Arizona's anti-imigration law...

[Babagounj]

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. (SI Live) — The Consulate of Mexico last night “strongly condemned” the latest assault of a Mexican immigrant in Port Richmond and expressed “profound concern for the recent surge” in attacks on Mexican immigrants on Staten Island.
“We will act decisively in order to protect our citizens and will actively promote that those guilty of these vicious attacks are brought to justice expeditiously. We are working hand-in-hand with local authorities on all levels,” said the Consul General of Mexico in New York, Rubén Beltrán in a statement emailed to an Advance reporter.
“In response to the escalating violence against Mexicans in Port Richmond, Staten Island, the Consulate General of Mexico in New York is posting personnel that will remain in the borough until further notice. This, in order to safeguard their rights and effectively assist and provide information to the Mexican residents of this area,” Beltrán wrote.

 

[Babagounj]

Liberal Hero Michael Moore Says He’s Boycotting Arizona Over Immigration Law…

All-you-can-eat buffets hardest hit…

 

[tieguy]

(Fox News) — Arizona’s tourism industry has a target on its back, but the widespread boycotts over the state’s immigration law might not be hitting the mark.
Recent data compiled by a market research group show hotel bookings across the state — as well as in tourism hot spots Phoenix and Scottsdale — have been on the rise the past two months.
The numbers could dispel warnings from local officials that Arizona stands to lose a fortune and dampen the chances that cities and organizations will be able to compel the state to reverse its immigration law by choking its economy with a sanctions-style business boycott.
“Fundamentally, the boycotts have been unsuccessful,” said Barry Broome, president of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council.
The data from hotel industry research firm STR showed that for the state of Arizona, hotel occupancy was up 5.7 percent in May and up 8.3 percent in June compared with the same time a year ago.
In Phoenix, occupancy was up 10.6 percent in June; in Scottsdale, it was up 10.7 percent for the same period. Revenue also was up, with Arizona hotels raking in $148 million last month — up more than 11 percent from a year ago.
Broome said the state also has been able to attract new businesses to locate in Arizona despite bad publicity. He said his group plans to announce 2,000 to 3,000 new jobs thanks to investment from California, where Arizona boycotts are in place in several major cities, over the next few months.
“Business continues,” said Garrick Taylor, spokesman with the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
​

The tourism that Arizona is trying to avoid does not generally book into five star hotels. Instead of a boycott whats realistically happening may be that tourists feel its now safer to visit the state since crime issues are being addressed.

 

[tieguy]

LOL. It's clear it's just current Fear Based Propaganda.

fear based propaganda? I was wondering what that rancher died of.

 

[klein]

The tourism that Arizona is trying to avoid does not generally book into five star hotels. Instead of a boycott whats realistically happening may be that tourists feel its now safer to visit the state since crime issues are being addressed.

Or maybe it might also have something to do with the low tourist count on the Gulf Coast ?
They simply chose a different vacation distination, or did everyone just simply stay home ?

Those numbers don't really mean that much.
Watch out for a packed Florida this winter, or even a packed Mexico, or San Diego/Los Angelas.

I don't think many will trust the Gulfwaters to swim in for a while, esspecially if they have children.


Remember: Somebody's loss is somebody elses gain.

 

[KingofBrown]

No no, Lifer. What I wrote is in Bold letters. The rest is from that article, I placed the link, you should read it if you want to. Um, but I do agree that SB1070 is not the answer. And I don’t agree with you that you should do whatever it takes to continue to send a message to whoever. By the way, it’s not my President, it’s Our President; we live under a Democracy. You’re welcome to read that link and find out where the polls came from.

KOB


I think you miss the whole point.... Zonies want the border closed and locked up tight. Everything else is secondary. Your president doesn't want to close the border contrary to most of the population. We need to do what ever it takes to continue to send a message to the uber elitists in Washington. I am real proud that my state took a stand and took the hit for all of America to wake up to the growing problem of criminal trespass on American and Arizona soil.

I watched this take over first hand in California (I feel badly for the citizens in the southern counties) and I don't want to see it happen here in Arizona.

BTW - The law is not ill conceived and I don't know what polls you are looking at ...but the majority of citizens I know don't want to see amnesty given in AZ.

 

[KingofBrown]

Is that Propaganda for you? Oh yes, it might be, if you're saying that because of 12 or 20 million illegals that Rancher was killed.

fear based propaganda? I was wondering what that rancher died of.

 

[KingofBrown]

A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person

This is one of the most interesting; it's good Judge Bolton injunctioned this one.
A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

Not a bad start at all.

 

[KingofBrown]

If Judge Susan Bolton grants a Partial Injunction, what provisions might not make it? Anyone wanna' guess?

Could this one make it?

13-3883. Arrest by officer without warrant
A. A peace officer may, without a warrant, may arrest a person if he the officer has probable cause to believe The person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

No, this one didn’t make it.
If it didn't make it for July 29, I don't think it'll make it any further, but that’s just my opinion. And there are procedures that must be followed.

