Arizona's anti-imigration law...

[KingofBrown]

According to Joanne Naughton, criminal justice professor at Mercy College, the new law gives no police guidance about how to determine who is in Arizona illegally and leaves it up to the officers as individuals to apply their own standards on the activity or appearance as evidence of being in Arizona illegally. A law like this would probably be "deemed void" because it is too vague and in violation of our constitution.

And, Cowboy, “Probable Cause” is a more complex term to deal with than “reasonable suspicion.” I have cited several parts of the law here several times, and you haven’t been able to reply to those posts. I wonder who the one that doesn’t understand the law is.

Just because you don't understand the law doesn't make it vague...LOL.
You keep harping on the word "solely" like it is in the final draft of the law, :hint: it isn't. The controversy is mainly from Mexican illegals and their co-harts because it will have an effect of requiring illegal aliens (criminals) go back to Mexico....where...they...belong. This law also will make illegal aliens go to their respective home lands as well.

I am a little bothered by the attachment with FAIR and that other group (can't recall the name at this moment). My support of this law is based on what the law says, not who said it. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

 

[KingofBrown]

But go ahead, Cowboy. I'm still waiting for those laws you were going to look up. And I'm also still waiting for that federal law that mirrors SB1070, in other words that is identical to SB1070.

Just because you don't understand the law doesn't make it vague...LOL.
You keep harping on the word "solely" like it is in the final draft of the law, :hint: it isn't. The controversy is mainly from Mexican illegals and their co-harts because it will have an effect of requiring illegal aliens (criminals) go back to Mexico....where...they...belong. This law also will make illegal aliens go to their respective home lands as well.

I am a little bothered by the attachment with FAIR and that other group (can't recall the name at this moment). My support of this law is based on what the law says, not who said it. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

 

[Babagounj]

deporting all the illegals will be very simple; once it is common knowledge that mass deportations are happening, many of the illegals will return home voluntarily( so that they will not be in any government files ). Case in point ... SB 1070 has already start a migration out of AZ, if not back south then at least to another state.

 

[bbsam]

deporting all the illegals will be very simple; once it is common knowledge that mass deportations are happening, many of the illegals will return home voluntarily( so that they will not be in any government files ). Case in point ... SB 1070 has already start a migration out of AZ, if not back south then at least to another state.

Those are people fleeing their dropping property values.

 

[av8torntn]

But go ahead, Cowboy. I'm still waiting for those laws you were going to look up. And I'm also still waiting for that federal law that mirrors SB1070, in other words that is identical to SB1070.

section 287(g)

Federal law that allows local law enforcement to perform immigration law enforcement.
Both laws allow local law enforcement to detain immigration offenders that are encountered during normal law enforcement duties. I did not read any of this thread so just hope thats what you are looking for. I think that even the most stubborn among us realize that by definition federal law and state law cannot be identical. One would be a state crime and the other would be a federal crime.

 

[moreluck]

Drones along the border....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/24/use-surveillance-drones-mexican-border/

 

[over9five]

Drones along the border....

Armed?

 

[Babagounj]

Those are people fleeing their dropping property values.

 

[Babagounj]

http://wbztv.com/local/Aijalon.Mahli.Gomes.2.1769722.html
N. Korea Threatens More Punishment For Boston Man


Aijalon Mahli Gomes, from Boston, was sentenced in April to eight years of hard labor and fined $700,000 for entering the country illegally and for an unspecified "hostile act."

that's the kind of law we should have.

 

[KingofBrown]

Nice try, AV8, but no, that’s not the same. It would not be necessary to sign SB1070, then. Here’s a video for you to watch, Mr. Sheriff Arpaio has been using section 287(g). 2:20, not in a very reasonable way, but… [video=youtube;ROuRmjDX88k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROuRmjDX88k&feature=player_embedded"[/video]!
If you have time, listen to all of his contradictory statements.
Then, why would Arizona pass SB1070, if Mr. Arpaio has already been able to use what you claim is the same as SB1070? Even the most irrational person would find that thought illogical. Lets keep looking. I don’t think I’m gonna’ find it, anyway. If you say it mirrors Federal Law, it means that it is identical to Federal Law. Why don’t you look for something at least similar to this in a Federal Law: Sec. 6. Section 13-3883. from HB2162. #5 in particular. Not even with HB2162, they have been able to mirror Federal Laws.

