Obama Assails Arizona Immigration Law

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

Can't believe the POTUS doesn't get that we're all tired of it. If this isn't a clear message to him that I don't know what would be.

Oh, I don't know, public opposition to the health care bill, cap and trade, immigration reform, financial bail-outs, spending increases, tax increases, etc., etc. that he and the Dim leadership have chosen to ignore already?

TR

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Goggles Pizano

Police officers already have the right to detain in an effort to identify someone. To do so still requires resonable suspicion. Once identified if there is no probable cause for arrest for any crime then the officer is required to set that someone free immediately. This is not new.

Exactly, this is a great law IMO, and any professional LEO will know how to use it as tool, is there the possibility for abuse, sure as there is with nearly any law, the opposition to it IMHO comes from those bleeding hearts who do not understand the legalities of enforcing our laws to begin with and are simply offended by any discussion of enforcing our laws because they have their own race issues.

Here is an example of an easy way to enforce. Officer X goes to a 2 car accident, one of the 2 parties is Hispanic, speaks no English, his car is unregistered with no insurance, and he presents a Mexican drivers license, under this law it appears that it would allow the officer to make a custodial arrest of the person for being an illegal alien. And for those of you who are wondering this happens all the time. Now technically speaking in SC one could have arrested that person for driving w/o a license and insurance, however if an officer does that only to those he thinks are illegal he/she could be opening himself up to lawsuits saying he was racially profiling....in order to protect himself he would have to make custodial arrests of people of every demographic for the same offense, i.e. taking folks to jail for failing to have a license on them…. and for the most part that would be a waste of time as 9 out of 10 times you can determine if someone has a license or not without physically taking them to jail.

My only question with this law is are the legislators of Arizona going to pressure ICE to actually deport everyone they arrest under this new statute, my issue as I have stated before was that we could arrest them all day long, but they were allowed to bond out, and melt back into the population then what’s the point. If ICE doesn't take them after they're arrested then the law is a waste of time IMHO. I think there is a chance that BHO and his idiot appointees will refuse to actually follow through with deporting these people, especially when they happen to have a kid who is a citizen because they were born here.

To the Governor of Arizona....GOOD JOB thanks for stepping up, I hope other Governors will follow suit.

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by Ambush Master

SJ,
Please explain!?!?!

LOL, oops, fixed...

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

All the law does is allow officers to enforce laws that are already on the books.

Does the law allow or force officers to enforce existing laws?

A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

IMO, this provision is problematic because it allows any Tom, Dick, or Henrietta to second-guess the professional judgment of LEO agencies as well as the political decisions of specific communities. As a hypothetical example, what happens if a defendant in a criminal trial points out that LEOs did not check on the residency status of its informants and key witnesses?

FWIW, The Economist offers a critical take on the legislation in the newspaper's current edition. Source is here.

Arizona's immigration law

Hysterical nativism
Apr 22nd 2010 | LOS ANGELES
From The Economist print edition

A conservative border state is at risk of becoming a police state

RUSSELL PEARCE is the quintessential Arizona Republican. He wears stars-and-stripes shirts and has clips of John Wayne and Ronald Reagan on his website. He loves guns, his family, his Mormon faith, his country and the law, which he enforced for many years as deputy sheriff of Maricopa County. He jokes that being Republican, and thus not having a heart, saved his life when he got shot in the chest once. But his main passion is illegal immigrants, whom he calls “invaders”. He loathed them even before his son Sean, also a sheriff’s deputy, got shot by one. But now it is personal.

Mr Pearce, a state senator, has sponsored an Arizona law that, if enacted, would be the toughest in the country. It is so brazen it has caused outrage. This week it passed the last hurdles in the state legislature. As The Economist went to press, it was awaiting the signature of Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer.

Illegal immigration is a federal crime. Mr Pearce’s law, however, would also make it a state crime and would require the police, as opposed to federal agents, to make arrests and check the immigration status of individuals who look suspicious to them. Citizens who think their cops are not vigilant enough would be encouraged to sue their cities or counties, and no city or county may remain a “sanctuary” where this law is not enforced.

In Mr Pearce’s opinion his law merely “removes the handcuffs” from the police and sheriffs’ deputies so they can do their work. To a great many other people, however, it screams racial profiling. Arizona is an overwhelmingly white state, and virtually all illegal immigrants—perhaps about half a million in the state—are Hispanic. Whom else would cops suspect and arrest but the brown ones? Even American Latinos who happen to be out without their driving licence might be at risk.

“Illegal is not a race; it is a crime,” Mr Pearce likes to retort. And many Arizonans agree with him. Arizona has become the main crossing point for Mexicans, some of whom have brought Mexico’s drug violence with them. A few weeks ago a prominent white rancher near the border was killed, possibly by a smuggler or illegal immigrant. Republicans run Arizona and are now in a state of hysteria, competing with one another to deal most toughly with the threat. Even Arizona’s senior senator, John McCain, who once resisted demonising illegal immigrants but is now facing a challenge in the primaries for his seat, has come out in favour of Mr Pearce’s law.

