By Marco Rubio is the current front runner for the Republican nomination.
While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.-Tampabay.com blog
I can cite specific instances.
A truck driver, born in the United States, detained for four hours last weekend. In Arizona BTW, but ICE was the one acting.
He was very lucky. Click here to read about the U.S. citizen detained by ICE for 13 months.
Another case of a United States citizen held for the best part of a year.
All of which directly contradicts what Gary Mead, Deputy Director of the Office of Detention and Removal Operations told a House subcommittee. He said at no time did ICE knowingly or willfully place a U.S. Citizen in detention.
How about actual United States citizens who been deported.
In each case simple checks weren’t done that would have prevented these travesties. ICE deported Lyttle to Mexico, he isn’t even hispanic!
From Lyttle’s story-
According to the Observer, documents from the Department of Homeland Security show that before the deportation, immigration officials had Lyttle’s Social Security number, the names of his parents and information on him from criminal records checks. And they knew that he was bipolar and had a learning disability.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is shown to be grossly incompetent time and time again. Don’t even get me started on Citizenship and Immigration Services aka CIS. I can cite more horror stories, the above is only the start. GI in his recent post cited the hassles he’s had with his wife.
You will say this is Arizona who will doing the arrests and immigration checks but who do they rely on for the information to determine citizenship and who trains them? See above.
An arrest of a innocent person isn’t justified even for a few hours and the damage that can be done to that person and their family if they’re detained for months like in cases I cited above, can devastate a family. My wife is a immigrant, at present the salary earner in the family, who also provides health insurance to me her husband who has several serious medical problems. A person in my situation would be out on the street in a couple of months while ICE is still trying to discover whether a family member is a citizen or not.
Are you fine with people being arrested for not carrying their birth certificate on them? Those of you who distrust government, how then do you trust ICE to do their jobs properly?
Bueller? Bueller?
Hat tip- Poliblog
4:49 am on April 27th, 2010 1
Arizona is right. It is authorized to enforce immigration. The issue is not about Naturalization. It is about protecting society from non-citizens. Nowhere, as far as I can tell, did the states ever consent to being told when they must allow non-citizens in their territorial jurisdictions.
7:41 am on April 27th, 2010 2
I don't believe ICE gets involved unless there is a felony of some sort.
There must have been some reason the guy locked up for 13 months was arrested by ICE – this part seems to be left out of the story.
7:59 am on April 27th, 2010 3
So, for example, despite NAFTA that allows Mexicans to work in the United States, Arizona can pass a law prohibiting non-citizens from getting a job in Arizona?
8:11 am on April 27th, 2010 4
"Are you fine with people being arrested for not carrying their birth certificate on them? Those of you who distrust government, how then do you trust ICE to do their jobs properly?"
This is the point I probably made inadequately on the other topic.
Not everyone carries a military ID card that would have satisfied the traffic stop or border patrol as in the case described by GI Korea.
The fact is we have no national identity card that every American citizen would be expected to be carrying. AND, even producing a generic birth certificate as Bill says, may not be good enough if you follow birther contentions.
To really get at the illegal immigration problem would require that everyone be issued an indisputable, national identity card that would be mandatory for every citizen, as is the case in Korea. Getting such a system started would probably require everyone going through a passport-issuance-like background check which would probably be difficult for older, rural Americans who no longer have verification source documents at hand.
This would add another layer of big, bureaucratic, intrusive government into the lives of everyday Americans. How would the Tea Party feel about that?
8:12 am on April 27th, 2010 5
Having 20 million foreigners running around your country illegally isn't justified, either, especially when you have one party actively try to legalize them for political gain and the other looking the other way for cheap labor.
8:46 am on April 27th, 2010 6
The "federal Gov" has rules that make it a crime for Non-US Citizens to stay in the country illegally.
Arizona's State Law merely makes it also a crime in the State. Not a big deal, but WAY over due. Is Texas doing the same? If not, WHY NOT?
This is all about politics and "PC". Much ado about the state doing what the federal stated it wanted to do but is afraid to do. More "PC" fear causing the federal government to be useless. So the State picked up the slack. Good for Arizona!
9:01 am on April 27th, 2010 7
How does Chicago feel about the City wanting the National Guard to act as a law enforcement arm in the city, as the Mayor requested?
Who gives a chit what the tea party thinks? It seems that YOU do.
National ID card. Difficult for Rural Americans? Not really. I'm rural. I have the passport, driver license, military ID, gun permit ID, tricare card, auto insurance. Infrastruture for these cards is in place. No Problems.
I don't believe a National ID is needed. But it would not be a problem. Drivers License would serve as long a illegals are not allowed to get them.
9:02 am on April 27th, 2010 8
Being in the United States illegally is not a federal crime, nor is it a crime in Arizona under the new law. Arizona's law had a provision that made it a crime, but that provision was nixed by the time the governor signed it.
Information first, opinion later.
10:00 am on April 27th, 2010 9
Tital 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien".
Information first. Opinion: Shoot them.
10:01 am on April 27th, 2010 10
(Title) fingers don't always listen.
10:15 am on April 27th, 2010 11
Entry is a crime. Staying (which is what you said) is not.
10:16 am on April 27th, 2010 12
Mexicans can get a job in Arizona if they file the proper paperwork and come over legally if you read your own link. No where does NAFTA say you can sneak across the border and take a job in the US.
10:21 am on April 27th, 2010 13
That's obviously true, GI Korea. But "NoIllegals!" made a much broader claim than what you said — he is saying that in contravention to a United States treaty, AZ can refuse to let any non-citizen to enter its fine state.
10:28 am on April 27th, 2010 14
I already provided an idea in regards to a Social Security card that is issued that is more durable than the ones now issued. There is your national ID card. Claims of "passport-issuance-like background checks" would not be necessary.
It is much easier to get a Social Security card than it is a Drivers License from my experience. I needed to get my Social Security card to get my driver's license renewed and it was mailed to my home within 2 weeks. When my wife went to get her first Social Security card they were able to print it out on the spot for her. I have never had a problem with the Social Security office.
As I have also mentioned certain states require Social Security card verification to get a Driver's License. This to would be acceptable ID in those states for someone needing ID to prove their citizenship.
So once again where's the problem with this?
10:52 am on April 27th, 2010 15
I think if a social security card were to be used as proof of citizenship, it would have to be much more sophisticated than what they have now.
Granted, I haven't seen an actual card in a long time, but from what I remember, it was an unlaminated piece of stock paper that didn't look more impressive than a library card.
We also know that identity thieves have ways to get issued fraudulent social security cards now.
A proof of citizenship card would have to at least be like a green card because it would be in demand for counterfeiting. Seeing what DHS has done with passports, I imagine that it would require all forms of biometrics and security measures that would require new departments of bureaucracy and infrastructure that the current social security administration was not designed for.
So I don't think it would be as simple as you do.
10:55 am on April 27th, 2010 16
All this debating about illegally entry vs illegally staying is interesting, but I thought the piece was trying to highlight some of the unintended consequences of the bill. Like the four examples of LEGAL citizens that were deported or the truck driver that was detained for four hours and handcuffed for not producing a birth certificate.
Some of the posters here are happy to look past a little bad(occasional wrongful arrest, detention, deportation) in the name of a greater good(lowering the number of illegal immigrants) safe in the knowledge that they don't look like the wrong kind of person. But it IS racial profiling by any other name. You don't have to be caught committing a crime in order for this law to kick in.