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was made law in the United States in 1995 as a result of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Section 287(g) authorizes the Federal Government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Under 287(g), ICE provides state and local law enforcement with the training and subsequent authorization to identify, process, and when appropriate, detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity.

In Section 287(g) I don’t see anything similar to SB1070 along HB2162. It says ICE may provide training to Police Officers for helping enforce immigration laws, but it doesn’t say what ICE enforces or how it enforces it. Look for something similar to SB1070 that ICE enforces. Neither, do I find something in a Federal Law that allows individuals to sue a police officer or an agency “that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of Federal Immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by Federal Law. It’s a myth to say SB1070 mirrors Federal Law. Just because 287(g) allows police officers trained by ICE to help enforce immigration laws, that doesn’t mean that 287(g) is the same as SB1070 because SB1070 allows police officers to arrest illegal immigrants. That’s nonsense.

By the way, may Section 287(g) include the “Posse” staff, too?

section 287(g)

Federal law that allows local law enforcement to perform immigration law enforcement.
Both laws allow local law enforcement to detain immigration offenders that are encountered during normal law enforcement duties. I did not read any of this thread so just hope thats what you are looking for. I think that even the most stubborn among us realize that by definition federal law and state law cannot be identical. One would be a state crime and the other would be a federal crime.

 

[av8torntn]

If you have time, listen to all of his contradictory statements

Didn't bother to listen to any of it as I do not really care what he says. I gave you my opinion. Both laws allow local law enforcement to check immigration status. Federal law requires immigrants to carry their "papers" with them. The state law does not so yes federal and state law are not exactly the same but to me that is a silly reason to oppose it. Federal law allows local cops to check immigration status as well as this state law. I think the state of Arizona should be allowed to pass laws and enforce them and you do not. We will find no middle ground here and since I do not live in Arizona I really do not care outside of a states rights position and I do not see any violation of Constitutional rights so in that sense I stand with the people of Arizona and believe they should keep the right to govern themselves. From my point of view it is a myth for you to say this law does not mirror existing federal law as federal law enforcement officers have the right to check your immigration status. There is not doubt that they do not reserve this right solely. I do not know where you live but if you live in Arizona your opinion on this law trumps mine in my view. It seems like you are saying that the federal government cannot check the immigration status of individuals and I have the opinion that they can. It seems like you have the opinion that certain local law enforcement agencies cannot refer people to the federal government to check their immigration status and I have the opinion that they can. Basically it seems like you are looking to argue about nothing and I'm not really interested. In my view this state law is very very close to state law and it seems the people of Arizona want it in large numbers so they should have the right to have it. Good luck with all that anger.

 

[KingofBrown]

Didn't bother to listen to any of it as I do not really care what he says. I gave you my opinion. Both laws allow local law enforcement to check immigration status. That doesn’t make SB1070 a mirror of current Federal Law. Federal law requires immigrants to carry their "papers" with them. The state law does not so yes federal and state law are not exactly the same but to me that is a silly reason to oppose it. Federal law allows local cops to check immigration status as well as this state law. I think the state of Arizona should be allowed to pass laws and enforce them and you do not. We will find no middle ground here and since I do not live in Arizona I really do not care outside of a states rights position and I do not see any violation of Constitutional rights so in that sense I stand with the people of Arizona and believe they should keep the right to govern themselves. In these aspects you are wrong. We are called the United States of America. From my point of view it is a myth for you to say this law does not mirror existing federal law as federal law enforcement officers have the right to check your immigration status. There is not doubt that they do not reserve this right solely. I do not know where you live but if you live in Arizona your opinion on this law trumps mine in my view. It seems like you are saying that the federal government cannot check the immigration status of individuals and I have the opinion that they can. It seems like you have the opinion that certain local law enforcement agencies cannot refer people to the federal government to check their immigration status and I have the opinion that they can. Where have I insinuated such a thing? Basically it seems like you are looking to argue about nothing and I'm not really interested. With no offense, but what it seems is that you’re arguing with yourself. In my view this state law is very very close to state law and it seems the people of Arizona want it in large numbers so they should have the right to have it. Just because a large number of people want a law, does that make it right to have it? No, dude, states have to follow our Constitutional Principles and Laws, and our Constitution respects the rights of every single people, including the minorities. It doesn’t matter if 99% in the polls are in favor of a law. Good luck with all that anger.

