to push through an amensty bill in order to buy votes for the elections. it use to be you couldn't get into this country unless you had a trade of some kind. now we just let anyone regardless if they have the ability to support themselves.
we just don't have standards anymore and it is sad.
I was talking about iRebel's concept - not the AZ legislation that he claimed didn't go far enough.
I personally think the AZ concept is a bit overboard, but at least it's rational - iRebel's on the other hand I consider completely irrational.
I personally think the AZ concept is a bit overboard, but at least it's rational - iRebel's on the other hand I consider completely irrational.
I would not call it irrational since it is quite doable though maybe not feasible in the US. It is quite similar to how things run in the old Warsaw Pact countries. So maybe it is just un-American
they are not going to stop you for running into 7-11 to get a drink. that is not probable cause.
probable cause is driving a truck with 2 or 3 guys in the back of it (which is illegal and a safety issue).
probable cause is hanging around the front of home depot and lowes looking for work.
A) The standard of the law is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.
B) Neither of those constitute reasonable suspicion for immigration status. Those are just stereotypes. Riding in the bed of a pickup is illegal, and is a fine thing to stop someone for, but in what sense does it constitute reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien?
The standard of the law is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.
the standard in the AZ law is probably cause not reasonabl suspicion. meaning you have to give them a reason to look.
Neither of those constitute reasonable suspicion for immigration status. Those are just stereotypes. Riding in the bed of a pickup is illegal, and is a fine thing to stop someone for, but in what sense does it constitute reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien?
it has nothing to do with immigration at that point. why are you hanging out here? can i see some ID. they aren't stereotypes if it is actually happening which is does.
if a cop pulls you over they can ask to see your ID. it is expected that you have some form of identification on you. more so if you are operating a vehicle.
not only can the ask to see your id but everyone that is in the same car as you.
if it turns up that you are an illegal then to bad for you. you can be detained and then turned over to ICS.
Getting into this country is not a right it is a privledge. again you illegally go into mexico and not only do they fine you but can throw you in jail.
if you attempt to get into mexico again without permission after being kicked out you can serve a 10 year jail sentence. yet they scream and rant and rave when we crack down on them doing it.
i am sorry but we have laws and if you want to be a part of this country you need to respect those laws. coming here illegally is against the law. you should be deported back. you don't belong here.
we have a legal way of getting in. if that process needs to be refined then lets refine it. these people spend thousands of dollars to come here illegally. yet they can't take the time to do it properly which would cost them much less.
the problem is that most of the time these people do not bring any skills with them other than no skilled labour work. they use far more resources than what they contribute if any at all as most of the time they are paid under the table.
Lou dobbs even came out on this. i was surprised. it use to be you got paid 15 bucks an hour to work in a meat packaging plant. since most of them use illegals it has been cut down to 8 bucks an hour. these people depress wages in fields that shouldn't have wages depressed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
that wasn't the wording that the Gov. was using nor was it the wording that other people were using. the two are pretty much the same anyway and can be exchanged. the cop still has to have a reason to pull someone over.
that is what i was going by so i rest my case.
in any event at least one state is doing something to protect themselves from this. to bad our federal government can't uphold what they said they would do and that is protect this country.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
So, let me get this straight. I say that reasonable suspicion is the standard in the law. You object to that, and claim it's probable cause. Upon being shown the text of the law which definitively states reasonable suspicion, you claim that the two terms are interchangeable. If you thought that, why would you bother trying to correct me in the first place?
Further, reasonable suspicion and probable cause are precisely defined legal terms. They mean different things. They require a different standard. They are absolutely not the same thing.
The fact that you heard "other people" using the term probable cause does not make you right. It just means you get your facts from unreliable sources.
EDIT: And one more thing. The law demands that this check be made in any lawful contact. That doesn't have to be an instance where the person has done something wrong. That could be the person reporting a crime or requesting assistance.
yes the Gov. of the state and the other people that wrote the bill are unreliable sources.
again that is what the news articles were reporting that is what i went by get over it.
that doesn't make it unreliable just misreported.
The law demands that this check be made in any lawful contact.
you obviously didn't read what you posted.
