Arizona 1070

[_moksha]

Only partially tangential question: Have any of you seen the movie, Born in East L.A.? In that movie, American born Cheeh Marin is arrested and deported to Mexico because he forgot his drivers license and was not up on the latest politics.

[_Markk]

If they are found guilty. People arrested are presumed innocent until proven guilty, which means they can remain silent, according to the constitution.

You didn’t address the question. Are you saying that while the government can ask me if I am a legal citizen when I apply for a State drivers license or other government privileges or alike, it is okay your them to ask me if I am a citizen but it is not Okay for a law enforcement officer to ask a person that is suspected of committing a crime if they are a US citizen?

You wrote: “ I had no problem questioning those who were arrested for crimes after due process,…”

Explain what you meant by this? It’s okay only if they are found guilty, but not if they are found innocent? Is that your opinion?

The same way it has always been enforced. Most people deported were caught working with illegal social security cards, and arrested on their job site.

CFR? I would like to see that study. Are you saying the federal government has a “team” that goes around hunting down people who use bogus SS cards and they go to the place of employment and arrest them due to this investigation? Again I would like to see that study? I heard on a radio station today, don’t know if it is true or not, that sheriff Joes county deports almost a ¼ of all illegal immigrants in the US, and I doubt it is by SS card investigations

Someone appearing out of the desert coming from across the country's border? Are you serious?

Very serious, it’s a simple question, does a border patrol agent, who’s job is it to protect our borders and keep people coming into our country illegally, to question people whether or not they are illegal or not. I used the desert as a example in that the federal government puts signs out for American citizens to stay out of certain border areas because of illegal drug and people trafficking and ‘coyote’ trails for the smuggling of? So does a agent have the right to ask those who they suspect are here illegally if they are citizens and ask for proof of? If you would like use the example of a boat off the coast of Florida full of suspected Cuban refugees? Or a bunch of white guys in a North Dakota forest next to the Canadian border drinking a Molsens…point being does the federal government have the right to ask a person whether or not they are illegal or not if they suspect the person is?

Hey, I'm not stupid enough to think police officers are anything more than human, void of human biases. In fact, I can show you dozens of youtube clips where police officers are shown to be some of the most rabid racists on the planet. Just last week here in Georgia a police officer arrived to the home of a black woman who called about an outside burglar, and they ended up tasing and beating the woman who called them! The video footage was shocking and the men were immediately fired.

But taken as a whole, the police force in Arizona is AGAINST this law, and they do NOT want to be burdened with the responsibility of being INS agents. And why would they? Rising immigration corresponds to lower crime rates, and every argument supporting the hysteria about illegals in Arizona turn out to be baseless, which leaves only racism as the explanation for their fury. I proved this in a previous thread where you refused to account for the mountain of evidence that worked against your arguments about how illegalls were a burden on the economy.

Ist, you didn’t prove anything of the kind, infact your math didn’t support your theory. Your math demanded that every illegal immigrant, man women and child, pays 10k a year in fed income taxes. And, you did not venture into testing your cf’s as I asked repeatedly to do…the offer still stands.

I personally have more faith in our law enforcement and believe the bad ones are in the far minority, but I guess that a choice. Whether or not the officers agree with this or not is irrelevant, you could use the same logic for many laws, but at any rate I would like to see the percentages for and against this by Arizona police with the reason why they are against it…CFR please, google it and couldn’t find a break down. I know a police officer who is very close to me and he feels that it is not a good idea in that the feds will not back them up and it is just a waste of time…so I understand your point, but it also goes much deeper as to “why” officer fell the way they do about illegal immigration.

Irrelevant. What child molestors do is also illegal, but I wouldn't support a law that allowed police officers to arrest people in the streets for pedophilia, simply because that person looks like he could be one, and that person doesn't have documentation proving he isn't a pedophile. What a dumb law that would be right? But you don't see it that way because you know you're immune from this law since nobody could dare mistake you for an illegal immigrant.

What part of the law says that Kevin…cfr…Lets be objective here? If the law states what you claim, then I am with you 100%, show me where the law says that.

