Discussion in 'Politics' started by sandy, Apr 24, 2010.
Talk to me about the loss of millions of dollars when it happens.
Meanwhile. . .
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
At this point those changes mean nothing. That's equivalent to closing the barn door after the horse has already fled! Now that fear and mass hysteria has taken center stage, these important changes will fall on deaf ears in the hispanic community.
Who cares? For twenty years law enforcement in AZ has tried the federal, touchy-feely, "be a part of the community" approach and they are still branded demons, hatemongers and are obstructed at every chance. Jails, ER's and public schools are filled with illegals while those here legally are forced to endure the pain of dealing with those who won't obey the US's immigration laws. The point of a law isn't to make a specific group--one that openly sympathizes with illegal immigration and who has hampered law enforcement's attempt to secure our border--feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Still, we have the fact that seven-eighths of the AZ public who support this law, I doubt seriously that anything short of a court decision will alter it anytime soon, and that is precisely what this change is intended to stop.
I think the real victim in this mess is Arizona law enforcement. They get sued if they enforce the law and they get sued if they don't enforce the law. That sounds like a no win situation for Arizona law enforcement.
That together with the fact that with in days of passage, they are already reforming parts of the law seems to indicate to me that this was not a well thought out law. And based on what I know about the law, appears to be a law that is going to cost the Arizona tax payer dearly. It appears to me that this law is going to be a bonanza for lawyers and those that manage and construct prisions at the expense of the tax payer.
Denying a foreign individual a share of an inheritance otherwise due under State law on the basis of his being foreign is interference...
Do you not think that the Mexican and other governments will take note of the fact that their citizens (illegally and legally here for those who forget to carry their papers) are likely to be arrested and detained in Arizona? Do you imagine that the will refrain from complaining in Washington when the law starts being enforced?
Would we not complain if Americans were being locked up abroad for failure to carry paperwork?
Remember, Arizona has no power to deport anyone, all they can do is lock them up and hold them in prison, especially the illegals who are not Mexican, so they can't just shove them across the border. Even shoveling the Mexicans across the border is rife with issues, since either Arizona would have to coordinate that with the Mexican government, or otherwise the safety of those "deported" will likely be considered to be the responsibility of Arizona, at least by the Mexican government.
It is not at all clear under the Constitution that the States have the right to enforce federal law that impacts international relations that the feds do not want to enforce. In fact, it's clear they don't have that right.
Fuck the Mexican Government, they should have been doing more to keep illegals from entering your country.
As for the legals they have nothing to worry about, they have the proper papers.
Again, Cali even threatening to stop trade with fellow Americans, because of laws to wards Arizona that Arizona made for there own state is wrong.
and if Cali does this they should face total USA trade embargo, on them
Arizona? Touchy feely? For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Your map is upside down, maybe.
If the law were aimed at those who profit by importing illegals, set up the systems of illegal immigration, and choose to undermine the integrity of the border at every decision point, there might be a case here. Instead, it's aimed at the street user level and focused on one ethnic group - see "War on Drugs" for an illustration of the pattern and the coming outcome.
Joe Arpaio--for whom I voted twice, and goes practically unopposed becuase of his effectiveness--is charged with enforcing all laws. Up until now he has been unable to step beyond a certain line and had to--as I said--work within a system that set up idiotic walls against effective law enforcement.
Learn to read. You can download the text (or even the abridged version) at any number of websites. The law covers those employing illegals and gives the attorney general sweeping powers in prosecuting employers of illegals for not taking significant precautions in preventing the employment of illegals.
Why shouldn't it be aimed at the street user level? They're breaking the law and should be deported. And it isn't focused at "one ethnic group" it actually effects every illegal immigrant. Just because one group breaks the law more than others isn't reason enough for not enforcing it and is--in fact--proof that there is an issue within that community that, perhaps, said community might want to own up to and address.
What "inheritance" is that? There is no constitutional law restricting states from enforcing federal law, and I'd ask you to show how there is.