Arizona’s Latinos, by contrast, have not mobilised politically. They make up 30% of the state’s population but only 12% of the electorate. And many are from families that have been American for generations, no longer speak Spanish and are ambivalent toward the new arrivals. They are thus very different from Latinos in Texas and California. During the 1990s attempts to turn back illegals at the border complied with voter initiatives against undocumented immigrants in California motivated Latinos there to become a political force which Republicans fear to cross. Arizona, however, may still be a generation behind.

Nonetheless, the Republicans are playing with fire. The entire country is now watching. Roger Mahony is archbishop of America’s largest, and very Hispanic, archdiocese, Los Angeles, and will soon be succeeded by a Latino. He calls Mr Pearce’s bill “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited and useless anti-immigrant law” and wonders whether Arizonans are “now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques”.

[DJ Urbanovsky]

The president talks about fairness? FAIRNESS!?!? For someone who's an alleged legal and constitutional specialist, he ought to know the important distinction between fairness and law. The law states that there are certain protocols that need to be followed if you're going to enter our country legally. That's the law. It's not about fairness, it's about the FUCKING LAW.

And honestly, the things we expect from immigrants seem reasonable to me. Learn the language. Learn the history. Learn the culture. Assimilate into our society and become a contributing member to it. That's not a lot to ask. You don't wish to do these things? Then get the fuck out.

When my great grandfather brought his family over from Sicily in 1921, they wanted to know who was meeting him here, did he have work waiting for him, was he sick or not, and did he have $20 in his pocket.

Jesus, I'm so god damned tired of this shit.

[Sigaba]

Learn the history. Learn the culture. Assimilate into our society and become a contributing member to it. That's not a lot to ask. You don't wish to do these things? Then get the fuck out.

Whose history should they learn? To whose standard--yours? Mine? Which culture should they learn? To whose model of assimilation should they conform?

Is it possible that the rampant disregard of America's laws reflects a knowledge of North American history rather than an ignorant disregard of the past?

Originally Posted by DJ Urbanovsky

When my great grandfather brought his family over from Sicily in 1921, they wanted to know who was meeting him here, did he have work waiting for him, was he sick or not, and did he have $20 in his pocket.

FWIW, in the first quarter of the twentieth century, Americans were saying of Southern Europeans what some of us are saying of Latin Americans today. Your fore-bearers' prospects for entering America would have been much dimmer had they left the old country but a few years later <<LINK>>.

¡Mark my words! The more the debate over immigration today becomes a debate over the history of immigration and immigration policy, the less likely we are to get the kinds of reform many rightly advocate.

[Richard]

SSDD - http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/his...tion_chron.cfm

And so it goes...

Richard

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Richard

SSDD - http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/his...tion_chron.cfm

And so it goes...

Richard

"................
1995 California voters enact Proposition 187, later declared unconstitutional, which prohibits providing of public educational, welfare, and health services to undocumented aliens.

1996 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act strengthens border enforcement and makes it more difficult to gain asylum. The law establishes income requirements for sponsors of legal immigrants.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, Congress makes citizenship a condition of eligibility for public benefits for most immigrants.

1997 Congress restores benefits for some elderly and indigent immigrants who had previously received them.

1998 The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act and the the Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and Other Technical Amendments Act restore additional public benefits to some immigrants.
The American Competitiveness and Work force Improvement Act increases the number of skilled temporary foreign workers U.S. employers are allowed to bring into the country............"

It is interesting to note that for the last 20 years it has been a back and forth over legals and illegals. Benefits vs no benefits.

I don't think most people have a problem with legal immigration. It's the illegal immigration that needs to be shut down.

[dfirsty]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Is this new rule saying Police can stop anyone they want without PC? They just have to think the person they are detaining is illegal? Then ask them for ID. Then run their names thru the data base?

Sir, like Defender958 said the law makes it so that when we have a lawful reason to contact someone we can ask immigration status and take action if appropriate. Unlike what the media is saying we are not able to stop based on someone being hispanic.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Does the law allow or force officers to enforce existing laws?IMO, this provision is problematic because it allows any Tom, Dick, or Henrietta to second-guess the professional judgment of LEO agencies as well as the political decisions of specific communities. As a hypothetical example, what happens if a defendant in a criminal trial points out that LEOs did not check on the residency status of its informants and key witnesses?

From what I've been told so far that section is in there to make sure departments cannot make policies that prohibit officers from being allowed to enforce this law. Further into the bill it indemnifies individual officers from lawsuits and puts it on the department.