[_Kevin Graham]

Explain what you meant by this? It’s okay only if they are found guilty, but not if they are found innocent? Is that your opinion?

What part of "If they are found guilty" is so difficult for you to understand? People can be questioned but no one has to give an answer thanks to the fifth amendment of the constitution. Do you know what "due process" even means? People have the right to remain silent, whether they ar legal or illegal.

CFR? I would like to see that study.

I know two people from INS and this is what they tell me. While most arrests are technically made on the border by border patrol, the majority of arrests within the border, of those who have already established themselves in society, are made during raids at various places of employment.

Are you saying the federal government has a “team” that goes around hunting down people who use bogus SS cards and they go to the place of employment and arrest them due to this investigation? Again I would like to see that study?

Yes, the INS does in fact raid the workplace where illegals are working. Is this really news to you? But the fact is INS scaled back its efforts by as much as 95% during the Bush administration, because he was a pro-corporation Reaganite, and he knew his corporate masters made more money by exploiting the desperate, and he didn't want them paying fines for breaking federal laws either. According to the Wshington Post,

Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics. In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three.

The irony is that the Obama administration has cracked down more on immigration. More people are deported under Obama already than those under Bush:

Record numbers of illegal immigrants have been deported since President Obama took office, and the number of audits of businesses that hire undocumented workers has quadrupled during the same period, The Washington Post reported.

The administration's plan to overhaul federal immigration laws has led to the deportation of about 400,000 people this fiscal year. [b]That's ten percent more deportations than the Bush administration's 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007, according to the Post.

Of course don't expect to hear any of this on Fox News! But the point here is that the INS is the organization responsible for cracking down on illegal immigration. If the right-wingers want someone to blame for the "government's" failure to do its job, then they should look no further than their Republican leaders who work for American corporations, who lobby on behalf of illegals.

I heard on a radio station today, don’t know if it is true or not, that sheriff Joes county deports almost a ¼ of all illegal immigrants in the US, and I doubt it is by SS card investigations

Sounds like Michael Savage BS. I don't consider meeting people at the border and turning them around, "deportations."

Very serious, it’s a simple question, does a border patrol agent, who’s job is it to protect our borders and keep people coming into our country illegally, to question people whether or not they are illegal or not.

If they are watching them cross the border, then obviously yes. But illegal immigrants already established in America don't tend to go hang out at the border. Obviously if theya re guarding a border, their job is to turn away anyone coming from the other side. But that isn't what the law is talking about. The controversial aspects of the law deal with how law enforcement discriminates between legal and illegal within American society.

I used the desert as a example in that the federal government puts signs out for American citizens to stay out of certain border areas because of illegal drug and people trafficking and ‘coyote’ trails for the smuggling of? So does a agent have the right to ask those who they suspect are here illegally if they are citizens and ask for proof of?

On the border, where they are patrolling? I highly doubt there is any "questioning" needed. It makes no sense.

point being does the federal government have the right to ask a person whether or not they are illegal or not if they suspect the person is?

Of course they have the "right" to ask whatever they want. But US citizens don't have to answer, so whether they have a right to question is irrelevant. This is why most arrests done by INS are during job raids. When someone is caught working illegally with a fake SS card, then this is a valid reason to take them into custody and charge them. But by simply "existing" on US soil, there is no due process of law that permits local law enforcement agencies to question the general public, simply because an officer says he suspects someone might be an illegal, a drug dealer, or a pedophile, or whatever. That's unconstitutional.

Ist, you didn’t prove anything of the kind, infact your math didn’t support your theory. Your math demanded that every illegal immigrant, man women and child, pays 10k a year in fed income taxes. And, you did not venture into testing your cf’s as I asked repeatedly to do…the offer still stands.

I presented the studies, and you questioned their math. It isn't "my" math. The fact is the only available math doesn't support your racist argument. You tried to reinvent the study with your own convoluted math that includes only federal taxes and nothing else - an argument that doesn't make a bit of economic sense because you don't understand economics. And yes, until you can support your argument with something that will hold water, racism is the only logical alternative.

I personally have more faith in our law enforcement and believe the bad ones are in the far minority, but I guess that a choice.