Will they take note? Sure. But who the hell cares? Mexico's immigration laws are significantly harsher than anything in the USA. In Mexico you are guilty until proven innocent and foreigners are not allowed to own property within a certain distance of natural resources or the coastline. Think other governments haven't taken notice of that? Sure they have, but they don't have a legal leg to stand on. It's Mexico and they can have whatever hypocritical laws they want.
Again, who cares. As you know, the USA is governed by a constitution and there is nowhere in the constitution that prohibits the states from enforcing federal laws. In fact, until the turn of the last century, it was primarily the states who were charged with enforcing and trying crimes against the United States because of a lack of federal law enforcement officers and federal courts.
What? In Spain, where I lived, I was required to carry my passport or resident ID on me at all times or I could be deported. Each nation is allowed to have its own laws. What kind of idiotic analogy is that, especially when it concerns Mexico--a nation that has THIS VERY SAME LAW--and regularly deports and fines its illegal immigrants for doing what Mexicans now do, en masse, in the USA.
Yep. And the federal government is legally obligated to deport then once they are found guilty of breaking laws--even the ones that the federal government is negligent in enforcing.
Again, who cares what the Mexican government thinks, they have, and enforce the same laws. And the USA is completely within its rights to deport whomever it wants and is obligated to do so once an illegal is arrested.
Incorrect, see my above post about NYC towing foreign diplomat's cars. You're the one arguing that AZ doesn't have the right and it is incumbent upon you to sight the laws that prohibit AZ from doing what it is doing. Simply stating that they don't have the right isn't really proving anything. If that were the standard of proof around there, then I could make up any bullshit and you'd have to accept it as fact as well.
probably going to increase identity theft. Heard of an incident where trucker(the guy was an american citizen) who was pulled showed his driver's license, registration for his truck, and bill of goods being carried all of which showed having a perfectly legal reason for being an arizona. Cop instead demanded his to see his birth certificate which naturally he didn't carry with him. No one carries their BC with them and your advised not to because of the fact it contains almost all the information needed to completely steal your identity.
I think your understanding of the law in this area is incorrect. The federal government is not legally obligated to enforce the laws it passes. Case in point, marijuana is illegal under federal law, medical use or no medical use. The feds tend not to enforce that in the face of State medical marijuana laws, and the federal government certainly has the power to do so. The clinics that dispense medical marijuana are not that hard to find, and the doors aren't exactly being kicked down in droves.
Every polity has prosecutorial discretion, and many laws are openly ignored by law enforcement. There are plenty of laws on the books that simply never get enforced. There are criminal penalties for copyright infringement on the books, but when was the last time the feds arrested someone for downloading movies off the internet? (In fact, the RIAA and others are presently angling to change that policy of non-enforcement of federal law, but they have about as much right to start making "citizens arrests," as the State the State of Arizona does.)
That is true, but as for "who the Hell cares" my point is that it is a matter of international relations, and the Constitution--the Supreme Court has held--vests SOLE power over international relations in the FEDERAL government. Of course "the USA" has the right to control immigration, but the State of Arizona has no say in it at all, save through its federal representation, not through its state legislature.
Of course you are right to say that Mexico's complaints might be silly, and might be something the federal government should ignore, but the nature of the "correct response" to a diplomatic issue does not confer or deny powers on the States, nor delegate to the States powers reserved solely for the federal government.
States can pass laws related to immigration if they fall within two distinct exceptions: (i) if the laws are neutral as to citizens and non-citizens, like ordinances regulating parking are, and (ii) if they regulate an area of traditional state power, like conditions for marriage and employment; provided that they do not create a significant interference with federal immigration policy.
The Arizona law was drafted quite carefully to track federal statutes, but it's stated purpose was to *break* from actual federal policy, and there is good indication that it is designed to force a change in that policy. States can pass laws that, in effect, seek to cooperate with the federal government on imigration issues, but the very point of this law is to do what the federal government is unwilling to do.
