Arizona's anti-imigration law...
- Thread starter Lue C Fur
- Start date
Babagounj
Strength through joy
The race hate group LaRaza has a 540 schorlaships available ONLY to ILLEGALS.
To qualify for a “Tan Klan scholarship” you must meet the following criteria;
(a) Must be a student, who does not qualify for federal and/or state financial aid,
(b) must not be a “green card” recipient, and
(c) must not be a visa holder, of any type.
In other words; to qualify one must be in the U.S. ILLEGALLY!!!
..............................................................................................
In 1998 the U.S. passed a law that no post-secondary education benefit could follow on to an ILLEGAL that was not also available to a U.S. Citizen.
That law reads as follows:
These same states do NOT offer in-state tuition to out-of-state AMERICAN CITIZEN residents.
To qualify for a “Tan Klan scholarship” you must meet the following criteria;
(a) Must be a student, who does not qualify for federal and/or state financial aid,
(b) must not be a “green card” recipient, and
(c) must not be a visa holder, of any type.
In other words; to qualify one must be in the U.S. ILLEGALLY!!!
..............................................................................................
In 1998 the U.S. passed a law that no post-secondary education benefit could follow on to an ILLEGAL that was not also available to a U.S. Citizen.
That law reads as follows:
8 U.S.C. § 1623 : US Code – Section 1623: Limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment of aliens not lawfully present on basis of residence for higher education benefits.
(a) In general — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.
(b) Effective date — This section shall apply to benefits provided on or after July 1, 1998.
Despite that black letter law 10 states (Texas, California, New York, Utah, Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Kansas) — have passed state laws providing in-state tuition benefits to ILLEGALS who have attended high school in the state for three or more years. (a) In general — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.
(b) Effective date — This section shall apply to benefits provided on or after July 1, 1998.
These same states do NOT offer in-state tuition to out-of-state AMERICAN CITIZEN residents.
P
pickup
Guest
Who? Me?, Officer Krupke?
Funny, I don't feel old, I feel pretty. Oh so pretty, that the city should give me its key. A committee should be formed in order to honor me. La la la lala laala la . Ha ha .
trplnkl
555
What I am getting at is, you keep posting what you see as potential problems with the law as originally written however irrelevant the problems were.
You were responding to something I wrote seven days ago, I'm not sure how that qualifies as "you keep posting...". Yes, I did post what I saw as potential problems with the original bill. I also posted that I felt the the follow on bill was the right thing to do as far as resolving those problems and that it was now a matter for the courts to decide. I'm still not sure what you're trying to tell me.
moreluck
golden ticket member
This is how serious the prez. takes this law....yep, that's our comedian-in-chief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFZ4dvZ-1mQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFZ4dvZ-1mQ
moreluck
golden ticket member
I must show ID when:
1. Pulled over by the police
2. Making purchases on my department store or other credit card.
3. When I show up for a doctor's appointment.
4. When filling out a credit card or loan application.
5. When applying for/renewing a driver's license or passport.
6. When applying for any kind of insurance.
7. When filling out college applications.
8. When donating blood.
9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.
10. When making some debit purchases, especially if I'm out of state.
11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.
I'm sure there are more instances but the point is, we citizens are required to prove who we are nearly every day.
Sooooooooooooooo......................Why should people illegally in this country be exempt?
For that matter, why shouldn't we guard our borders as closely as every other country in the world does?
GO ARIZONA!
1. Pulled over by the police
2. Making purchases on my department store or other credit card.
3. When I show up for a doctor's appointment.
4. When filling out a credit card or loan application.
5. When applying for/renewing a driver's license or passport.
6. When applying for any kind of insurance.
7. When filling out college applications.
8. When donating blood.
9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.
10. When making some debit purchases, especially if I'm out of state.
11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.
I'm sure there are more instances but the point is, we citizens are required to prove who we are nearly every day.
Sooooooooooooooo......................Why should people illegally in this country be exempt?
For that matter, why shouldn't we guard our borders as closely as every other country in the world does?
GO ARIZONA!
diesel96
Well-Known Member
The big
is AZ's elected leaders to her natives. Just follow the money/economic trail....or the lack there of ...
trplnkl
555
What conservative conceived list are you talking about??? The one that More posted? Do you know of ANYONE that has been asked for an ID without a reason? Have you even heard of anyone?
BTW, have you read the law yet?
trplnkl
555
The big
What the hell are you talking about? Are you posting drunk? High? How has Az said FU to her natives? Who do you do you think her natives are?
diesel96
Well-Known Member
diesel96
Well-Known Member
The law is far broader than that, and it forces local cops to enforce federal immigration law, contrary to the plenary power the federal government has over immigration via the U.S. Constitution.
This last line in Section 2 article 8 is particularly deceptive. If during any police investigation, a cop has "reasonable suspicion" to think you're in the country illegally, he or she can presume you're an undocumented alien unless you provide one of several forms of ID.
Indeed, SB 1070 plainly states:
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
and Tex...Don't play possum and say this E-mail list moreluck posted isn't spreading amongst Conservative websites.....
