Utopia Talk / Politics / Federal government sues Arizona

Rugian Member	Tue Jul 06 13:51:50 Here's hoping this massively blows up in Obama's face. His party deserves the crushing it's going to get in midterms. ---- Justice Dept. sues, seeks injunction on Ariz. immigration law By Jerry Markon Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 6, 2010; 2:39 PM The Justice Department filed suit Tuesday against Arizona on grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives and is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the legislation from taking effect. The lawsuit invokes as its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, law enforcement sources said. But the filing also contained a civil rights component as well, arguing that the Arizona law would lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners. President Obama has warned that the law could violate citizens' civil rights, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has expressed concern that it could drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities. The federal lawsuit will dramatically escalate the legal and political battle over the Arizona law, which gives police the power to question anyone if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. In addition to Obama and Holder, the measure has drawn words of condemnation from civil rights groups and has prompted at least five other lawsuits. Arizona officials have defended the law and urged the Obama administration not to sue. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton first revealed last month that the Justice Department intended to sue Arizona, and department lawyers have been preparing their case. The filing included declarations from other U.S. agencies saying that the Arizona law would place an undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities. The case was filed in federal court in Phoenix. A preliminary injunction halting the legislation from taking effect later this month would have to be issued by a judge. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed the law in April. The preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, and some legal experts have said such a federal argument likely would persuade a judge to declare the law unconstitutional. But lawyers who helped draft the Arizona legislation have expressed doubt that a preemption argument would prevail. http://www...010070601928.html?hpid=topnews
WaitAMinute Member	Tue Jul 06 13:56:15 Good to see. States shouldnt be enforcing immigration laws. Whiny, for as much as you rail againt the federal government for overstepping its bounds, you seem to have no problem with a state overstepping its bounds and encroaching on a federal responsibility.
The Guardian Member	Tue Jul 06 14:03:24 The federal government is not fulfilling it's obligation to secure the border. The State of Arizona can fulfill the task as long as they do not trump federal law.
kargen Member	Tue Jul 06 14:04:16 WaitAMinute all Arizona is doing is enforcing the federal laws that the federal government is refusing to enforce themselves. The federal governemnt has admitted they lack the manpower to properly enforce immigration laws, so they should be happy that a state is willing to help.
Rugian Member	Tue Jul 06 14:04:42 The 10th Amendment isn't a two-way street. Just because the federal government has authority in a situation, doesn't mean the states don't have some authority as well, as long as they don't openly conflict with the federal laws. In this case, I don't see how the Arizona law hinders the federal departments from doing their jobs and doesn't override federal law, so I don't see how the Supremacy clause applies here.
WaitAMinute Member	Tue Jul 06 14:08:23 "The 10th Amendment isn't a two-way street. Just because the federal government has authority in a situation, doesn't mean the states don't have some authority as well, as long as they don't openly conflict with the federal laws. In this case, I don't see how the Arizona law hinders the federal departments from doing their jobs and doesn't override federal law, so I don't see how the Supremacy clause applies here. " It interferes with the discretion of federal agencies in applying the laws. "The federal government is not fulfilling it's obligation to secure the border. The State of Arizona can fulfill the task as long as they do not trump federal law. " How? They made a federal crime a state crime and imposed stiffer penalties. Rather obvious interference if you ask me. "WaitAMinute all Arizona is doing is enforcing the federal laws that the federal government is refusing to enforce themselves. The federal governemnt has admitted they lack the manpower to properly enforce immigration laws, so they should be happy that a state is willing to help. " So if Texas made piracy a state crime and started executing people for it, that would be OK? What about if New Mexico started charging an additional tariff on goods imported from Mexico? Would *that* be ok?
murder Member	Tue Jul 06 14:32:39 "It interferes with the discretion of federal agencies in applying the laws." The executive doesn't have the option of choosing to not enforce the law.
Forwyn Member	Tue Jul 06 15:00:01 A state securing its own border is not disallowed by the Constitution. The only logically relevant clause is Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." The Federal government has failed in this instance, and Arizona's actions in no way hinder the Fed if they were to actually start doing their job.