Well then you're an idiot if you are willing to give any human being the right to judge who is and who isn't a criminal, based on appearances alone. Saying you trust law enforcement as if this makes you some kind of super American, only proves again what an idiot you are because there is nothing about being a police officer that makes a person more honest, sincere, just, noble, discerning, etc. I have a few family members in law enforcement and like most officers in Arizona, they disagree with this proposed law. And most cops I know are complete jerks anyway.

Whether or not the officers agree with this or not is irrelevant

This coming straight from the mouth that just declared to the world with pride how much it TRUSTED law enforcement. You do understand that "law enforcement" is made up of individual police officers, right? So law enforcement is only trustworthy when it comes to enforcing yoru racist agenda, but when they actually disagree with the law itself, their opinion, no matter how trustworthy, is now "irrelevant."

you could use the same logic for many laws, but at any rate I would like to see the percentages for and against this by Arizona police with the reason why they are against it…CFR

Oh that's right, you only watch FOX News. So even though this has been common knwoeldge for months, you've kept yourself in the dark. The fact is the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association oppose the immigration law:

The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police (AACOP) remains in opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 1070. The provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner. http://www.leei.us/main/media/AACOP_STA ... L_1070.pdf

"It's very divisive," said John W. Harris, president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and police chief of Sahuarita, Arizona. "It puts Arizona law enforcement right in the middle. You have one side saying that we're going to do racial profiling. You have another side saying we're not doing enough... It makes it very difficult for us to police our communities." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-c ... d=10748847

"San Jose Police Chief Robert Davis, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, said the group stands by its 2006 policy that 'immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively effect and undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities.'" The Major Cities Chiefs Association says it "is the association of the Chiefs of the 56 largest municipal police departments in the United States. - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... tion_N.htm

But hey, what do they know, right?

What part of the law says that Kevin…cfr…Lets be objective here? If the law states what you claim, then I am with you 100%, show me where the law says that.

The problem is what the law doesn't say! The law does nothing to prohibit racial profiling. It states that a police officer only needs suspicion, but doesn't go into detail as to what constitutes valid/invalid suspicion. I can't believe you're still so ignorant about this law. DO yourself a favor and shut off Hannity and go read what the law actually says.

[_Markk]

What part of "If they are found guilty" is so difficult for you to understand? People can be questioned but no one has to give an answer thanks to the fifth amendment of the constitution. Do you know what "due process" even means? People have the right to remain silent, whether they ar legal or illegal.

They also have the same right to spill their guts? What does that have to do with an officer of the law asking the question Kevin. Generally speaking only guilty people have something to hide and are silent. You seem to be under the impression that the 4th and 5th amendments give a person the right, when suspected of a crime, to be silent about their personal identity and biographical identity…i.e. where they live…etc. Miranda does not always apply to identity and differs from state to state, police officers have the right to approach any citizen and have ‘consensual’ conversation at anytime, from then it “could” lead to detention or arrest and the rules change with each step. Biographical identity is necessary for due process, by your statement a person without ID who committed a crime would not have to identify themselves?
When a person is arrested do the police have the right to finger print and identify the person without consent?

I know two people from INS and this is what they tell me. While most arrests are technically made on the border by border patrol, the majority of arrests within the border, of those who have already established themselves in society, are made during raids at various places of employment.

What is it, the “majority” or “most”? You claimed that it is by bogus SS cards…cfr , knowing two people who work for the INS is hardly a cf. I would agree that raid on work places is a place where allot are deported, but hardly the way you explained it.

Yes, the INS does in fact raid the workplace where illegals are working

I never disagreed, you said…”The same way it has always been enforced. Most people deported were caught working with illegal social security cards, and arrested on their job site.”
Now you say that the majority are caught on the borders…which is it? And the SS card has nothing to do with this, unless you have a cf?

As far as presidents go as far as I am concerned it goes back to Reagan and maybe farther, they have all screwed this up…period.

You have no idea what I watch Kevin, I watch Anderson Cooper, Oreilly, Mathews, and I really like Sheppard Smith. I don’t really like Hannity and Oberman but I watch them both. I try to watch Beck and I kind of like him but he loses me, I appreciate his passion whether I agree with him or not.
[quote]
I presented the studies, and you questioned their math. It isn't "my" math. [/quote}

LoL I thought it was empirical evidence Kevin…good night,, but my offer stands when your ready to test both our views I’ll be ready.