From the article:
"I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position."
No warrant needed, no probable cause, just ‘reasonable suspicion,’. How does one legally practice ‘reasonable suspicion,’? Can't we use just about anything rationalize a suspicion? I'm reasonably suspicious that some in my neighborhood are drug dealers, but I have no proof. Can I ask that they at least be detained or searched without a warrant? Even terror suspects can only be wiretapped or detained with a warrant? Right?
11:06 am on April 27th, 2010 17
Why not ask everybody for verification of their citizenship or immigration status? Without such a clause, guiding "reasonable suspicions" which an officer goes by to judge whether one is illegal or not will inevitably be based on racial discrimination. Who is the typical police officer going to ask for verification of citizenship/immigration status – the fluent middle-aged white man or the Hispanic with an accent? Someone on this blog said, I don't quite remember who, that as long as immigrants have nothing to hide, they shouldn't be concerned. Really? So immigrants should have to put up with being unfairly singled out? Should they also be expected to give daily reports to the government? Should they also have their mail read by bureaucrats before they receive it? You can make an argument for a lot of things by using the "nothing to hide" point. Does it mean they are valid? Not at all.
11:07 am on April 27th, 2010 18
Bill, in regards to the cases you mentioned everyone of them had mental problems, Lyttle even told immigration he was from Mexico even though he wasn't. The mental problems seemed to create confusion for immigration officials that obviously should have been more vigilant in their duties.
Internal ICE issues are hardly a reason to allow Phoenix to become the US kidnapping capitol, people to be murdered and have crimes committed againt them by illegals, and the taxpayers to pick up the costs of illegals in schools and hospitals. The Korean government and the vast majority of other governments in the world would never allow such a thing to take place.
Here is anothe example to present to people. Should police not be allowed to check and see if someone is drunk after pulling them over for speeding because it would inconvenience them. Breathalyzer can also be inaccurate which causes some people to be arrested and later absolved with a blood alcohol test.
It seems to me the greater good is served by inconveniencing people to catch drunk drivers.
11:14 am on April 27th, 2010 19
That is why I made the point they need to be more durable which would mean Social Security would need to get new card printers which still means no passport or background checks. There would be no need for a new bureaucracy, just new printers to print out more durable cards.
Like I mentioned before getting a Social Security card is easier than a driver's license. People counterfeit ID's all the time and they can assuredly counterfeit a Social Security card just like a driver's license, but that is why people are trained to spot fake ID's.
11:22 am on April 27th, 2010 20
It helps to actually read the law's text:
” target=”_blank”>http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
The reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant only kicks in after you have been detained for a violation or crime. You are not detained for reasonable suspicion of being an illegal. If I was a police officer I would just do what the Border Patrol often does when they ask for ID for reasonable suspicion, they ask everyone in the car for an ID.
11:24 am on April 27th, 2010 21
Undocumented workers routinely use false Social Security cards to obtain employment. A SS card as ID works only if the number is verified as real and belonging to the person in question.
The new law is a disaster. It will scare otherwise law-abiding undocumented residents and their legal resident/citizen relatives from cooperating with the police to solve violent crimes. The requirement to carry proof of legal residency is onerous and the "reasonable suspicion" requirement almost forces racial profiling as the only behavior I can think of off-hand that is strongly associated with undocumented immigrants is gathering as day laborers waiting for work offers. The new law criminalizes this. Coupled with Arizona's 2007 law penalizing employers who do not verify the legal status of employees, it would be very difficult for undocumented residents to live and work in Arizona. No need to empower the police to hassle legal immigrants and naturalized citizens.
11:25 am on April 27th, 2010 22
Having dealt with the Border Patrol they have asked to see my ID which since I have nothing to hide I have no issue with. If you are Hispanic or a White person with an accent, if you have nothing to hide what is the big deal about pulling out your ID which you should be asked for anyway if you were detained for committing a crime or violation in the first place.
11:43 am on April 27th, 2010 23
24 states, including Arizona, already give police the right to ask for ID from any person detained in relation to criminal activity. This new law, as I understand it, makes being undocumented itself a crime and requires the police to determine the legal status of any suspected undocumented immigrant even if that immigrant is otherwise law-abiding. Some Arizona law enforcement officers, including the sheriff of Pima County, hate the new law because they're caught in the middle: if they don't check, they can be sued for not enforcing the law; if they do, they can be sued for racial profiling.
12:07 pm on April 27th, 2010 24
How can the police be sued for not checking? I can't think of one scenario where that can happen. Plus if the police are allowed to check for ID in the first place once again what's the problem if you have nothing to hide?
Also the Sheriff is a politician in a county with a large Hispanic population. Hardly surprising that he is unsupportive of the new law.
12:34 pm on April 27th, 2010 25
GI Korea, the truck driver that was detained and handcuffed didn't have any mental problems. I'm not implying that you said he did, I just want to clarify that it happens to regular people too. The four that were deported did, but Sharon McKnight did tell the officers that she was a US citizen.
"Should police not be allowed to check and see if someone is drunk after pulling them over for speeding because it would inconvenience them. Breathalyzer can also be inaccurate which causes some people to be arrested and later absolved with a blood alcohol test"
Absolutely. But those people are already committing a crime (speeding) which gives the officer probable cause to check that person out. If the crime of (speeding) leads police to someone that committed another one (driving while intoxicated) they should be tried for both. But ‘reasonable suspicion,’ and probable cause are not the same outside Arizona. I'm not a lawyer so please someone correct me if I'm wrong.
"Internal ICE issues are hardly a reason to allow Phoenix to become the US kidnapping capitol, people to be murdered and have crimes committed againt them by illegals, and the taxpayers to pick up the costs of illegals in schools and hospitals."
If a hospital or school has a lawbreaker on their hands I personally have no problem with the hospital calling the authorities. Not just for illegal immigrants but drug addicts, gang members, what have you. But profiling a person based on how 'suspicious' they appear won't solve the crime epidemic. It will just move it to New Mexico or Texas. Because the borders are still as porous as ever.
More border agents and some high tech monitoring I think would be much more effective, but that solution would cost extra money. I think this bill is just as much about stretching the state budget. Your already paying the cops, why not make them into backup border agents.
"The Korean government and the vast majority of other governments in the world would never allow such a thing to take place."
Those racist, crony capitalist lovin', draconicans in the Korean government. Sure you could adopt their some of their ways and you would be justified in the eyes of a lot of people.
But how come people in state and federal government never seriously crack down the problem of employers knowingly giving jobs to illegals? I've never heard of someone getting busted for employing illegals and then going to jail. It's just a fine then off you go. How about a new law going after the profiteers for a change?
"It seems to me the greater good is served by inconveniencing people to catch drunk drivers."
Inconveniencing all of the drivers or just certain ones that LOOK suspicious? That's whats behooving be. Regardless of how people feel about this bill, lets call a spade a spade. A segment of the population will be exempt from this bill based on their looks and manner alone.
"It seems to me the greater good is served by inconveniencing people to catch drunk drivers."
True but how about inconveniencing drivers not based on erratic driving but
12:37 pm on April 27th, 2010 26
12:40 pm on April 27th, 2010 27
What crime did the truck driver commit? I followed the link and can't find any mention of any crime?