You may wish the Constitution allowed that, but starting with Zschernig v. Miller, in 1967, the Supreme Court said that they can't. (In fact, in that case, the executive branch said that they did not care what the State of Oregon did, and the Supreme Court struck down the state law *despite* the lack of objection.)
As far back as the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman (an 1875 case involving California passing a law requiring that a bond be passed for certain passengers arriving in California from foreign ports), the Supreme Court has been striking down state laws that could incite a diplomatic incident. In that case the court asked what would happen if the Chinese government objected to the law and demanded satisfaction for its complaints, and said:
I did both quote from and provide a link to the Supreme Court's website...that you didn't bother to read it, or didn't understand it, is hardly the same as me "simply stating" my position without backup.
If you think my reading of that site is wrong...fair enough, but to accuse me of having provided no evidence is intellectually (and strikingly obviously) dishonest of you.
Actually, you are wrong. In fact, Obama has stated that he cannot stop kicking gays out of the military because Congress passed the law requiring them to be booted and he is obligated to enforce that law until Congress repeals it. The president cannot selectively enforce laws that he likes.
It's still illegal, Pandi, and the only reason it is not "enforced" is because the federal government triages cases like doctors: they chose those that are the highest priority. If the federal government had time, money and energy it would and could most certainly prosecute those using marijuana.
Pandi, AZ is not conducting international relations by enforcing laws that are already on the books. By prosecuting murderers from Mexico, is AZ interfering with international relations too? A law is a law, regardless of what it does to the federal government. There are MANY things that the states do to obstruct the federal government and there isn't a damned thing the fed can do to stop them other than say, "Shame on you." All the federal government can do is attempt to strong arm AZ by withholding funds. Though, it should be noted, that AZ was the only state to refuse federal highway matching funds just to thumb its nose at Washington. So, I doubt any threat from DC will move AZ to stop enforcing laws that are in place throughout the entire nation.
I do have one question though, how does AZ enforcing laws--that the US Congress passed--interfere with international relations? One would think that if it did, the Congress would simply change the laws.
Have you read the PDF on the law? I have. The law simply requires police to verify legal residency of those who they stop. There is nothing illegal about that. Moreover, it requires employers to make extra effort in verifying legal residency, also totally legal and--in fact--a requirement in other states as well.
Nice try. If you read up on that case--which I just did--the law was struck down for one reason only: it created stipulations based on the actions of the "alien's" home government. This law does no such thing. It merely requires police to verify citizenship of those they apprehend. Very different cases.
Do you read the cases you quote and why they were struck down?
That very case was truck down because it specifically targeted "undesirables" based on class and country of origin, and restrict the movements of specific people based on the values of California. Arizona, again Pandimoni, has done no such thing. It has--again--merely decided to enforce laws which the federal government has already passed. The federal government would have a tough case arguing that AZ is creating a diplomatic incident by enforcing laws which the federal government created.
Again, because the law specifically targeted the Chinese because--well--they are Chinese. The AZ law requires police to verify a person's legal right to be in the USA regardless of where they are from.
You provided cases that I don't think are honestly applicable who's connections to this law are specious at best.
Again, it will be a hard case for the federal government to prove when it is the federal government that created the law. In each of the cases you provided, the laws were struck down because the state created a special law to govern people based on their origin or home government's political status. In the case of AZ, no such condition exists, merely the police are required to take the extra step to verify if the person they are questioning is--in fact--not in the act of breaking federal immigration laws. If enforcing federal immigration laws creates an international incident then the law itself should be removed.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
Law enforcement (including the President) may choose to abide by every dot and tiddle of the law (especially where not doing so would draw objections from other branches of government), but prosecutors (i.e. who are included in the executive power) choose not to bring charges that could be filed all the time, just like police occasionally let criminals go.
In fact it is well established that law enforcement has no legal duty to protect individuals from crime at all.
There are limits on "enforcement discretion" (some would say, more pejoratively "selective enforcement") that arise under the equal protection clause, but nothing that applies here.
Look at this site: http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/facu...logger-the-president-and-immigration-law.html Where they say, with respect to immigration:
"General enforcement discretion?"