A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.
most of the time when the police come out they want to see identification anyway. this is again nothing out of regular procedures that they normally do.
people are blowing this way out of proportion simply because a state has finally taken a measure to protect itself and it's citizens from illegals coming across the border. something that the federal government has failed to do.
there is a minor difference with reasonable suspicion coming right before probable cause. It is still strong enough that the police cannot simply walk up to you and ask for identification. they have to have reason enough or you have to be doing something that would require them to come up to you.
if you blow through a red light or are speeding or have some other kind of legal problem then more than likely you and everyone in the car is going to be asked for identification.
the difference is that with reasonable suspicion the officer cannot arrest you. he maybe able to detain you for a bit but that is about it.
no warrent no search of a car or property or anything else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To the people arguing on here that we need to make it "easier" for immigrants to legally move here...
Do you not realize that:
A. We accept more legal immigrants than virtually any other nation on earth.
And
B. We have a very lax policy on immigration as it is.
For the argument that "we need to secure our borders", please explain to me how you would do that? The only way to "secure the borders" is for our country to take a hardline and "brutal" stance when it comes to illegal immigration. What is the solution? Build a wall? If you show me a 30 foot wall, I'll show you a 35 foot fence. You don't just have some patrol on the border or build a fence. No, the border is too big and even then illegals can get in through Canada, by boat, by plane, by train, or any of a variety of other avenues.
Any real anti-illegal immigration stance must be comprehensive and have "plans of attack" on many fronts. The fact is that YOU MUST PUNISH (that means no more of our bogus slap on the wrists, including deportation. You want to know what an illegal who is deported does? They just come back here illegally again!) those who come here illegally as well as those who harbor, hire, and help them get here. That is if you are serious about reforming our ridiculous immigration policy, which more often than not appears to be turn the other cheek and wait for the illegals to die because their children and grandchildren are "legal" (I and many others dispute the legal status of the offspring of illegals).
So outside of a real hardline stance on this that looks a lot like fascism there is no solution. Any soft handed and soft hearted stance will only result in having another immigration "debate" in this country again in 20 or 30 years. The Reagan admin had a blowhard "immigration reform" that granted amnesty supposedly for the final time. And here we are again. Either A. Get realistic and hardcore about a real immigration policy or B. Give speeches and espouse views that offer non-realistic immigration "reform" that gets us right back to where we are today in 20 or 30 years.
if a cop pulls you over they can ask to see your ID. it is expected that you have some form of identification on you. more so if you are operating a vehicle.
It is expected, and usually provided, but it is not legally required. Prior to this law, you were required to provide your true full name if asked while being lawfully detained. It's a crime to give a false name, but the burden was on law enforcement to prove that it's false, rather than you to prove that it's not false. An obvious exception to this is if you're driving.
The law creates a double standard where anyone who might be mistaken for an illegal has to carry around documentation proving otherwise, while everyone else doesn't.
Originally posted by ForceOfThe Dragon
For the argument that "we need to secure our borders", please explain to me how you would do that? The only way to "secure the borders" is for our country to take a hardline and "brutal" stance when it comes to illegal immigration. What is the solution? Build a wall? If you show me a 30 foot wall, I'll show you a 35 foot fence. You don't just have some patrol on the border or build a fence. No, the border is too big and even then illegals can get in through Canada, by boat, by plane, by train, or any of a variety of other avenues.
Any real anti-illegal immigration stance must be comprehensive and have "plans of attack" on many fronts. The fact is that YOU MUST PUNISH (that means no more of our bogus slap on the wrists, including deportation. You want to know what an illegal who is deported does? They just come back here illegally again!) those who come here illegally as well as those who harbor, hire, and help them get here. That is if you are serious about reforming our ridiculous immigration policy, which more often than not appears to be turn the other cheek and wait for the illegals to die because their children and grandchildren are "legal" (I and many others dispute the legal status of the offspring of illegals).
So outside of a real hardline stance on this that looks a lot like fascism there is no solution. Any soft handed and soft hearted stance will only result in having another immigration "debate" in this country again in 20 or 30 years. The Reagan admin had a blowhard "immigration reform" that granted amnesty supposedly for the final time. And here we are again. Either A. Get realistic and hardcore about a real immigration policy or B. Give speeches and espouse views that offer non-realistic immigration "reform" that gets us right back to where we are today in 20 or 30 years.