12:53 pm on April 27th, 2010 28
Its called the 10th Amendment. Any power not specifically granted to the Federal government through the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is how any state can make MJ legal even though it is a federal crime, provided that the substance in question does not cross state borders.
AZ can make it illegal for ~ANY~ illegal immigrant to do anything, drivers license, school, health care, welfare, work, you name it. No amount of trade treaties or federal legislation can alter the sovereignty of a state. The US isn't a democracy, we're a Republic with each member state being a democracy. Its best to treat each member state as a "separate government united in a common interest" for most things.
1:05 pm on April 27th, 2010 29
Assuming this is true, what about native born people of Hispanic or Asian decent? Carrying around a birth certificate just in case you get pulled over for breaking the speed limit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24i…
1:40 pm on April 27th, 2010 30
Undocumented residents? Yep that does sound much nicer than (Illegal alien). But it means the same.
The new law is needed and has been for a few years. If the feds would enforce the laws on the books it wouldn't be needed. But the feds will not, so the State has no option left.
It will scare law-breaking illegal aliens and their "passport babies" from working with police? OK. They can go back to wherever they came from.
"It would make it very difficult for Illegal Aliens to live and work in Arizona." I really think that is the idea. I like the idea.
The new law is a good law and needed.
1:49 pm on April 27th, 2010 31
Ah, so your playing games rather than having a dialog. Funny.
I will assume that you are educated enough to know you can't stay without first breaking the law (entry) and becoming a criminal.
But nice catch on the word game. I will have to be more carefull.
I salute you sir.
2:00 pm on April 27th, 2010 32
BOTH are a crime. The very definition of the word "illegally" is to do something not lawful. Something not lawful is a crime, there for illegally = a crime. Being inside the USA without a valid visa and not a US citizen is illegal, this was established a helluva long time before anyone here was borne. Any nation has the right to exert its sovereignty over the people allowed to enter / leave / stay in said country.
There is no way you can defend this position. And since this is a ROK focused blog lets translate this into Korean situation. Imagine people ~DEMANDING~ the ROK government allow them to say as long as they want without any silly "visa" and to be allowed to work, have babies and bring their family over. People saying "hey I'm here to do whatever, I don't need to follow any of your silly rules". Because that is ~exactly~ what you are attempting to argue. Don't try to use semantics to twist the wording or create stickman arguements.
All states have sovereignty over their own legal systems provided it doesn't conflict with the US Constitution. That includes the legal conduct of their own police force. State have laws for a reason, and its the states legal system that enforces those laws (and several federal ones as well). A state has the constitutional right to enforce its laws and AZ just made it a crime to be an illegal in their state. They gave legal power for their own police force to identify illegals and execute the states legal rights.
Now I agree INS and CIS needs extreme overhauling, its way too much red tape and bureaucratic bullhocky that slows things down and prevents legal citizenship to take place. But if someone is a citizen of Mexico (or Korea, or f*cking England) and their staying inside the USA without a valid VISA, they need to NOT BE HERE, aka deported.
2:03 pm on April 27th, 2010 33
Games? No. Entering and staying are two different things, with two significantly different legal consequences.
And you are wrong again in your retort. For example, if one overstays one's tourist visa, the entry was perfectly legal. And that person does not become a criminal by overstaying the visa.
2:04 pm on April 27th, 2010 34
Go read the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment and Yick Wo v. Hopkins.
2:10 pm on April 27th, 2010 35
Your very wrong about the "already committing a crime" part. A police officer can pull you over if your driving in an unsafe manor. This includes weaving, driving too slowly, or anything else. Its very easy to notice when a driver of a vehicle isn't quite right. Police can and do pull people over just to "take a look", especially in the middle of the night.
As a citizen of the USA I would MUCH rather have police doing this, even if it means a small 5 to 10 min inconvenience for me. It means their out catching bad guys too, and forcing the bad guys to keep their heads down.
What you will discover in nearly (99.9%) of case's of "issues" is that people get mouthy with the police and refuse to hand over ID or otherwise give the officer sh!t. This just makes their job difficult which in turn makes them start looking for all sorts of things to screw with you on. Behind the uniform and badge they are still people, and if you mess with someone they'll mess with you back. I've never had an issue with a public official as long as I was polite, soft spoken and very helpful / non-confrontational. How fcking hard is to to say "Yes officer I'm having a good day, how is yours. No sir I don't have any weapons or illegal substances in the vehicle. Yes officer here is my ID card / drivers license / registration / proof of insurance. Thank you officer and have a nice day / evening."
One of the best things I've learned is that in life, if your polite with people they tend to be polite back. Not always the case, but you should try the polite method first and foremost.
2:11 pm on April 27th, 2010 36
Wrong. For example, if I do not maintain my storefront properly and you slip and fall because of my fault, I committed no crime to you. I committed a tort — which is also unlawful.
And doing so is unconstitutional. See Lozano v. City of Hazelton.
2:12 pm on April 27th, 2010 37
GI Korea, I don't see any part in that language that says "only after detention." What I see is "ANY lawful contact" — which includes stop-and-frisk, as I noted earlier.
2:23 pm on April 27th, 2010 38
SAY WHAT?
I'm not saying your wrong, but I have never heard of that happening to anyone. If they pulled an illegal U-turn or were weaving I can understand, but you mean they can just pull you over just because?
3:35 pm on April 27th, 2010 39
Ok well technically they can't pull you over "just cause" because that violates 4th Amendment against seizures. That being said, there is a whole host of things people often do that can create suspicion and probable cause. How often do people throw cigarette butts out the window … in a state or county that has a no littering law / fine? And there is no law saying a police officer can not follow you until you give him probable cause. Typically if someone is up to no good and they see a police officer following them, they get really nervous and tend to screw up. Also if you pull over to a gas station or otherwise stop your vehicle, a police officer can come over just to say hello and ask how you are doing. They can also run your plates to see if something is up with that car, if its stolen or if the owner has a warrant out.
In that context, a Police Officer can not randomly pull over Latino looking people to see if their illegal or not. But if he is pulling over a car for doing ~something~ he can ask for proof of citizenship. The best case would be to ask everyone involved for proof of citizenship.
And yes this could lead to racial profiling … but you know what I'm just about tired of that being used as an excuse to allow people to break the law. If the majority of illegals are of Latino ethnicity, then YES you should ask Latino ethnic people if their legal. Its not an insult or racist, its the officer doing his f*cking job, which is to keep the peace and enforce the law. Don't give the man (woman) lip or crap, just present your ID and work with them the best you can. If your of Latino heritage but a citizen you still help the officer out, be angry at the illegals who make this a necessity and not at the people who must execute the necessity.
3:48 pm on April 27th, 2010 40
Exactly how is it unconstitutional and which part of the above statement is (the identification or the enforcement)? See often only part of something is unconstitutional, but people end up taking the entire think as. Remember 10th Amendment overrules lots of federal laws, and lately many states are enforcing it at their level. States have constitutions and governments as well, in fact State Governments are considered sovereign.
I'm referring to criminal law and you know it, stop trying to use semantics and strawmen arguments. At no point in time did I refer to or bring up civil law which is its own beast entirely. A citizen from another country who has entered into the USA without proper visa (aka an illegal) is committing a federal crime. Plus illegally entering into a country is a precursor to LIVING in that country illegally. How else did illegals get into the USA, were they beamed in by the USS Enterprise? Illegals can not be born here because being born on US soil makes them legal.