How about this: http://migration.ucdavis.edu/cf/more.php?id=87_0_2_0
At this point, if there is no enforcement discretion, I think you need to post a source demonstrating that, because, the very basis of "triage" is the exercise of some discretion.
In fact, the Arizona bill itself states:
It seems like the State of Arizona believes that a law that is on the books can be limited in its enforcement by way of policy...and they extend the possibility of subordinate officials doing it, whereas the Executive is a co-equal branch of the federal government. I would agree that if Congress passed a law like this commanding the President in a similar way (and it were duly passed into law), then Presidential discretion would vanish.
I recall reading that shortening a poster's name is a violation of the rules of conduct, Soupi. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So stop it, or ban yourself for a short time. Either one's fine. :bugeye:
Anyway, see above, there is discretion.
No, because the law against murder does not target non-citizens. It is applied equally to everyone, regardless of citizenship. It doesn't matter that they are not directly dealing with the Mexican government or are otherwise in the international arena. Neither was California when it told Chy Lung that she needed to post a bond (and they had a really good reason for targeting foreigners there...because you cannot easily get jurisdiction over foreigners who often flee the State after committing crimes).
As I noted the court said that if the government of China objected, it was the nation as a whole that was on the hook for it. Even if, on balance, it is a good law, the solution is that Congress either should pass that law, or delegate authority to pass such laws to the States (which is permissible). In the absence of delegation, states cannot target foreigners as the sole object of a law save in limited cases, the big rule being that they cannot adversely impact federal policy.
Like it or not, federal policy is lax enforcement of the immigration law. The fix is not State enforcement, but to tell Washington to enforce it, or be prepared to be voted out in the future.
After I read it, I had no personal problem with the Arizona law, save that it steps on the federal exclusivity in matters of immigration policy (which is a rather abstract objection).
What? Well...please show me evidence of that. Note that I am going to point both to the cases I already cited, where State laws were struck down, and to the Supremacy clause.
In fact, please also look up the "Dormant Commerce Clause", and then take a look at this article if you can find a copy: In the Shadow of Article I: Applying a Dormant Commerce Clause Analysis to State Laws Regulating Aliens, by Erin Delaney.
In point of fact, to save you time, as a statement of the law, you are demonstrably wrong. Generally, state laws fall before conflicting federal laws. In certain areas, though, state laws fall even where there is no federal law. In both Chy Lung v. Freeman and Zschernig v. Miller, state laws affecting aliens were struck down simply because they might in theory create a conflict, even though they were not inconsistent with federal law. (See why you are wrong about your "but they are country specific" objection, below...as Chy Lung was not at all.) Even in De Canas v. Bica, where they upheld a California law (forbidding the hiring of illegal aliens), the court assumed that the law did not conflict with federal policy. Here, that's the very intent behind the law.
I agree that AZ will likely not respond to that threat.
I may be misunderstanding the question a bit, but the answer is "it might not interfere with international relations." In Chy Lung, no government was objecting to the California law. The Supreme Court struck the law because Congress has an exclusive power to set immigration and visa policy, including special restriction on their rights and imposing obligations on them (like the bond the State of California wanted in Chy Lung or the restriction on inheritance rights that Oregon wanted in Zschernig).
In fact in Zschernig the Executive Branch was clear that they did not think it would create a problem, and the court struck the law anyway.
The point in both cases, whs that State laws might MIGHT create a conflict, and so all such laws were invalid. Other cases like DeCanas established exceptions, as noted below, but that was the holding in these two (and ion other similar areas odealing with federal exclusivity over foreign relations).
This statement is my own synthesis of the various cases I have read. Some laws are allowed, others are struck. The laws that are allowed seem to fall within the categories listed. The second category is based also in part on my reading of De Canas, where in Part II the court discusses the State's role under their police power to regulate child labor, wages, worker health, and other employment matters. I extend that to say that States have authority to pass laws related to aliens wherever their traditional powers extent, but as DeCanas itself noted, "Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power."