[_Kevin Graham]

They also have the same right to spill their guts? What does that have to do with an officer of the law asking the question Kevin. Generally speaking only guilty people have something to hide and are silent.

For someone who professes to respect the constitution, you just crapped all over the fifth amendment. I guess that was just a plug for the guilty, huh? Everytime you say something you reinforce the perception of a discriminating racist. You're like my step-father who judges virtually everyone based on appearance, based on what they say and even what they don't say. No, remaining silent doesn't prove guilt!

You seem to be under the impression that the 4th and 5th amendments give a person the right, when suspected of a crime, to be silent about their personal identity and biographical identity…i.e. where they live…etc.

Everyone has the right to remain silent. A police officer cannot arrest someone for not answering a question. How would he know if that person is dumb, incapable of speech?

Miranda does not always apply to identity and differs from state to state, police officers have the right to approach any citizen and have ‘consensual’ conversation at anytime, from then it “could” lead to detention or arrest and the rules change with each step.

And any citizen has the right to refuse a conversation with a police officer.

Biographical identity is necessary for due process, by your statement a person without ID who committed a crime would not have to identify themselves?

Providing a name and place of residence doesn't say anything about whether a person is an illegal resident. But no one has to answer these questions during routine stop-conversations that occur prior to reasonable suspicion of a crime. "The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way.” - Florida v. Royer

When a person is arrested do the police have the right to finger print and identify the person without consent?

Of course, but they cannot be arrested without due process.

What is it, the “majority” or “most”? You claimed that it is by bogus SS cards…cfr , knowing two people who work for the INS is hardly a cf.

Well tough crap sherlock. I'm not here to play your neverending game of CFR while you answer zero questions and provide zero references as you did in the previous exchange. I know what I know and I know it from reliable sources. If you have an argument to the contrary then provide your sources... oh wait, you don't do that.

I would agree that raid on work places is a place where allot are deported, but hardly the way you explained it.

When INS arrests illegal aliens who have taken up residency and established themselves in American society, they have to have reasonable cause for arrest, and the most secure and reliable way of doing so is to catch them in the act of working illegally. This way they avoid all sorts of civil rights hurdles. In the case of expired VISAS, they initially avoid the expired VISA argument and go right after them on charges of working illegally using falsified identity. That is a federal crime and their case is rock solid. Raids have taken place at work places that have resulted in hundreds of arrests and deportations in swoops. It is much more efficient than sending out undercover officers to track down Juan and Pablo who for all they know, could be renting a room from craigslist on the other side of the country. Overstaying VISAS is the initial crime but people who overstay visas do so because they want to stay in the USA and make money. They make money by getting employed. And instead of the INS hunting down where they live - which is much more difficult and requires more resources - it is more efficient for them to simply find out where they work, and then show up at their job with an officer with handcuffs. The same is true for those who come illegally with no VISAS. The best way to identify illegals is to track them through employment records and look for mismatched SS numbers. Not only is this the most efficient way of finding an illegal alien, they can usually find multiple illegals working at the same place of employment.

never disagreed, you said…”The same way it has always been enforced. Most people deported were caught working with illegal social security cards, and arrested on their job site.”
Now you say that the majority are caught on the borders…which is it? And the SS card has nothing to do with this, unless you have a cf?

Why do I have to clarify everything two and three times for you? AGAIN, when I say deported, I refer to the official process of deportation as it applies to those who established themselves in society illegally. I'm not referring to the hundreds and thousands of people who are being turned away at the border. That isn't really being deported so much as it is being turned away.

LoL I thought it was empirical evidence Kevin…good night,, but my offer stands when your ready to test both our views I’ll be ready.