Its apparent your in the camp of "let illegals stay", your reasons are your own but your encouraging the commission of a felony. No amount of hand wringing and word twisting can absolve you of that.
7:41 pm on April 27th, 2010 41
Citizens can and do sue police departments for non-enforcement of laws. Let's say there is a law against dumping trash, and my neighbors and I are tired of people breaking the law and dumping their trash in the woods behind our subdivision. We can sue the police.
The police are allowed to check ID only if the person is detained for suspected unlawful activity. Random street checks are unconstitutional. You feel comfortable with ID checks because as a white male you are unlikely to be targeted. Black people who are targets of random DWB police checks are less tolerant, and I can see why Hispanic and Hispanic-looking citizens and legal immigrants would resent being checked while whites and blacks go about their business. I don't have anything to hide either, but I do not trust the police and appreciate Constitutional safeguards against invasions of privacy.
9:32 pm on April 27th, 2010 42
You didn't read Lozano, did you? I even gave a link for you.
For every 10th Amd case that overrules any federal law, I can give you three 14th Amd cases that overrule a state law. State governments are supposed to follow the U.S. constitution, and when appropriate (as is the case with immigration law, which is exclusively a federal domain,) the federal law.
You wrote "lawful", not anything else. I'm not a mind reader. I'm somehow supposed to guess what you meant to write instead of reading what you wrote?
Because, as I wrote in the response JUST ABOVE YOURS, if one overstays one’s tourist visa, the entry was perfectly legal. And that person does not become a criminal by overstaying the visa.
9:33 pm on April 27th, 2010 43
I consider a stop and frisk a form of detention. If the police stops you in the course of their normal duties they have the right to ask for ID to confirm your immigration status. That is how I interpret the law. Once again if you have nothing to hide big deal. This is the same as the Border Patrol asking people to show ID to prove their immigration status, it is just now in AZ the police are allowed to do the same thing.
9:48 pm on April 27th, 2010 44
Sonagi you could not provide a scenario about the police being sued for not checking the status of someone. The police can just say that there was not reasonable suspicion to check someones immigration status if someone complained.
Also people had the same racial profiling concerns at the airports and I get the extra screening at the airport all the time by the TSA folks. It is at the point that people complain about the TSA people picking on the 86 year old grandmas and not profiling. I don't mind being checked at the airport, so I'm inconvenienced for 2-3 minutes, big deal because I have nothing to hide.
Like I mentioned before the police are likely going to ask white people they pull over to show their ID's to prove their status just to off set the claims they are racially profiling just like the TSA was smart enough to do in the airports. The usual suspects will still complain even if white people are checked because this issue is not about racial profiling, it is about amnesty.
11:56 pm on April 27th, 2010 45
If you're an immigrant and hold a green card, it is federal law that you carry it on you at all times. As for those of "hispanic or Asian" descent, if they speak English, it's unlikely they would draw suspicion. When you approach a 30 year old and they can't speak English, it's pretty clear they weren't born here.
I grew up in Texas and migrant workers were an ever present reality of life. Nobody had a problem with it when it was grown men coming to work and sending their money home. It only became an issue when they started bringing their entire families and put an extra burden on our schools, medical services, welfare, etc.
I would guess that most of us that frequent this forum are all for legal immigration and are likely married to immigrants or know immigrants. Why is it that those that oppose laws such as the one AZ passed do not try to understand that LEGAL immigration acceptable while ILLEGAL immigration is not. It's quite simple.
12:23 am on April 28th, 2010 46
@ SURE
Fort Campbell Ky. 1am. Saturday morning. Payday weekend. I know what the Police will be doing on a payday weekend. Stopping everyone.
I understand why also, and I'm glad they are doing it. My "friend" was a bartender and we were going to meet at an all night pancake place. I stopped in another bar first. When I'm leaving I turn on the car lights AS a Police car passes. I turned left as the Officer was turning left to come back my way. I watched as we passed and he made another left to follow me.
I knew what he was thinking. I had just pulled out of a bar's parking lot. I had not had a drink in a few day's but he had every reason to think I had.
He stayed behind me untill I hit my turn signal for a right turn into the Pancake place, then he hit his lights. So my girl is standing in the door watching the Officer walk up to me. He asked for my ID. I handed him my drivers license. Then he asked for my military ID. He asked how much I had to drink. I told him I had nothing to drink that night. He asked where I was going and I told him. He told me to have a good morning.
I asked him why he pulled me over. He answered that I appeared to be weaving.
I had been profiled, and for good reason. I was likely one of a handfull on the road that night that wasn't drinking.
I was not offended. It was Fort Campbell. 41A. Friday night on a payday weekend.
But I had done nothing myself as an individual to warrant being pulled over. But I understand the situation and why it happened.
As it turned out, I was a law abiding citizen. No problem and I was not Offended.
2:24 am on April 28th, 2010 47
Ok, considering a stop-and-frisk as a form of detention is fair. But that goes against what your characterization of what the law does. To wit, what you said was:
The reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant only kicks in after you have been detained for a violation or crime. You are not detained for reasonable suspicion of being an illegal.
A few things are not correct with this characterization. First, stop-and-frisk does not require ANY violation or crime. The police can stop-and-frisk anyone who looks suspicious. And only the most disciplined reading of the law would make the case that the police cannot detain (including stop-and-frisk) anyone based on the suspicion of illegal residency, but once detained and THEN when the suspicion arises, the police can ask for proof of citizenship. It would be also a valid reading — and indeed, AZ essentially passed the law based on this reading — to say that the police can detain someone for "looking foreign."
Again, GI Korea, I think that if AZ's true intention was to only demand proof of citizenship following a lawful detention, there were many ways to write out the legislation to achieve that. I spent some time working for the California state government, and the legislators are fully keen on what the language of the law allows. When AZ legislators wrote this, they wrote it with a purpose — they want a police state for all foreign-looking people.
2:29 am on April 28th, 2010 48
So "The Korean", you worked for the State of California, yet you refer to yourself as "The Korean". So does that mean you don't consider yourself "An American"? Just an honest question.
2:44 am on April 28th, 2010 49
I have a hard time believing that it is "Just an honest question," given that you even bother to ask that question based on my Internet handle which was obviously chosen based on the particular blog that I run.
But the answer is: I do consider myself an American. If my self-identity was not already clear, my gravatar gives a pretty strong hint.
3:28 am on April 28th, 2010 50
It was an honest question. Your site says, "ASK a KOREAN" not, "Ask a Korean-American" or "Ask an American of Korean Descent". So it appears as if you consider yourself as Korean first and American second. From your handle and blog I wasn't sure what you considered yourself and therefore, I asked an honest question. My apologies if you were offended. If you self identify yourself as Korean first, that's you choice, just as it is my choice to consider myself "American by Birth, Texan by the Grace of God!"
I just don't understand why so many recent immigrants come here but then want to hold onto the roots of their home country so much. Past immigrants came here to become American but modern immigrants appear to come here to have all the benefits of America while remaining maintaining their home country idenitity.
8:24 am on April 28th, 2010 51
That explains a lot.
8:41 am on April 28th, 2010 52
The Current immigration law already requires all non-citizens to carry their non-resident IDs or green cards with them at all times. The Arizona law does nothing more than this.