A similar point is also echoed in Chy Lung when the court says, in dicta, that if it were a "vital necessity" that the State regulate foreigner entry into the State, then the State, might have more leeway, but that such a law "cannot be carried beyond the scope of that necessity."
I have as well.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with the employer part, as that is DeCanas all over again.
As for "simply" requiring the police to "verify", it does more than that. It gives them the ability to arrest people without a warrant based on probably clause, which likely includes any circumstance where they cannot affirmatively verify the immigration status of the person involved. It further sets up a qui tam action by anyone (not even limited to Arizona citizens) if immigraton laws are not enforced to the fullest extent, which would seem to include any occasion where an illegal isn't arrested after failing the verification process.
It also makes it a crime (trespassing) for any illegal to be on any public or private land, even a felony if convicted more than once. That means imprisonment, and as with all felonies, the sentence would be for up to a year or more. Moreover, the law is clear that the person is not eligible for a suspended sentence or a commutation or release on any basis, so they will have to serve the while stint, in State prison.
I don't have a policy problem with any of that....but I don't think it satisfies the case law either so long as that is Arizona's policy only, and not Congress's or the Executive's. More to the point, it is definitely not just "police can verify" and that's it.
Nice snide remark. You must therefore be correct.
In the end, we disagree on the reading of that one. There is more case law out there that you are ignoring, and your reading of this one is, imo, stilted out of a desire to distinguish it. Sure, *this* law was limited to certain foreign governments, but that was not so in other cases where state laws were pre-empted.
Snide remark two, wow, I must be losing badly. Either that, or you snideness is evidence that you don't really hew closely to "logic" when debating. Probably the latter since snideness adds no logically valid evidence to the debate.
Again, I think you are misreading the case because you don't want it to affect your preferred outcome.
I would also note that I don't know if this argument will win in federal court or not. Of course, federal courts could well look to the similarities between the Arizona law and federal law and decide this is fine, if that is what the judge wants to do. My *original* point was to say that the "pre-emption" argument is the stronger basis for challenging the law in court, and not the discrimination charge. The law might not be applied using racial profiling, and so it is hard to see how there is any facial challenge that can be made on the basis of racial profiling being somehow built in to the legislation
That said, I think the more obvious reading of the case law is to note that the federal government has exclusive power to regulate immigration, and that federal regulation includes the actual enforcement policy being followed, and Arizona has taken it on itself to apply a different policy, and States have no "police power" (used in the sense that term is used in constitutional law) that extends to the regulation of immigration. For those reasons, the case law as I read it looks to be hostile to State attempts at forcing the government immigration policy to change. (Other than though normal political channels, of course.)
The federal government does not have to prove that it would happen. The Executive in Zschernig was on the side of the State.
There is some confusion here, that may be clarified if you re-read the case, as the law was not limited to China (the plaintiff challenging the law happened to be Chinese though). It was limited to people who were more likely to somehow cause trouble/expense for the State (foreigners from any nation who are idiots, cripples, paupers, criminals, debauched women, etc.), but not to "Chinese" people.
And I believe you have provided nothing in support of your position save snide remarks and condescension. You have yet to even address the fact that immigration is the exclusive province of the federal government, and why it should nonetheless be a State law crime, as surely it is if every illegal alien is trespassing when on any "public or private" land.
Again, that is a misreading,. The California statute, in particular, applied to all foreigners who fell into the "undesirable" categories, not just the Chinese. Chy Lung was Chinese, but the California law said "from any foreign port or place (who is not a citizen of the United States)...."