Derek

[Richard]

And honestly, the things we expect from immigrants seem reasonable to me. Learn the language. Learn the history. Learn the culture. Assimilate into our society and become a contributing member to it. That's not a lot to ask. You don't wish to do these things? Then get the fuck out.

When my great grandfather brought his family over from Sicily in 1921, they wanted to know who was meeting him here, did he have work waiting for him, was he sick or not, and did he have $20 in his pocket.

Jesus, I'm so god damned tired of this shit.

Probably the same thoughts the inhabitants had when my ancestors came from Scotland and entered through Middle Plantation, Province of Maryland, in 1650.

Richard's $.02

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Does the law allow or force officers to enforce existing laws?IMO, this provision is problematic because it allows any Tom, Dick, or Henrietta to second-guess the professional judgment of LEO agencies as well as the political decisions of specific communities. As a hypothetical example, what happens if a defendant in a criminal trial points out that LEOs did not check on the residency status of its informants and key witnesses?

FWIW, The Economist offers a critical take on the legislation in the newspaper's current edition. Source is here.

Sigaba I think you're misunderstanding that section, I read it to mean that anyone can bring suit against an agency that restricts an LEO's ability to enforce the law, which gives anyone standing to sue. What I think they were trying to do is prevent liberal minded chiefs from making policies saying people couldn't arrest for the new law because the citizens could then sue them, and by the way those kinds of things do happen, though I've always seen it go the other way.

My dept made officers do custodial arrests for weed, when state law said that we could simply write a summons, basically like writing a traffic ticket, it's still an arrest, but without the hassle of taking a minor criminal to jail. IMO state law had it right, but our dept wanted to get a cut of the money so if we made the arrest we had to take them in, sometimes you did, other times you didn’t situation dependant

I also don’t see anything that takes away officer discretion as of yet, though I haven’t read the whole thing yet, I would be surprised if that were the case.

As for the article, it was clearly slanted and written by a "journalist" who either failed to do his research or is just ignorant of how the law is enforced. Let's say I am a racist cop, and I stop a citizen of Hispanic decent, they show me a license, I've got nothing to charge them with, if they fail to provide me a license or id, and I take them to jail, they still get to see a judge, where they can present an id and it all goes away. The worst case all people will have to make sure to have id on them, which I think they should have anyway. But people need to understand LEO’s aren’t going to go arresting any Hispanic they see, but it’s not hard to tell who’s legal and who’s not with about 3 questions. The first of which is may I see your ID, when they give you a Mexican, Peruvian, or any other non US license there’s a pretty good chance they’re not here legally, the next question is green card/visa please. Oh no visa/green card…Ding ding ding, hook em up….and book em Dano.

Also understand under current law in my AO if I can't determine a suspect’s identity I can take them to jail to definitively determine their identity, it's just something you don't have to do all that often because 9 times out of 10 you can determine a person’s identity without taking fingerprints.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by DJ Urbanovsky

. . . it's about the FUCKING LAW.
. . . Then get the fuck out.
. . . I'm so god damned tired of this shit.

Ease up.

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

W To whose model of assimilation should they conform?

Easy. The American model of assimilation. Come here legally, be prepared to learn English as best you can so you can communicate and get a job so you can support yourself and your family. Don't expect a handout or "press 1 for English" for starters.

My maternal grandmother and grandfather came from Sicily when they were kids...my paternal family arrived from Ireland and Germany. Not one of them expected to go on welfare when they arrived, nor did they expect to have free health care, or any other various handouts.

Good on AZ, may more states follow their lead. The feds are doing jack shit and this problem is out of hand.

[Don]

Originally Posted by DJ Urbanovsky

The president talks about fairness? FAIRNESS!?!? For someone who's an alleged legal and constitutional specialist, he ought to know the important distinction between fairness and law. The law states that there are certain protocols that need to be followed if you're going to enter our country legally. That's the law. It's not about fairness, it's about the FUCKING LAW.

Originally Posted by ArmyStrong

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...migration-law/
In an unusual White House attack on state legislation, President Barack Obama harshly criticized an Arizona measure to crack down on illegal immigration and made clear Friday that he is looking for an election-year fight over the volatile issue.

The first thing I can't believe I read is, "President Barack Obama harshly criticized an Arizona measure to crack down on illegal immigration." Wow. If it was a crack down on legal immigration...got it.

You know it has to be all about a new voter block. I think almost everyone but the hardcore leftist radicals believe the DEMs are in a whole heap of doo-doo come mid-term elections. How about appealing to a whole new group? ...and my, my, my, he's making it an election year issue.

BTW…"Stop and Frisk" (Terry v. Ohio) allowed for a Police officer to stop and question/frisk a person he felt, thru his/her experience, might be doing something illegal. Reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause.

[Richard]

And so it goes...

Richard