Why is it wrong for a state to pass a law that says its law enforcement officers will enforce the already existing Federal Law even if the federal law enforcement agencies won't? I can't begin to understand the huge reaction to this. Arizona is simply saying they will enforce the existing laws.
8:44 am on April 28th, 2010 53
Oh, and About racial profiling, how else does law enforcement look for Mexican and other illegal aliens from Latin American countries if they don't look for people who look Latin American and doesn't speak english. Is it really profiling to have these two things raise a question in the minds of law enforcement? Now, they still need to have a legal reason to stop them and ask for id. but it should be correct law enforcement methodology to use their senses, to observe and listen and to draw conclusions from them.
9:17 am on April 28th, 2010 54
My limited recollection of police contact with the public is contact, detention, and arrest. Contact must be consensual whereas the other two are not consensual. In a contact you can simply walk away. If you've done wrong then you should have nothing to worry about.
10:34 am on April 28th, 2010 55
If you have a problem with the stop and frisk law then you should lobby to change that law not the immigration law.
11:03 am on April 28th, 2010 56
Apology accepted. For the record, I consider myself equal parts Korean and American. I only identify as Korean-American because that is how the term is commonly used to describe people in my situation. (As opposed to, say, American-Korean.)
You are in good company. Benjamin Franklin wondered in 1753 if the “stupid, swarthy Germans” will ever assimilate. Yes, those Germans sure drove America to hell. America is such a shitty country now… wait, what? America is the best and the greatest country in the world right now with the greatest military and the greatest economy in the world? But Ben Franklin said Germans will be the ruination of American democracy!
11:47 am on April 28th, 2010 57
The fact that several 10th Amendment case's have overrules Federal proves that states are not forced to follow various federal regulations. This has been gone over tooth and comb by many people more versed in law then either you or I. 14th Amendment only goes so far, its job is to enforce the federal governments authority over things granted through the Constitution, it doesn't give the federal government the right to take away state sovereignty.
Immigration is indeed a federal issue, but protecting property and enforcing law is a state issue. Your acting like AZ is taking over immigration, their not. Their simply nabbing illegals and handing them over to INS, something that has ~always~ been in their power to do. Now they just made it 100% clear that police officers can inquire about immigration status. And it is ILLEGAL to be in the USA without a valid visa. Where the HELL do you get this idea that its within the law to live in any country without a valid visa. Is this some form of self inflicted ignorance? Your an intelligent individual, you should be able to follow a thought rationally.
12:00 pm on April 28th, 2010 58
Notice Korean used "accosting" instead of a more neutral word "asking / questioning / requesting". Like Police Officers have nothing better to do then run around playing "catch the illegal". Their men and women who's job is to protect you, uphold the law and ensure the peace is kept. When something bad happens you demand to know "where were the police" but when their trying to do their jobs its "accosting people"… hmmm.
On top of that he seems to wish that people of questionable citizenship status (aka illegals) not be pursued or any attempt be made to remove them from this country. Seriously how would you like this situation to go down? What fairy tale world do you live in?
12:07 pm on April 28th, 2010 59
Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. (R-CA) supports deporting natural-born US citizens whose parents are illegal immigrants. See the video at TalkingPointsMemo.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/…
1:39 pm on April 28th, 2010 60
The AZ law might encourage “racial profiling”, but I doubt it. If the police demanded proof of legal status from every jay walker, litterer, and vandalist, and dutifully deported them for failing to provide the proper documentation, border states might go broker than they already are. Besides, accusations of racial profiling are made with such reckless abandon in America that the police will make an effort to avoid even the slightest impression of that practice.
I’m no nativist, and my family was illegal for some time. I support condtiontal amnesty for most law abiding illegals. But I won’t buy into scaremongering from the Al Sharpton crowd. I also acknowledge the flip side of the debate – The vast, VAST majority of illegals aren’t violent criminals, but the few dangerous ones don’t just shoot up rich white people. Illegal Latinos kill other Latinos, blacks, and rarely (gasp) Koreans. It’s a crime to be an illegal in Mexico. AZ is racist for enforcing American immigration laws?
1:41 pm on April 28th, 2010 61
Which is unfortunate, really, because the citizenship clause really needs to be reexamined.
For the record, I don't support deporting US citizen children of illegal immigrants. A citizen is a citizen. However, I can't see foreign parents leaving their children alone in America after they themselves have been deported, so the question is mostly academic.
2:45 pm on April 28th, 2010 62
Okay, you want scenarios? where the police check randomly? I’ll give you REAL CASES of civil rights complaints against police for checking IDs of Hispanics only:
Cleveland Oct. 2009: Hispanic residents complain of being stopped for violations that didn’t really exist, like headlights being out.
Escondido, August 2009: Complaints about traffic checkpoints in Hispanic neighborhoods; Hispanics allege checkpoints aren’t about deterring crime but catching undocumented immigrants.
East New Haven, April 2010: Hispanics complain of receiving a disproportionate number of traffic stops and then being deliberately misindentified as white to cover up racial profiling.
I found these cases on the first page of Google search results for “police check ID Hispanics.” I recall reading periodically news stories about Hispanic residents complaining of being stopped in public places or while driving under some pretext and asked for ID.
If you don’t mind extra screening at the airport, that’s great. Doesn’t mean Hispanics or Hispanic-looking residents have to tolerate random ID checks.
3:51 pm on April 28th, 2010 63
If we take the stance against “profiling” to the absolute extreme, as the liberals and the pro-illegal-immigration crowd would have us, the the border patrol won’t even be able to do their job. They will have to close the check-points along the highways near the border and they won’t be able to inquire into one’s nationality. If it keeps going the way it’s going, the Border Patrols Officers won’t even be able to stop a person they see crossing the border as they might be accused of profiling. I mean, how do they know that person that just climbed the fence and dropped into America isn’t an American just taking a short-cut home from Mexico?
4:16 pm on April 28th, 2010 64
1. Accosting anyone at any time to demand a proof of citizenship (which is what the AZ law allows) is not the existing federal law.
2. In a field that is completely preempted by federal law such as immigration, a non-federal government entity that adds even the same exact requirement as the federal requirement is not allowed. See Lozano v. City of Hazelton.
4:57 pm on April 28th, 2010 65
If you’re an immigrant and a holder of an Resident Alien (Green) Card, you’re required by law to carry it on you at all times anyway. So asking to see your green card isn’t a violation of rights. I know this from first hand experience. Last year my nephew (a Korean immigrant holding a Resident Alien Card) was driving with me from Las Vegas to Texas. While he was driving he was pulled over for speeding while I slept. The office that pulled us over asked to see him Green Card to verify his residence status. My nephew didn’t have it on him, but he had his driver’s license and Student ID. The officer, accepting my statement of the status of my nephew, did not detain him but did firmly remind him that as a Resident Alien he was required to have in his possession his alien card at all times.
5:41 pm on April 28th, 2010 66
Sonagi I asked you to provide a scenario of when a police officer would get sued for not checking the status of someone. So the new stories you brought up are irrelevant.
Also I’m still waiting for someone to answer if the Border Patrol is racist for asking for immigration status?
6:22 pm on April 28th, 2010 67
A local police officer would not be sued for not enforcing a federal law. Outside of Arizona, undocumented residency is not a crime.