And if the police fail to arrest because a de facto policy of non-enforcement of federal immigration laws is established, then the local government can be sued, plus it makes being an illegal in any location within the State a State crime, and sometimes a felony. In fact, you mentioned that the federal government can "triage" criminal investigations, but Arizona police can't--or, at least, "triage" is not mentioned as a defense to the lawsuit that is authorized against any:
In fact, unless every illegal immigrant is arrested first, any "triage" that did not prioritize illegal immigration as the greatest threat facing Arizona would be a "policy" that would restrict enforcement to less than the full extent that is "permitted" by federal law. (Since federal law "permits" 100% enforcement.) Read literally, any county that refuses to demand that police officers work overtime to search for illegals, is enacting a "policy" that restricts enforcement to less than the full extent "permitted" by federal law. (At the very least, no police department could refuse to authorize overtime, for those officers who wanted to work to search for illegals.)
The only thing that saves that particular provision is that no court in its right mind would enforce it as written.
Obviously we disagree on this, and we can wait to see what the courts say. My view is that I have led the horse to water, but sadly I cannot make him think.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I live out here in Arizona, I personally love the law and the job Jan Brewer has done since Napolitono basically ruined the state with debt and poor policy. Sheriff Arpaio (whom I've voted for every time since I've been of age) has made the detention of illegals relatively cost-free. Its voluntary chain gain offsets its costs allowing the city to avoid paying for hired clean-up crews. Their living quarters are in the middle of the desert in tents. County deputies have been enforcing this law for a few years now under a federal law 287G [ICE] and haven't received excessive lawsuit...the only people who seem to be complaining are the Federal justice department, still they've failed to build a case.
What most people not from Arizona don't understand is this...
City police already will arrest individuals for failure to prove identity...what unfortunately happens is they'll be detained and will request funding to extradite them to Mexico. Typically Napolitono's attorney general rejected the request and then the person would be fingerprinted and basically set free to continue being illegally in the US. On rare occasions they would be extradites...the cost per capita exceeded the cost for imprisoning in an Arizona jail for 2 or 3 years.
Most all of the states can sit around in their liberal freedoms and spat at the Arizona with claims of racist bigotry...mostly because they are lucky enough to not be inundated with illegals. Many of the illegals are just hard working individuals...unfortunately many of them are engaged in sex trafficking, drug cartel, and human smuggling in the most vile ways [How does organ harvesting sound to you?] If they were American citizens they couldn't maintain this kind of freedom because we would at least know they exist.
Meanwhile the bullshit Federal government about 3 thousand miles away has from their comfortable chair decided that allowing Phoenix to have the second highest kidnapping rate in the world uncoincidently second to Mexico city...is it a shock? It's the same people in both city! And not only do they attempt to hinder the state from simply protecting its self, they revoke its preexisting rights!
Did you know there are parts of Phoenix which are more dangerous than Detroit OR Los Angeles, or New York at night? Guadalupe, central Glendale, East Mesa, and South Phoenix are so packed with gangs that the police don't patrol and ambulances refuse to go to certain locations at night! This is an American city feeling the direct impacts of the absolute failure of the federal government to protect its borders...
The federal government can shove its politically correct head up its bureaucratic ass!
And his manner of enforcing them so far is what you are describing as touchy feely. So your standards of touchy and feely are thereby clarified.
Sure. My point was what the consequences have been of other such laws clearly set up to amplify police bigotries and enforcement issues.
You really believe that?
As noted, we have examples of large and established communities subjected to assigned community guilt and unjust, capricious law enforcement - so we can predict their response.
To the former: no, they haven't. The pretense that they have is PR spin to help sell oppression to reactionaries.
To the latter: indeed, and correctly. There's a reason they draw so much negative attention, and it's because they do so many overtly negative things. There is no conspiracy to demonize Arizona law enforcement - but when the shoe fits...
Which is what, exactly? Cheap construction and landscaping labor? Excellent food for low prices?
Guzman and Rowan: The underlying issue
We had a similar thread in EM&J that has pretty much died, and I see a curious aspect about the relationship between the two threads.
I raised and reiterated a point in that discussion that the supporters of the Arizona law would appear to wish to avoid. For instance, String, in responding to Quadraphonics, stepped into that realm, but failed to directly address what was already on the record. Maybe he didn't see it; maybe he thought it was easier to challenge Quad—either way, it's not personal, but rather that I'm annoyed that so few wish to actually consider the issue.