There are very few things that can make me angry; SB1070 is not in that list. So we agree that there’s no such Federal Law as SB1070? And who opposes it because it’s not the same as Federal Law? Instead, it’d silly to support it just because one thinks it mirrors Federal Law.

You’re not clear if SB1070 mirrors Federal Law or not. I just want to see something at least similar to Sec. 6. Section 13-3883. from HB2162. #5 in particular in a current Federal Law.

Good luck with all that anger.

 

[KingofBrown]

Are you sick? We’re not a Communist country; we have principles, very rich principles. Damn, now you want to adopt damn Communist ideas because of an immigration problem. You’ve gone too far. You’re sick.

http://wbztv.com/local/Aijalon.Mahli.Gomes.2.1769722.html
N. Korea Threatens More Punishment For Boston Man


Aijalon Mahli Gomes, from Boston, was sentenced in April to eight years of hard labor and fined $700,000 for entering the country illegally and for an unspecified "hostile act."

that's the kind of law we should have.

 

[Babagounj]

Are you sick? We’re not a Communist country; we have principles, very rich principles. Damn, now you want to adopt damn Communist ideas because of an immigration problem. You’ve gone too far. You’re sick.

let's compare these two countries;
N Korea is currently in an endless war, it's leader answers to no one and does as he wants.
The USA is currently no different.
So why can't we have a tough policy against foreign invaders ?

 

[Babagounj]

oh, no this can't be happening......................

.content-nav a{color:#2262CC;margin:0 3px;} L.A. NOW

Southern California -- this just in




2 Riverside County cities vote to support Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law

June 22, 2010 | 10:14 pm
The city councils of Hemet and Lake Elsinore, both in Riverside County, approved proclamations Tuesday in support of Arizona’s controversial anti-illegal immigration law.
The Yorba Linda City Council in Orange County approved a similar resolution earlier this month, countering actions taken by leaders in cities such as Los Angeles, who voted to boycott doing business with Arizona companies in protest of the law.
The law tells police officers to check the immigration status of people they have stopped for another reason and reasonably suspect are in the U.S. illegally.

 

[Babagounj]

http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-activist-compares-us-border-patrol-to-the-kkk/

Liberal Activist Compares US Border Patrol to the KKK


http://www.breitbart.tv/county-supervisor-doesnt-know-arizona-borders-mexico-but-supports-boycott/

County Supervisor Doesn’t Know Arizona Borders Mexico but Supports Boycott

 

[KingofBrown]

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!? That’s a deplorable comparison. Now, you’re making me sick. Your absurdity has gone too far.

let's compare these two countries;
N Korea is currently in an endless war, it's leader answers to no one and does as he wants.
The USA is currently no different.
So why can't we have a tough policy against foreign invaders ?

 

[klein]

I got a big laugh about it.. so should you KOB ! LOL

 

[av8torntn]

[Just because a large number of people want a law, does that make it right to have it? No, dude, states have to follow our Constitutional Principles and Laws, and our Constitution respects the rights of every single people, including the minorities. It doesn’t matter if 99% in the polls are in favor of a law

Basically I do not agree with anything you said so just because I did not take the time to reply to the other gibberish does not mean that I agree with you. Here I agree that the individual states cannot pass a law, or they can and it will just be struck down by the courts, if it violates the Constitution. I think the problem you will end up having is that nothing in the law will interfere with constitutional rights. I think the best shot your side will have will be that this is traditionally the Federal governments responsibility except that they have ceded some of this authority already to the states. I know you do not want to believe it but it is against Federal law to enter this country without permission and now you will be breaking a state law as well. Federal officials can check the status of anyone they reasonably believe is in this country illegally and now under this state law so can local law enforcement officials. This is what people mean when they say the state law mirrors federal law. No matter what you will chose to not believe this and honestly I do not care. No need to reply to me again I was just trying to help you out.

 

[Babagounj]

+1