Border Patrol’s job is to ensure lawful entry into the United States. That is not the responsibility of local law enforcement. If I were seen moving through the desert near the border, I would probably be stopped because Border Patrol would wonder what the heck I was doing there if I wasn’t from the area. It’s the activity – being near the border – that is the cause of suspicion. A fair number of illegal crossers are from outside Latin America, so Border Patrol would be ignorant to check only people who looked Hispanic.
6:40 pm on April 28th, 2010 68
The 14th Amendment only covers certain things. The Supreme Court has already sided with the states on many legislative acts.
Really Korean, you should do more research first.
7:09 pm on April 28th, 2010 69
Profiling is one of those things that is required for survival. It was genetically programmed into us thousands of years ago when we were running from tigers. If the overwhelming majority of negativity comes from a group of people with a specific trait in common, that group will be profiled inside that individuals head. It is impossible to alter this or compromise with this, its human nature and part of our survival instinct.
Its unnecessary or extreme racial profiling that is a problem. Assuming that all of a group are doing something illegal all the time is unreasonable. A police officer shouldn’t be pulling people over because they look Latino, but if he does pull someone over (for whatever reason) and they look Latino, he might want to start asking immigration questions.
The PC crowd would have people look the other way to the raw statistics.
7:16 pm on April 28th, 2010 70
So? It won’t get any legs for one and secondly, if you’re going to point out stuff like this, then point out some of the looney comments of the left. What was it Maxine Waters said…. ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRhBMGFmu5s
So I guess all Democrats are secret communists that want to take over companies because that’s what Maxine Waters wants….
7:49 pm on April 28th, 2010 71
THE KOREAN – excellent point!
You are 110% correct, as it states in the 14th amendment, only US Citizens are covered by its rule! Way to go!
Good catch!
Glad you pointed that out!
12:06 am on April 29th, 2010 72
You have to be kidding! Ok, there are no illegal resident's, lets just call them "Criminal Residents" …works for me, problem solved!
6:16 am on April 29th, 2010 73
No, I don't see deported parents leaving their children alone, either. The children stay with relatives in the US or return with the parents. Getting proper documents from a Mexican consulate is fast and easy.
Foreign and US citizen parents are free to take their US citizen children out of the country as long as this does not violate custody agreements, so I don't see anything wrong with deported parents taking their kids back with them. Giving legal residency to any person who bears a citizen child is problematic as Ireland found out the hard way.
6:17 am on April 29th, 2010 74
Doesn't matter what Hunter thinks. It is unconstitutional to deport citizens. The only Americans who can be stripped of their citizenship and deported are those convicted of high treason.
2:33 pm on April 29th, 2010 75
Which would completely be against the US Constitution. Even ~IF~ he could get such a law passed, it would be struck down as unconstitutional. Sonagi is correct, the only way to strip someone of the citizenship is if they are found guilty of high treason, something that is exceedingly rare (unless your a spy).
4:10 pm on April 29th, 2010 76
Yes, it does matter what Hunter thinks. He's a US congressman and can propose amendmants to the constitution. If enough people think as he does, an amendment can pass.
4:14 pm on April 29th, 2010 77
As a general principle, I think illegal aliens should be deported, but some cases are difficult. Suppose an infant born in Mexico enters the US illegally, grows up here unaware that he's not a citizen, and registers to vote. That's a crime. He can then be deported to a country he doesn't know and whose language he might not even speak.
9:15 pm on April 29th, 2010 78
Hunter or any other member of Congress can propose an amendment for just about anything. Doesn't mean the amendment will get a serious hearing, much less pass. There is a bill to limit birthright citizenship; however, it is gathering dust at the moment. Denying citizenship to future children of undocumented mothers is far less controversial and more popular than revoking the citizenship of those already born, yet that proposed amendment isn't being actively discussed in Congress.
9:27 pm on April 29th, 2010 79
Some kids find out late that they are undocumented, but your scenario of registering to vote and getting arrested doesn't happen. Kids who've been kept unaware usually find out when they want to apply for their job or get a driver's license.
Every single Hispanic kid in my school understands and speaks some Spanish. The ones who have the least Spanish are the ones whose legal immigrant parents have lived here since they were young and speak English fluently enough to raise their children in the language.
Regardless, I would like to see a path to citizenship for children brought here at a very early age, but that privilege must be earned through completion of a high school degree and a clean criminal record, the aim of the proposed Dream Act. Every US state now requires high school seniors to pass achievement tests before they receive a diploma. Some of our local high school kids have taken the tests two, three, even four times. This NCLB requirement makes teens work hard to earn a diploma. We need something similar for undocumented teens, especially since Hispanics have the highest dropout rate.
11:31 pm on April 29th, 2010 80
If the kids have clean records, are contributing to society and will serve in the military, then perhaps that's a way to give them a path to citizenship.
As I've stated before, I believe what riles people like me is the blatant illegal immigration that takes place daily, the unsecured borders and the families that come and stay as a whole unit. If a migrant wants to come here and work and we have the work for them to do, then let the male or female head of the household come and send their money (after taxes) back to the home country where the rest of the family stays. The problem is that one illegal comes then sneaks his entire family over, puts their kids in schools and get on food stamps while the ones working typically work under the table to avoid taxes. We have to get a grip on the situation in the USA and some people need to realize and accept that there are going to be some deportations as there should be. Perhaps don't deport them all, but many do need to be deported and if they have small kids, that's their problem. They should have thought about that before they decided to subject their kids to this kind of situation.
12:08 am on April 30th, 2010 81
Only US citizens and some legal immigrants are eligible for food stamps, WIC, and Medicare. The majority of parents I know work for local construction and landscaping companies, in factories, or in franchise restaurants. They probably use false SS numbers and thus do not work under the table but likely pay little or nothing in taxes because of low wages combined with deductions.
Most US-born children of undocumented parents do receive public assistance. However, I don't know that these families are an overall economic liability. Their parents, though poorly paid, are economically productive, and their unpaid labor as caregivers to American children has great economic value. If it weren't for legal and illegal immigrants, our population would be older with fewer working people to support the growing ranks of baby boomers joining the elderly.
There is a concern that US student demographics have changed significantly over the past 30 years. Not only are we seeing more limited English speakers, but also, a larger percentage of children in poverty owing to higher birth rates among poor women, most of whom are US citizens or legal residents, so this is a separate issue that won't be resolved by deporting undocumented immigrants.
12:38 am on April 30th, 2010 82
Again, my problem isn't the "guest worker", it's the fact that they now (compared to when I was a kid growing up in Texas) bring their entire families. And to say that their children are "not an overall economic liability" is a stretch. It's clear they are and it's clear that they're major contributors to crime.
I'm not anti-immigrant. I'm married to an immigrant, I assisted a family member with LEGAL immigration to come to the USA and I come from an immigrant family. I think what makes so many Americans angry isn't the immigration as much as it is the "in your face" attitude of many of the immigrants. They will hold a rally talking about how unfair it is we won't accept them into this country, yet all you'll see at the rally is Mexican, Korean, Chinese, Dominican, etc. flags. The only US flags you'll see are being burned. If they are "pro-America" and want to be Americans, be respectful and humble. Don't demand and condemn.