You make it sound like illegal immigrants are the worst type of scum on the planet; such drastic actions are not only gratuitous, but extremely callous and unethical.
EDIT:
We accept more legal immigrants than virtually any other nation on earth.
Presicely why is that a bad thing? The U.S. is a great country, it makes sense that people living in third world countires would want to live here, why try to hinder them from doing so?
The U.S. is a great country, it makes sense that people living in third world countires would want to live here, why try to hinder them from doing so?
You miss my point that WE ALREADY LET MORE LEGAL IMMIGRANTS INTO THE COUNRY THAN VIRTUALLY ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH.
A lot of people don't like to look at the cold hard realities of life but we live in a world with LIMITED RESOURCES. Not everyone will get everything that everyone else gets. What happens if we just throw the doors open to every citizen of the third world? We will become a third world nation! And I would argue that there are parts of this nation that are very, very similar to third world nations. One of the reasons why I moved out of the city and to a rural part of Kansas.
I think the big problem with liberalism is that it looks at things from an idealistic perspective. It fails to look at things from a realistic perspective. And no, this is not an endorsement of the Bible thumping American "conservaties".
Perhaps all those people in the third world nations and Mexico (including the Mexican Government who are taking offense at Arizona's new law... Hey, maybe instead of worrying about Arizona the Mexican Government could actually work to make Mexico a better place?! Wow! Novel idea, yeah?) should work to improve their communities and nations?
EDIT: Is anyone else in this discussion even noticing that illegal immigrants are just that.... ILLEGAL?! If these people come here illegally and flaunt our nation's laws, do you think that they were law abiding citizens in Mexico or wherever else? Do you think that when they get here they will just decide to abide by our laws? I'd say America's crime rates and the percentage of crimes committed by ILLEGAL immigrants speaks volumes about that, yes?
Just on this alone, what are the constitutional issues on one state obstructing the free movement of US citizens residing in another state across its territory? Also would that not be a serious interstate commerce issue?
most of these workers are undocumented or work under the table. either that or if they can afford it they get fake SSN's.
asking for a drivers license is not screwing anyone on their freedom's. more so they have to have probable cause to ask anyway.
IE you walking down the street is not probable cause.
a group of guys standing outside of home depot or lowes more than likely is probably cause.
a truck or van filled with people is more than likely probable cause.
Yes and most of them have fake social security numbers as well.
Not really because there are people that try to come over here from asia, china etc... this law doesn't pertain to one peticular group. it is none specific. it applies to anyone that does not belong here.
many of them get fake ID's. that is why states have tried to pass voter registration cards to ensure that these people are not voting in elections.
the same could be said of going to the convience store without your wallet.
again most people have not paid attention to the probable cause aspect. even the Gov. herself said that she would not stand for racial profiling. there has to be probable cause. meaning that you are doing something for them to notice you.
walking down the street or going to the convience store is not probable cause. i don't know anyone that goes anywhere without their wallet anyway.
i always have my wallet on me no matter where i go.
depends on why you were pulled over.
then maybe they should take steps in their own country to improve the working situation yes? We have laws that say you cannot enter this country without the proper paper work. they are willfully ignoring these laws. more so we have an uptick in the mexico criminal element that keeps coming across.
The problem is these people put more strain on the system and do not contribute in propping up that system. hospitals, schools, etc are under more strain because they have to support people that do not pay taxes and use far more resources than what they put in. also many of these people end up in jail for criminal activities. which only increases the burden on the system. spanish teachers have to be brought in because kids don't speak english. at home they speak spanish. it creates a world of difficulties for the schools.
as far as medical they run to the emergancy room. hospitals on the borders are closing because they are required to treat these people. they don't get compensated because they are illegal.
it isn't just a matter of them coming here for work
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632
here is a list of how immigration to mexico. they enforce this with extreme accuracy as well.
here are some of my favorites.
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society
of economic and social benefit to society
Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents.
A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally
A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison.
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.
Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment.
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned
Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.
Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress."
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
There is a REASON they are coming here. Obviously that opportunity does not exist in their country. There is a tendency to represent these people as evil law breakers. All they want is a better life.