Thus, to reiterate for the benefit of this thread:
What I don't get about this law is what constitutes actionable cause?
In 2007, without such a law to support them, California authorities deported an American citizen. What was so disturbing about what [Madanthonywayne] classified as a mere bureaucratic screw up is that, in that incident, ICE reminded that they "only processes persons for removal when all available credible evidence suggests the person is an alien". Indeed, ICE claimed that it "has no reason to believe that it improperly removed Pedro Guzman".
Except that he was an American citizen. Or, as I put it then, "In other words, no credible evidence at all is enough credible evidence to deport a man."
So what is reasonable cause for investigation? Looks hispanic, speaks Spanish? I mean, really, what? Will Arizona authorities be nearly so suspicious of British people who might be in the country illegally?
I think one of the things this law's supporters need to establish is that they recognize people's legitimate concerns about enforcement, and help people understand how those issues are addressed.
• • •
I think part of the problem people are having with the prospect of profiling is that the law's supporters can't seem to describe how else things are going to go. The governor, after signing the bill into law, admitted she didn't know what an illegal immigrant looked like. As I asked before, what constitutes actionable cause? ....
.... Look, in the past, being a U.S. citizen hasn't helped hispanics (e.g., Pedro Guzman), and being an illegal Brit hasn't helped law enforcement (e.g., Jonathan Rowan). So what, in any real terms, can we expect of this law? At best, the answer is, "Absolutely nothing." At worst? "Papers, please."
I've heard plenty of arguments in support of this law, and none of them address the fact that the existing standard for finding someone an illegal alien and deporting them is zero affirmative evidence. Contrary to what the War on Terror has persuaded many people to believe, the United States Constitution applies to everyone within its jurisdiction. And as we learned in Seattle a couple years ago, having an illegal alien in police custody doesn't guarantee that federal procedures will be initiated or followed. And so far, a key factor in the difference seems to be the perceived point of origin of a given alien. Pedro Guzman, a mentally retarded U.S. citizen was deported, and ICE stated publicly that they had no reason to believe his deportation was improper. Meanwhile, Jonathan Rowan was an illegal alien in police custody on a stalking issue, and he was released only to complete the murder mere hours later. Had he been hispanic, instead of British, would his status have been more thoroughly investigated?
Everyone knows this law is aimed at hispanics. Even the law's supporters go on about Mexicans. And, frankly, if parts of Phoenix are too violent for police and ambulances, that's a failure of law enforcement in general. In the meantime, blaming the federal government for touchy-feely political correctness is just an excuse. Building a wall across the entire border is a sad joke. This is a feelgood law, a pep rally for racists, and it's going to take a tremendous effort on Arizona's part to change both reality and perception on that count.
In the end, Arizona must apply the standard universally. Whatever standards of suspicion warrant cause to investigate an hispanic individual must be applied to others. If that means a white person gets investigated because they say, "Pie and chips", "Lorry", or, "Aboot", that's how it's going to go. And we'll see, then, with equal enforcement, how people feel about the law.
I'll bet you as soon as Arizona becomes inundated in illegal Canadians and British men the same law will be applied to them! Unfortunately the problem is Mexicans. If you think the police officers who are looking forward to this law is racist, I dare you to come out here and ask them to their faces.
Well, I can only speak of my five years living in Phoenix but I'd say it's the flooding of drugs, higher crime rate, kidnappings, clogged emergency rooms amongst many other issues. Take your pick.
? What does that have to do with illegal immigration? Are you reclassifying drug smugglers as "illegal immigrants" now?
Please demonstrate that illegal immigration has increased "crime" and "kidnappings."
Crime other than illegal entry into the US, I mean.
It's the failure to make insurance universally available that clogs emergency rooms, not illegal immigration.
For your next trick, please illustrate how increased deportation would more effectively address any of those issues than a blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. The recently-passed law is guaranteed to increase the incidence of crime, since the police will become isolated from the immigrant communities, by the way.
Separate names with a comma.