I think too many over look the true intent of MANY (not all, but many) behind the pro-immigration movement. It's not about helping immigrants, it is either 1) about votes or 2) taking back land thought to still be Mexican through mass migration.
The point is that unless we protect our borders, we are not a sovereign nation. Period.
12:39 am on April 30th, 2010 83
To clarify… the children are not major contributors to crime, but illegal immigrants are.
The children are unfortunately caught up in a mess that isn't their fault, but that has to be addressed.
4:34 am on April 30th, 2010 84
Do you want to talk about what I said, not what you think I said?
4:52 am on April 30th, 2010 85
Sure, let's talk about it. Cite, specifically, in the AZ law that says the police can "accost" anyone at any time to demand proof of citizenship.
It's not federal law that the police can stop you for being white and cruising in a predominately black / minority neighborhood but it happens all the time (and you can even see it on "Cops") because there is "reasonable suspicion" that a white guy in a black/minority neighborhood is seeking drugs.
If you give an officer a reason, any reason, to stop you, they will and they will always ask for identification. If you can't present identification, they will, almost always, detain you whether you're white, black, brown or yellow.
5:47 am on April 30th, 2010 86
All children are economic liabilities until they join the workforce. The only difference is who makes what investment. In all cases except for foster children, the caregivers, usually the parents, make an unpaid investment in caring for the child until adulthood. Housing, food, clothing, and education may be paid for by the legal guardians or through public taxes.
Suppose US-born citizen children of undocumented parents weren't eligible for birthright citizenship and got deported along with their parents. What would our workforce look like now? What would it look like 20 years from now, when many of us commenters are retired and depending on a vibrant US economy for our retirement income? Who is going to staff the growing number of assisted care facilities that will be needed for a growing number of elderly with no family able to taken them in?
As for the children of undocumented immigrants being "major contributors to crime," could you please support that with verifiable statistics from an independent source with no official position in immigration?
5:48 am on April 30th, 2010 87
Statistics, please, from a recognizable, independent source.
7:57 am on April 30th, 2010 88
You need to leave your textbook "statistics" environment and live in the real world – or at least visit. As they say "a little experience blows the heck out of a lot of theory."
11:58 am on April 30th, 2010 89
Should citizenship be denied to a young person who can't solve quadratic equations?
12:29 pm on April 30th, 2010 90
You think undocumented high schoolers who've spent several years in US schools are incapable of learning math as well as their US peers? Any student with documented disabilities receives appropriate accommodations to support achievement. One aim of NCLB is for teachers to have high expectations of all students so that they may succeed, and yes, that includes teens who hopped the train in El Salvador with only three years of formal education.
Federal education law gives all US residents, including undocumented residents, the right to a free public K-12 education until the age of 22. A colleague in a neighboring district taught English to an 18-year-old newcomer from Honduras who had zero previous formal education and was completely illiterate. Sadly, the girl dropped out less than a year later to care for her infant sibling, probably the reason why her parents arranged for her passage here.
For older students who do not wish to attend regular high school classes, there are pre-GED and GED programs, which do not require one to solve quadratic equations. In fact, a Virginia standard diploma requires completion of math courses only as high as algebra II, and a modified standard diploma only algebra I and geometry. If young people wish to naturalize as citizens of an economically advanced country, they'd better be prepared to achieve academically, and with adequate support, there's no reason why they can't. We already have plenty of native-born underachievers. No need to naturalize more.
12:32 pm on April 30th, 2010 91
In my real world, I have several Hispanic families as neighbors. Not one of them has ever tried to sell me drugs, mug me, break into my home, or shoot me. Is that the sort of anecdotal evidence you're looking for?
1:51 pm on April 30th, 2010 92
Quadratic equations are Algebra I.
Here's some chemistry for citizens: How many grams of hydrogen have to react with oxygen to make a kilogram of water?
How about physics? Which of these quantities are conserved in all known processes? Temperature, energy, entropy, momentum, density?
Let's move on to biology. Should the correct answer to this question be required for citizenship? To a chimpanzee, which is a closer relative, a human or a gorilla?
2:51 pm on April 30th, 2010 93
Y'all are debating symptoms rather than problems.
The real problem is one of culture.
Too many illegal immigrants refuse to shed the values and attitudes that make their previous countries unlivable.
Rather than striving to assimilate, they insist on keeping their "proud heritage" in its totality… frequently even promoting anti-American nationalism in favor of the terrible places and situations they left.
…and this is all backed by a cast of the ulteriorly-motivated who encourage them to get loud in their insistence that the United States make changes to accommodate them instead of the other way 'round.
Instead of the natural process of American society being able to selectively adopt the best parts of the illegal immigrant's cultures while rejecting parts that have proven to be counter-productive, American society is forced to accept every cultural aspect as if it is equally valuable and correct… backed up with charges of racism and bigotry for those who disagree.
Next…
There is a misconception concerning illegal immigration… a kind of cart-before-the-horse way of thinking.
Illegal immigration isn't bad because it is "illegal", as many like to stress. It is illegal because it is bad.
Legal immigration acts as a filter… imperfect, but a filter none-the-less.
Be it a citizen who selected his foreign bride partially on her ability to adapt to an American lifestyle or an immigration officer who believes an immigrant family is sufficiently disenchanted with their homeland enough to openly embrace the benefits that American society has to offer, there are many chances to sort out those who have no wish to make a contribution to the United States.
Illegal immigration has no such filter. Illegal immigrants do not necessarily come with the intention of making the large personal investment in the success of America that legal immigrants frequently do… and, through intention or necessity, they frequently isolate themselves from American culture, language and lifestyle.
…and now they get uppity when America doesn't accommodate them.
3:32 pm on April 30th, 2010 94
Sonagi, good for you. Are you saying that your experience is the norm?
I think there (used to be) a rancher that would disagree with you (if he could). But being murdered kind of prevents that.
3:36 pm on April 30th, 2010 95
Well said.
8:56 pm on April 30th, 2010 96
Absolutely not. No single person's experience is "the norm." Pete, however, values experience over objective, quantitative data.
9:07 pm on April 30th, 2010 97
Citizens do not need any examples of specific knowledge. Most adults do not need them, yet we require high school students to learn them, or they are denied a standard diploma. The federal government holds schools accountable for student passing and graduation rates.
What citizens do need is a willingness to learn, not only physical skills but intellectual skills. Learning is not only about knowledge and skills but learning how to learn and developing perseverence. Most standardized tests are part knowledge and skills, part strategy and endurance. A person with an IQ above MR can learn enough math to obtain a GED, if not a diploma. We do our undocumented teenage friends a favor when we require them to stay in school and earn a diploma or GED, which will open doors to higher ed and jobs that pay well enough to support a household.
1:41 am on May 1st, 2010 98
htt://www.bretbart.com/article.phppid=D9FDGL080&show_article=1
I hope I got that right.
596 immigrants convicted of crimes nabbed in south.
Three for murder. Most for assault.
If the FEDs will not uphold the Law, the State must.
2:08 am on May 1st, 2010 99
VERY well said.
12:32 am on May 2nd, 2010 100
Last night on the news they showed the immigration rallies taking place in various cities. What always pisses me off and makes me more anti-immigration than anything is the fact that at these rallies, people are carrying flags of every nation except the USA. The rally in LA was the only one with large amounts of US flags, but even then, there were almost as many Mexican flags in the crowd as US. If you want to become an American, then carry US flags and show you want to become a loyal American. Not a Mexican allowed to live and vote in the USA with no loyalty.