Can you blame them?
then they can start by respecting our country and our laws. they can file for the needed paper work to come here legally. they are law breakers. some are evil some are not. in the end they still broke the law.
yes they broke the law. if i break the law i get a fine or go to jail. they broke the law. they came here without authorization. their reason doesn't matter.
just like my reason for breaking the law won't matter.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Mandating racial profiling is a very bad thing -- this bill doesn't mandate racial profiling. Being Mexican isn't a "reasonable" basis to inquire about someone's immigration status. The Governor already outlined that racial profiling isn't going to be tolerated -- and it shouldn't be tolerated.
Are there going to be cops who abuse the new law? Absolutely. And I hope they'll be dealt with in such a fashion that prevents it from happening again.
@ Vaclav: Why couldn't you simply of said all this from the get go? You raise two points I hadn't stopped to think about.
First, having not worked in retail before, I've never been in a position to check ID, nor am I familiar with any training that's associated with it. So let me ask you this: When you're training a new employee, approximately how long much time do you need to properly train said employee? Specifically, how much training time do you devote to instructing them to check ID correctly?
The counterfeit ID point I didn't stop to think about it because I'd assume, in this day and age, faking IDs would be extremely technical and expensive -- making it more difficult for illegals to obtain them. But it's a fair point.
@ Zaphrasz:
It's going to "disproportionately affect" Mexicans because Mexican citizens are the ones disproportionately breaking Federal and State law. What is your point?
@ azmod:
If you drive across Arizona, you're going to need a drivers license. If you fly (side note, do you need ID to fly within the US? I have never flown within the country; only international) into Arizona and rent a car, you need a drivers license. If you fly in, get a cab and rent a hotel, you're going to need a credit card to pay for the room (and probably need ID).
Essentially, I am not envisioning a situation where someone would travel to Arizona with absolutely no form of identification, so I'm not seeing how free movement is restricted or interstate commerce is affected.
Do you have a specific situation in mind?
UUU Azami, Lady of Scrolls
RRR Diaochan, Artful Beauty
UR(U/R) Tibor, Lumia, & Melek (WIP)
Mafia Stats
What -is- a reasonable basis?
If you're prepared to accept ID from other states, then what is the point of requiring the super-ID for every-day transactions in the first place? If you believe that it's too easy for an illegal immigrant to acquire a license, then they can just as easily acquire one from a different state.
Bus trip with stop-over in Arizona comes to mind.
Plus a lot of people do not have driver's licenses for valid reasons and many people still do not use credit cards.
Depends on the position - for something like running a register for a grocery chain (like most of my career was) for my degree of training it was only "high-level" importance training that I got directly involved with as HR, but honestly every time there was a substantial law that effected us it was at least 1 hr per employee of training in a small environment. (And this was for relatively "non-complex" things like when the liquor sale laws in PA changed - used to be that "they looked at least 30" was OK for a vendor to be off the hook, while I was working with a location up there it was changed to 40)
ID is very easy to spoof - especially since they're locality based - and even for the states that have one's that are difficult to spoof they're often plagued by exorbitant costs that the taxpayers end up footing most of. (Maryland has very nice security features on our state issued ID's for the recent couple of years, yet to be spoofed that I'm aware - but each one costs nearly $65 to put together partswise but taxpayers shot down every opportunity to increase the fee from the current $30 with one free replacement per renewal period - multiply that by the citizenship of the state and it adds up fast, not to mention the carry over time since they have to replace old ones - they're still not fully in circulation yet since our IDs run 10 years for adults, heck I don't have one [wife does though - but she's a non-driver which have a shorter lifespan allowed])
The former includes my 37 year old wife, since she's never until recently found the need to drive - after her brother's wedding it's on our itinerary to get her working towards her license though, since the days of me driving are soon going to be gone with the rate my legs are going.
Since it doesn't matter that her state issued ID is out of date for most issues she hasn't updated hers since it went out of date in Dec '08 (last thing it did matter being in date for being Nov. 4th, 2008 - and she's got no interest in this election, so she won't be updating it for that reason) but for a matter like that it could be very harrowing and problematic for her.
The biggest thing with his proposition that bothers me is on the "catch them vs. catch innocents" scale of how it feels it really feels like it would catch and punish tons of innocents.
Sure, lots of people might not go around without their wallet often - but if you've got 2 singles in your pocket and your wallet sitting in your coin tray - it seems pretty simple when you're running into a 7-11 to grab a quick drink to cool off to forget it - and if you let one guy out to just "get his ID from his car" then anyone you'd catch could use the same excuse and they'd be too far away to be caught before response would arrive anyhow.