Would this one?

From STATUTE 11-1051.
Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.

Hey, this one didn’t make it either for tomorrow. Now, I see why the Texan kept ignoring the aspects I cited about the law.

 

[klein]

Well, it's all over, the Arizona Bill has been blocked and declared illegal.
It's up to the Feds to implement immigration (federal) laws.
Which will now probably never happen, since that takes 60% of the house to vote upon.
Can never get Reps and Dems to agree on anything.

Figures why the USA is falling further and futher behind in the world.


Wondering if tent-city is comming down today or tomorrow, too ?

 

[moreluck]

I don't know where you get your news.......the bill was NOT blocked....only portions of it. It was not a win for Obama and it was not a win for the gov. Per the judge, AZ. can't have any sanctuary cities (Phoenix & Chandler). I wish CA. had that law!!

It also means that "yes" it's the federal gov't's job to protect US at our borders. So now Obama better do his job and protect the Americans from the illegals and drug dealers with the ak47's. So, Mr. Prez. it's your move!!!

 

[klein]

We're getting yet another stricter immigrantion law come this fall, or by early next year.
Cracking down on those fake marriage immigration cases.

If a foreigner that comes here thru marriage, gets a divorce within 10 years.... that person will be subject to deportation.
Atleast it's under review, but I believe 2 or more of our 4 parties will agree upon it.

Easy to get things done here !

 

[KingofBrown]

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRang...ime-uses-sb-1070-ruling-as-fundraising-tactic

"In order to best continue the fight for our immigration law, we must step up and expand our efforts," says an email from "Gov. Brewer" that arrived in our inbox at 3:57 PM ET. "That's why I'm asking you to make a secure, online contribution to the Republican Governors Association right now by CLICKING HERE. The RGA is the only organization exclusively dedicated to electing governors like me who are not afraid to do what it takes to protect our citizens and make our borders safe."

LOL. Janice, Janice, Janice... Now, who's giving money?

 

[KingofBrown]

Meanwhile, Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the co-sponsors of the bill, called Bolton’s ruling “very disappointing,” saying that she “went to the meat of the law.”


U.S. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl issued a joint statement, saying, "We are deeply disappointed in the court's ruling today and disagree with the court's opinion that the Arizona’s law will unduly 'burden' the enforcement of federal immigration law.


Hannah August: "We believe the court ruled correctly when it prevented key provisions of SB1070 from taking effect. While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive.

 

[KingofBrown]

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0710/072810cdpm1.htm

Judge Bolton gave an injunction to the most controversial parts of the law, including the most racist. Most people in favor and against SB1070 consider it a victory from the Federal Government, since that’s what the Feds were looking for. They were looking for an injunction, which they got. The parts that were allowed were ruled under the knowledge of Judge Susan Bolton, and she didn’t consider that these parts preempted Federal Laws. So the injunction the Feds were looking for was achieved after all. And I’m glad some people in favor of SB1070 are happy with the new implementation, because the top guys are not much. Although some people do like the new law, that doesn’t mean that these passed statutes will definitely stay on the books.
The part I still see a bit flawed, which was passed, was the Citizen or Agency Suit Provision. But as Sexy Brewer said, “this is just the beginning of the battle.” Some other lawsuit might infringe that part. However, that provision is not as burdensome with the injunction of the key parts granted by Judge Susan Bolton.

 

[moreluck]

The cops can still ask about your legal status......they just aren't required to by law. So, Sheriff Joe will continue to do what he has done for years.

 

[klein]

The cops can still ask about your legal status......they just aren't required to by law. So, Sheriff Joe will continue to do what he has done for years.

But, they also don't need to show proof of immingration status. (No ID needed).
I believe in a free country, I shouldn't need to walk around with ID on myself at all times.

 

[over9five]

But, they also don't need to show proof of immingration status. (No ID needed).
I believe in a free country, I shouldn't need to walk around with ID on myself at all times.

Agreed. How 'bout drive around? Should a police officer be able to ask for ID then?

 

[KingofBrown]

And by not showing an ID won't make you suspicious of a Class 1 Misdemeanor, isn't that how we all are supposed to live?

A person in Arizona is just compeled to answer his full name in case of a lawful stop by the police. Nothing more, and nothing else.

 

[KingofBrown]

SB1070 didn't say you had to show an ID just when you're driving, but to any lawful stop. Driving laws are already settled, and in AZ it could be considered a Class 1 Misdemeanor if you're driving without a License. Now, if Judge Susan Bolton wouldn't have banned this ID part, with SB1070 it would be considered a Class 1 Misdemeanor if you don't show an ID for any lawful stop, not just when driving a car. And that's the problem with SB1070 about the ID stuff.

Agreed. How 'bout drive around? Should a police officer be able to ask for ID then?