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Jul 06 15:11:18 "The Federal government has failed in this instance, and Arizona's actions in no way hinder the Fed if they were to actually start doing their job." It's only failed for White Republicans only.
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Jul 06 15:11:32 to, not for.
WaitAMinute Member	Tue Jul 06 15:13:16 "The executive doesn't have the option of choosing to not enforce the law. " Err... what? "A state securing its own border is not disallowed by the Constitution. " That is an opinion. "It's only failed for White Republicans only. " Piss off, jail bait.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jul 06 15:18:23 "It's only failed for White Republicans only. " since everyone that matters is a white republican, you lose.
miltonfriedman Member	Tue Jul 06 15:19:35 lulz @ purvis. keep up the good work.
Forwyn Member	Tue Jul 06 15:26:31 "That is an opinion." No, it is not. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
kargen Member	Tue Jul 06 15:32:50 "How? They made a federal crime a state crime and imposed stiffer penalties. Rather obvious interference if you ask me." They did not impose stiffer penalties. They are enforcing penalties already in place by the federal government. Those caught are suppose to be turned over to the federal government for deportation. When the federal government threatened to refuse to accept any of the illegal immigrants from Arizona Arizona responded by saying they would be detained until the federal government does pick them up. That in no way imposes a stiffer penalty. It just forces the federal government to do what it should be doing anyway. " So if Texas made piracy a state crime and started executing people for it, that would be OK?" No because the penalty for piracy isn't execution. Your example is also flawed in the fact that Arizona is turning those caught over to the federal government. If Texas caught a pirate and turned that pirate over to the federal government for punishment would you be bitching about it? People are acting like the states have never apprehended illegal immigrants and detained them until immigration could pick them up. In fact this happens all the time and is actually the norm. "What about if New Mexico started charging an additional tariff on goods imported from Mexico? Would *that* be ok?" Not relevant, but no that would not be okay. "Err... what?" There is a law against sneaking into this country undocumented. There is a penalty for this crime. The federal government should not be allowed to just decide to refuse to enforce this law. Arizona isn't changing the law nor the punishment. They are just making the federal government do what they should be doing anyway.
Forwyn Member	Tue Jul 06 15:39:45 "What about if New Mexico started charging an additional tariff on goods imported from Mexico?" This is disallowed by the Constitution. Enforcing border laws against individuals is not.
WaitAMinute Member	Tue Jul 06 15:49:11 Oh gee, look what I found in the constitution under powers of congress: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;" And then later in the same section: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Also, later in the Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Meaning states are not allowed to come up with their own laws to enforce immigration law. End of story.
Forwyn Member	Tue Jul 06 15:59:24 So you're suggesting that the rules of naturalization somehow mean that a state cannot secure its own border in absence of any federal government action on the matter. That if a police officer pulls over an illegal immigrant, he can do nothing but have the car impounded. Okay.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jul 06 16:01:46 So what obama is saying is that state and local police cannot arrest you for a federal crime? oh man what a fucking retard.
Signal 2 member	Tue Jul 06 17:36:02 He isn't saying that at all. But the problem that's facing us to enforce this law, which we have been already, just now its in the spotlight and everyone is suprised, is the fact that we do hold them and have ICE pick them up, problem with that is there isn't enough feds to come and do that so we are stuck with them for however long which causes more of the jails to become overcrowded.
kargen Member	Tue Jul 06 17:48:16 "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;" Yes, it is right there easy to see. What you fail to see is that Arizona is enforcing the uniform rule that the federal government put in place. They didn't change a fucking thing. All they said is we are going to be more aggressive in enforcing laws that already exist. Same rules same punishment. Only difference is they have made it more of a priority to enforce that already existing law. Point to the constitution all you wish. It only farther proves that what Arizona is doing fits directly with what the federal government has mandated.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Jul 06 18:02:13 " What you fail to see is that Arizona is enforcing the uniform rule that the federal government put in place. They didn't change a fucking thing. All they said is we are going to be more aggressive in enforcing laws that already exist. " That sounds a lot like Bush's justification for the invasion of Iraq based on UN Resolutions demanding that Iraq allow weapons inspectors...