Natives as in State residents (not indians).....No, not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but obvisouly a regional linguistic barrier you suffer from to make that assumption. We call residents born and bred in my state for example as Florida Natives, not Seminoles...it's not to complicated.
Economically yes, remember MLK ? The state soon will be crying over it's severe losses from economic blowback and blame the liberal media and everyone else but their own elected leadership and the resident sheep that supported this legislation..
No kidding....mostly from the city of L. A. and I commend them......although I do feel sorry for the more sensible Progressive cities Of Phoenix and Tuscon who for the most part, denounce this legislation....
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).
Lue C Fur
Evil member
So much for LA boycotting AZ:
97.6% of the respondents to this L.A. Times poll were opposed to the boycott of Arizona. The poll question: "Was the L.A. City Council right to pass a boycott of Arizona?" Here are the results:
97.6% of the respondents to this L.A. Times poll were opposed to the boycott of Arizona. The poll question: "Was the L.A. City Council right to pass a boycott of Arizona?" Here are the results:
Yes. Arizona needs to feel the consequences of enacting a bad law. 2.1% (378 votes)
Yes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure. 0.4% (64 votes)
No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest. 4.2% (771 votes)
No. The city should mind its own business. 93.4% (17,030 votes)
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/05/boycott-arizona-immigration-poll.htmlYes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure. 0.4% (64 votes)
No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest. 4.2% (771 votes)
No. The city should mind its own business. 93.4% (17,030 votes)
Lue C Fur
Evil member
You would think that in the midst of the liberal media's fight to rip Arizona's Immigration Law, that the phrase ‘illegal immigrant' would be fairly easy to use in an appropriate manner. Yet that is seemingly only the case when the phrase is used to cast common-sense immigration enforcement as discriminatory. But when it comes to a story that could shed light on why enforcement is a necessity for the safety and security of a nation and its people, then the phrase - no matter how accurate - is quickly forgotten. One high profile case, the murder of Chandra Levy, highlights this fact. It has been quite some time (over a year) since Ingmar Guandique was charged with Levy's murder, and much longer since he was identified as being an illegal immigrant from El Salvador.
And while Guandique's illegal status isn't necessarily news to those having actually followed the case, you would think it was still an unproven fact based on media reports past and present.
As a recent update reveals, attorney's working on behalf of Guandique argued that he would not get a fair trial in Washington, though a judge has now determined that the trial will indeed stay in DC. Coinciding with this news, is the recent release of a book covering the case entitled, Finding Chandra. With these updates, one has to wonder how far the media has come in their willingness to report the truth. How far have they come since Michelle Malkin noted a perfect record of going 115 for 115 in reports failing to mention the suspect's illegal status back in 2002? As it turns out, not far at all...
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/realitycheck/2010/20100506042624.aspx
And while Guandique's illegal status isn't necessarily news to those having actually followed the case, you would think it was still an unproven fact based on media reports past and present.
As a recent update reveals, attorney's working on behalf of Guandique argued that he would not get a fair trial in Washington, though a judge has now determined that the trial will indeed stay in DC. Coinciding with this news, is the recent release of a book covering the case entitled, Finding Chandra. With these updates, one has to wonder how far the media has come in their willingness to report the truth. How far have they come since Michelle Malkin noted a perfect record of going 115 for 115 in reports failing to mention the suspect's illegal status back in 2002? As it turns out, not far at all...
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/realitycheck/2010/20100506042624.aspx
TechGrrl
Space Cadet
Illegal immigration is a matter of supply and demand. Remove the demand, and the supply dries up. Make it illegal to hire, knowingly or unknowingly, anyone who is not authorized to be in this country. Expand the government web site where an employer can check the status of the person applying for the job. Make that check mandatory. Create an audit trail of the queries against that database by tax ID for the business, and the social security number of the applicant.
For every employee found to be in violation of this, the employee gets deported, with every member of their family, regardless of citizenship status (i.e. kids born here of parents without proper authorization). -AND- the employer gets fined $10,000 for the first offense. Fine doubles for every subsequent offense. Hire five people without legal authorization to be here, and the fine for the fifth one is $160,000, and the total fine is $310,000 Even Tyson Chicken, Iowa Beef Packing, and the Bellagio should have trouble paying those fines.
No jobs, no attraction to come here. Except to visit our wonderful tourist opportunities, or go to school here. Oh, yeah, for someone with a valid student visa, I would award a green card upon graduation from any accredited college or university with a master's or Ph.D. Keep the smart ones here.
For every employee found to be in violation of this, the employee gets deported, with every member of their family, regardless of citizenship status (i.e. kids born here of parents without proper authorization). -AND- the employer gets fined $10,000 for the first offense. Fine doubles for every subsequent offense. Hire five people without legal authorization to be here, and the fine for the fifth one is $160,000, and the total fine is $310,000 Even Tyson Chicken, Iowa Beef Packing, and the Bellagio should have trouble paying those fines.
No jobs, no attraction to come here. Except to visit our wonderful tourist opportunities, or go to school here. Oh, yeah, for someone with a valid student visa, I would award a green card upon graduation from any accredited college or university with a master's or Ph.D. Keep the smart ones here.