One innocent being punished, even briefly, in err is terrible. Especially when it does little to solve the core issue.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
they are not going to stop you for running into 7-11 to get a drink. that is not probable cause.
probable cause is driving a truck with 2 or 3 guys in the back of it (which is illegal and a safety issue).
probable cause is hanging around the front of home depot and lowes looking for work.
Now the president and democrats are trying to push through an amensty bill in order to buy votes for the elections. it use to be you couldn't get into this country unless you had a trade of some kind. now we just let anyone regardless if they have the ability to support themselves.
we just don't have standards anymore and it is sad.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I was talking about iRebel's concept - not the AZ legislation that he claimed didn't go far enough.
I personally think the AZ concept is a bit overboard, but at least it's rational - iRebel's on the other hand I consider completely irrational.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I would not call it irrational since it is quite doable though maybe not feasible in the US. It is quite similar to how things run in the old Warsaw Pact countries. So maybe it is just un-American
A) The standard of the law is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.
B) Neither of those constitute reasonable suspicion for immigration status. Those are just stereotypes. Riding in the bed of a pickup is illegal, and is a fine thing to stop someone for, but in what sense does it constitute reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien?
the standard in the AZ law is probably cause not reasonabl suspicion. meaning you have to give them a reason to look.
it has nothing to do with immigration at that point. why are you hanging out here? can i see some ID. they aren't stereotypes if it is actually happening which is does.
if a cop pulls you over they can ask to see your ID. it is expected that you have some form of identification on you. more so if you are operating a vehicle.
not only can the ask to see your id but everyone that is in the same car as you.
if it turns up that you are an illegal then to bad for you. you can be detained and then turned over to ICS.
Getting into this country is not a right it is a privledge. again you illegally go into mexico and not only do they fine you but can throw you in jail.
if you attempt to get into mexico again without permission after being kicked out you can serve a 10 year jail sentence. yet they scream and rant and rave when we crack down on them doing it.
i am sorry but we have laws and if you want to be a part of this country you need to respect those laws. coming here illegally is against the law. you should be deported back. you don't belong here.
we have a legal way of getting in. if that process needs to be refined then lets refine it. these people spend thousands of dollars to come here illegally. yet they can't take the time to do it properly which would cost them much less.
the problem is that most of the time these people do not bring any skills with them other than no skilled labour work. they use far more resources than what they contribute if any at all as most of the time they are paid under the table.
Lou dobbs even came out on this. i was surprised. it use to be you got paid 15 bucks an hour to work in a meat packaging plant. since most of them use illegals it has been cut down to 8 bucks an hour. these people depress wages in fields that shouldn't have wages depressed.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
that is what i was going by so i rest my case.
in any event at least one state is doing something to protect themselves from this. to bad our federal government can't uphold what they said they would do and that is protect this country.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Further, reasonable suspicion and probable cause are precisely defined legal terms. They mean different things. They require a different standard. They are absolutely not the same thing.
The fact that you heard "other people" using the term probable cause does not make you right. It just means you get your facts from unreliable sources.
EDIT: And one more thing. The law demands that this check be made in any lawful contact. That doesn't have to be an instance where the person has done something wrong. That could be the person reporting a crime or requesting assistance.
yes the Gov. of the state and the other people that wrote the bill are unreliable sources.
again that is what the news articles were reporting that is what i went by get over it.
that doesn't make it unreliable just misreported.
you obviously didn't read what you posted.
A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.
most of the time when the police come out they want to see identification anyway. this is again nothing out of regular procedures that they normally do.
people are blowing this way out of proportion simply because a state has finally taken a measure to protect itself and it's citizens from illegals coming across the border. something that the federal government has failed to do.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5003941_probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion.html
there is a minor difference with reasonable suspicion coming right before probable cause. It is still strong enough that the police cannot simply walk up to you and ask for identification. they have to have reason enough or you have to be doing something that would require them to come up to you.
if you blow through a red light or are speeding or have some other kind of legal problem then more than likely you and everyone in the car is going to be asked for identification.
the difference is that with reasonable suspicion the officer cannot arrest you. he maybe able to detain you for a bit but that is about it.
no warrent no search of a car or property or anything else.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Fantastic.