Lastly, they were interviewing a Hispanic male and here is what he said, "I want to become an American. Mr. Obama needs to change the immigration laws. That's what we <elected him to do"</b>.
That's the problem. We already have illegals voting in our elections!
Say what?
3:58 am on May 2nd, 2010 101
No, retard. This is what the 14th Amd says in relevant parts: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Yick Wo v. Hopkins clarified that "any person" in that clause literally includes any person, including non-citizens. That was back in 1886.
3:59 am on May 2nd, 2010 102
How are they criminal residents when they committed no crime?
4:00 am on May 2nd, 2010 103
A "lawful contact" include stop-and-frisks, otherwise known as "Terry stops." A police officer can lawfully stop-and-frisk anyone without probable cause, as long as the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. And the crime can be any crime, including misdemeanors. And here is something everyone should know about misdemeanors — if all misdemeanor laws were strictly applied, you can be thrown in jail for breathing. (For example, did you know that using a leaf blower in Santa Monica was a misdemeanor?)
Here is an example. You know what's a misdemeanor in Arizona? Loitering, which is so helpfully defined as being "present in a public place and in an offensive manner." So, under the Arizona law, the police can stop-and-frisk anyone, and demand a proof of citizenship in the process, as long as the police reasonably suspects that the person was, is, or is about to be present in a public place and in an offensive manner. And there are minimal restrictions as to what "offensive" means here.
In this context, the prohibition of using race or national origin as the sole consideration is completely meaningless, because the police can only needs to prove that he had a reasonable suspicion that someone was about to loiter. In other words, the police in Arizona is now given a blank check anyone produce a proof of residence. Now, Arizona is demanding the police to go hunt down illegal immigrants. Gee, the Korean wonders if they will stop-and-frisk any white people for "loitering"?
4:20 am on May 2nd, 2010 104
If a state, in the course of protecting property and enforcing its law, impinges upon immigration (which is a federal issue,) the state must step back. This is the most basic concept in federalism.
1. AZ did not "~always~" have that right. It only had that authority since 2007, because Congress allowed them to under INA 287(g).
2. INS does not exist anymore. The relevant authority is called ICE now.
3. Given that you showed near total ignorance on this topic, maybe you can citing a few things when you make an argument like I do? You are still wrong, but I'll give you a chance to make some citations. Until then, you are just a dog barking in the streets.
4:32 am on May 2nd, 2010 105
Entering the country illegally IS a crime. As you've pointed out, overstaying a visa is a civil offense, but illegally crossing the border is criminal.
1911
8 U.S.C. § 1325—Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud
Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.
4:37 am on May 2nd, 2010 106
So, if they're caught trying to enter, it is civil. If they're caught AFTER they have entered, it is criminal. Therefore, they are CRIMINAL if they're already in the country.
5:31 am on May 2nd, 2010 107
AGAIN, jumping the border is not the only way for one to become an illegal immigrant. The majority of illegal immigrants in fact overstay their visa. So for example, if you had a valid tourist visa and entered the United States, your entry was perfectly legal. Then if you overstay that visa, you are not subject to a civil penalty. At no point are you a criminal.
7:01 am on May 2nd, 2010 108
I'm waiting for a remake of this Public Enemy classic.
7:39 am on May 2nd, 2010 109
Thomas Lee wrote:
that at these rallies, people are carrying flags of every nation except the USA
I think you're full of it, Thomas. I think you've probably never actually been to or seen an immigration rally (except maybe on Fox), so you really have no idea whether or not people are carrying American flags or not. In fact, I think you are just repeating the same talking point that has been going around unquestioned for years.
In fact, if you go to these, you can easily spot the Stars & Stripes. [SEE HERE]
9:22 am on May 2nd, 2010 110
Some large Mexico flags also. Not to mention some images of Che Guevara. I was on MSNBC.
What is wrong with Fox? I'll have to check them out now. THANKS! If you don't like FOX, they must be doing something right. Are you in favor of cencorship of the press? I'll bet you are.
Thanks for causing me to take a look around the web. I back Arizonia law sb1070 even more now.
9:40 am on May 2nd, 2010 111
AGAIN, more with the word play. Listen, it isn't difficult to understand.
If a law is broken, your a lawBREAKER. Which also means your a Criminal.
Let me help you THE KOREAN. If you shoplift from the Dollar General, your a criminal. If you over stay your visa your a — criminal. If you enter the country in any way not approved by LAW, your a criminal.
Is this really too difficult for you to understand?
If it is, I suggest you enter North Korea without approval or Mexico for that matter. Try entering Venezuela and setting up house keeping without approval from the government. PLEASE try.
10:30 am on May 2nd, 2010 112
Any exactly how is a police officer asking your immigration status violation of due process? The 14th Amendment is just reinforcing the federal powers already present in the constitution. Nothing states so far allows the federal government the ability to deny states their sovereignty.
10:37 am on May 2nd, 2010 113
Wow you like tap dancing and redefining arguments away. How the HELL is AZ "impinging upon immigration" by asking people their immigration status? How do you get that seriously ….. AZ itself is not deporting illegals, their not making citizens, their merely enforcing the law. Which they are allowed to do. Hell do you seriously expect police to say "sorry bob I can't help you, that there villain is trying to kill you and that is murder, you gotta get the federal police to help you". As long as their not deporting the illegals then they are not violating a damn thing.
Point #2 -> Now your showing your true debating position, INS / ICE doesn't matter it was merely a name change, still the same place.
As for #3, your just dancing around the issue, a state is exercising its right to sovereignty in legal matters. As you have shown previously your argument has no base, its entirely made up of "immigration is federal so state can't ask your status or turn you over to ICE", which is ridiculous to any sane person.
10:39 am on May 2nd, 2010 114
Umm and this changes the situation how exactly? Your point is that the AZ police will spend their time running around playing "catch the illegal"?
10:43 am on May 2nd, 2010 115
By YOUR definition, retired GI, anyone who has evern paid a ticket for speeding or any other moving violation is a criminal. Traffic laws are laws, too. If one disregards the important legal distinction between civil and criminal, then a traffic law breaker, too, is a criminal. Fortunately, judges and people who do background checks understand the difference between civil and criminal convictions.
10:47 am on May 2nd, 2010 116
Nice CH, I couldn't of put it better myself.
That is the only real problem I have with illegals, the seemingly increased demand that we accommodate them. Stuff like being forced to put Spanish language signs up everywhere. Its not a bad idea, but if its being forced then there is a priority problem somewhere.
10:49 am on May 2nd, 2010 117
He's correct, you can see many Mexican flags present. Its not covered by some factions of the media because they know where they get their money from.
Personally … I'd sick a few hundred ICE officers into each one of those supposed "rallies". Watch them scatter like roaches.
11:39 am on May 2nd, 2010 118
I realize that Retired GI has cataracts to contend with, but what's your excuse, Someotherguy, for not being able to read that the claim in contention is that "people are carrying flags of every nation except the USA"?
3:42 am on December 14th, 2010 119
there would be no other best kind of education other than K12 Education. it is simply the best ,.;
6:39 am on December 14th, 2010 120
Embrace them. It is time for America to become a 3rd world sh1thole like the places that these undocumented Democrats came from.