Again, you don't understand the economic dynamics which determine the economic input of illegal aliens. The university economists and sociologists involved in these studies understand it well enough, but people like you don't like to consider the data that adds to their input. You only want to focus on the stuff they "drain" and then use federal tax alone to compare it with. Only in this way can you create a fantasy world where illegals don't contribute as much as they use. Again, the economic argument has been shot down. The crime argument has been shot down. Hell, even the murdererd rancher, as it turns out, wasn't killed by illegal residents, but rather the Mexican drug cartel (which operates independent of illegal residents and thrives because of the demand that wealthier white Americans provide).

So what's left if not race?

[_Kevin Graham]

Arizona's law allows people to be questioned if they are lawfully stopped or questioned for any reason, whether it's a traffic stop, or a municipal violation like letting your grass grow too tall in a community that requires frequent mowing. And suspects only need be involved in a possible or potential violation, Hethmon said...The law states that a person can prove their immigration status by flashing valid identification, such as an Arizona driver license or identification card. It continues, "Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released."

"It is not that 'they can ask,'" said Jack Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona. "It is that they 'shall' make an investigation if practicable when there is reasonable suspicion. It is a requirement, not an authorization." - http://www.politifact.com/florida/state ... s-illegal/

While the new phrasing on racial profiling seems straightforward -- and while the new language will provide opponents of racial profiling a useful weapon in court -- legal experts we spoke to said that it's not "crystal clear and undeniable" that racial profiling will be impossible under the law.

Rather, the Arizona law, even in its revised version, sets up a clash of constitutional principles that could be fought over in the courts for years to come. Indeed, the law almost demands court involvement by expressly authorizing police to consider race “to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution" -- something that is far from nailed down. - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -worries-/


See also: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizon ... lease-law/

[_Kevin Graham]

According to Arizona's stop and identify statute:

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... ocType=ARS

So only after a person is detained for suspicion of commiting a crime, is he or she obligated to provide biographical data to the officer. This is what Markk can't get straight. He thinks police officer's have the right to just go around asking people their background information, before there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been commited.

[_MCB]

Consider this: g'ma comes to visit on a visa. She finds her single daughter working 12 hours a day to support her three children, and "Maria" cannot afford decent childcare. Abuela tells Maria that she can stay, give the children the childcare she needs. She overstays her visa by three years. By this time, the oldest child is an honor student in high school, and planning to attend the local state university with a major in pre-law. The juvenile justice system is grateful, because their already overstressed resources are not further stressed by another three out-of-control unsupervised kids. Do you advocate subjecting Abuela to months of jail and deportation for having done this?

The same is true for those who come illegally with no VISAS. The best way to identify illegals is to track them through employment records and look for mismatched SS numbers. Not only is this the most efficient way of finding an illegal alien, they can usually find multiple illegals working at the same place of employment.

Isn't this system much more just?

[_Kevin Graham]

This story sounds like thousands like it. A few months ago here in the Atlanta area a college student, a latina who came here illegally when she was just six years old, was pulled over for a traffic violation. She panicked and gave the officer a different name because she feared deportation. Well, she got busted for providing a wrong name and from what I understand, is scheduled to be deported to a country she knows nothing about.

Imagine being raised here since age six. This girl is more American than I am even though I was born here (I spent most of my childhood in Europe). I can't imagine living in the USA since age six, always knowing I could be deported to a third world country like Mexico at any moment. The girl doesn't even speak real Spanish any more and they are going to throw her to a country where she has no chance of achievment, no language skills, no family to rely on, etc. One might as well walk her off a planck at sea.

[_DarkHelmet]

This story sounds like thousands like it. A few months ago here in the Atlanta area a college student, a latina who came here illegally when she was just six years old, was pulled over for a traffic violation. She panicked and gave the officer a different name because she feared deportation. Well, she got busted for providing a wrong name and from what I understand, is scheduled to be deported to a country she knows nothing about.

Imagine being raised here since age six. This girl is more American than I am even though I was born here (I spent most of my childhood in Europe). I can't imagine living in the USA since age six, always knowing I could be deported to a third world country like Mexico at any moment. The girl doesn't even speak real Spanish any more and they are going to throw her to a country where she has no chance of achievment, no language skills, no family to rely on, etc. One might as well walk her off a planck at sea.

It's cases like this that makes this issue so sticky. There has to be a way to provide amnesty in cases like this.