Do you not realize that:
A. We accept more legal immigrants than virtually any other nation on earth.
And
B. We have a very lax policy on immigration as it is.
For the argument that "we need to secure our borders", please explain to me how you would do that? The only way to "secure the borders" is for our country to take a hardline and "brutal" stance when it comes to illegal immigration. What is the solution? Build a wall? If you show me a 30 foot wall, I'll show you a 35 foot fence. You don't just have some patrol on the border or build a fence. No, the border is too big and even then illegals can get in through Canada, by boat, by plane, by train, or any of a variety of other avenues.
Any real anti-illegal immigration stance must be comprehensive and have "plans of attack" on many fronts. The fact is that YOU MUST PUNISH (that means no more of our bogus slap on the wrists, including deportation. You want to know what an illegal who is deported does? They just come back here illegally again!) those who come here illegally as well as those who harbor, hire, and help them get here. That is if you are serious about reforming our ridiculous immigration policy, which more often than not appears to be turn the other cheek and wait for the illegals to die because their children and grandchildren are "legal" (I and many others dispute the legal status of the offspring of illegals).
So outside of a real hardline stance on this that looks a lot like fascism there is no solution. Any soft handed and soft hearted stance will only result in having another immigration "debate" in this country again in 20 or 30 years. The Reagan admin had a blowhard "immigration reform" that granted amnesty supposedly for the final time. And here we are again. Either A. Get realistic and hardcore about a real immigration policy or B. Give speeches and espouse views that offer non-realistic immigration "reform" that gets us right back to where we are today in 20 or 30 years.
Current decks:
Legacy: Zoo, Aggro Elves, The Gate, White Weenie, Red Deck Wins, and Merfolk. Currently building Solidarity.
Casual: Warp World Revolution and Old School Red-Green.
Standard: Ob-Nixilis Wave and Elves.
It is expected, and usually provided, but it is not legally required. Prior to this law, you were required to provide your true full name if asked while being lawfully detained. It's a crime to give a false name, but the burden was on law enforcement to prove that it's false, rather than you to prove that it's not false. An obvious exception to this is if you're driving.
The law creates a double standard where anyone who might be mistaken for an illegal has to carry around documentation proving otherwise, while everyone else doesn't.
You make it sound like illegal immigrants are the worst type of scum on the planet; such drastic actions are not only gratuitous, but extremely callous and unethical.
EDIT:
Presicely why is that a bad thing? The U.S. is a great country, it makes sense that people living in third world countires would want to live here, why try to hinder them from doing so?
Yes, that is basically my view.
You miss my point that WE ALREADY LET MORE LEGAL IMMIGRANTS INTO THE COUNRY THAN VIRTUALLY ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH.
A lot of people don't like to look at the cold hard realities of life but we live in a world with LIMITED RESOURCES. Not everyone will get everything that everyone else gets. What happens if we just throw the doors open to every citizen of the third world? We will become a third world nation! And I would argue that there are parts of this nation that are very, very similar to third world nations. One of the reasons why I moved out of the city and to a rural part of Kansas.
I think the big problem with liberalism is that it looks at things from an idealistic perspective. It fails to look at things from a realistic perspective. And no, this is not an endorsement of the Bible thumping American "conservaties".
Perhaps all those people in the third world nations and Mexico (including the Mexican Government who are taking offense at Arizona's new law... Hey, maybe instead of worrying about Arizona the Mexican Government could actually work to make Mexico a better place?! Wow! Novel idea, yeah?) should work to improve their communities and nations?
EDIT: Is anyone else in this discussion even noticing that illegal immigrants are just that.... ILLEGAL?! If these people come here illegally and flaunt our nation's laws, do you think that they were law abiding citizens in Mexico or wherever else? Do you think that when they get here they will just decide to abide by our laws? I'd say America's crime rates and the percentage of crimes committed by ILLEGAL immigrants speaks volumes about that, yes?
Current decks:
Legacy: Zoo, Aggro Elves, The Gate, White Weenie, Red Deck Wins, and Merfolk. Currently building Solidarity.
Casual: Warp World Revolution and Old School Red-Green.
Standard: Ob-Nixilis Wave and Elves.