WaitAMinute Member	Tue Jul 06 18:13:18 Exactly. Arizona isnt just enforcing federal law, they are also create new penalties for federal laws and "enforcing" them.
Signal 2 member	Tue Jul 06 18:16:10 Earthpig, are you concerned about this now since its in the limelight or has this always been a concern of yours. Because in all honesty this has been going on before this gov. And this administration made a big deal out of it.
Signal 2 member	Tue Jul 06 18:17:48 What new penalties?
WaitAMinute Member	Tue Jul 06 18:19:35 Jail time. They made being out of compliance with federal immigration law a state crime so they could arrest and imprison illegals without waiting for the feds.
kargen Member	Tue Jul 06 18:29:25 "Exactly. Arizona isnt just enforcing federal law, they are also create new penalties for federal laws and "enforcing" them." They are not creating new penalties. The penalty before the Arizona law was deportation. The penalty when the law goes into effect will be the illegal immigrants will be turned over to Immigration for deportation. It has always been that local and state agencies hold illegal immigrants until Immigration can come and take custody. Has been that way for decades. Some local agencies refuse to do this because the federal government isn't good about paying the costs for detaining illegal immigrants and isn't always quick to make the transfer happen. All that Arizona has done is change how they will handle persons suspected of being illegal immigrants. They didn't change anything else. They just decided to be more aggressive in finding illegal immigrants. Everything else is the same as it has always been.
Signal 2 member	Tue Jul 06 18:35:38 "WaitAMinute Member Tue Jul 06 18:19:35 Jail time. They made being out of compliance with federal immigration law a state crime so they could arrest and imprison illegals without waiting for the feds. " Um they always held them in jails.....what do you think we do with them. Put them in a resort or put a tracking device on them until we wait for ICE?
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Jul 06 18:40:30 " Put them in a resort or put a tracking device on them until we wait for ICE? " put them in private prisons run by these guys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEO_Group#Controversy disclaimer: i contributed significantly to that article. primarily by undoing edits that "coincidentally" came out of the same city that GEO Group is headquartered at.
Signal 2 member	Tue Jul 06 18:47:24 No we do not do that.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 07:31:35 Two points have been totally overlooked in this thread. 1. The administration's main talking point in the last few weeks leading up to this lawsuit is that it would seriously violate the civil rights of American Citizens because they would have to have their "papers" with them every time they leave the house. Civil Rights violations are not mentioned in the lawsuit. 2. What has been mentioned in just about every post is that Arizona is violating federal law and the authority of the federal government given them by The Constitution. What is glaringly missing is that there are a number of communities around the country that are Safe Havens for Illegal Immigrants. These are the communities in violation of federal law and they are the ones that rightfully should be sued.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jul 07 08:12:59 Has the potential to violate civil rights. It doesn't have to be mentioned in the lawsuit in order for it to violate if nothing happened. So why would it have to be mentioned?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 08:24:15 It has been the main talking point for weeks. A non-white dare not take his kids to get ice cream unless he has his papers. Why wouldn't they mention it if that is what they are so afraid of? That tells me that the administration has been fear mongering all of these weeks.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jul 07 08:28:45 Yes its bit a talking point, doesn't mean it has to be mentioned. There are many talking points about this bill.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 08:31:14 Yeah, such as claiming Arizona is interfering with federal law. See my second point.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 08:38:09 }Hot Rod Member Wed Jul 07 07:31:35 Two points have been totally overlooked in this thread. 1. The administration's main talking point in the last few weeks leading up to this lawsuit is that it would seriously violate the civil rights of American Citizens because they would have to have their "papers" with them every time they leave the house. Civil Rights violations are not mentioned in the lawsuit." "Dickhead UPer Member Wed Jul 07 08:12:59 Has the potential to violate civil rights. It doesn't have to be mentioned in the lawsuit in order for it to violate if nothing happened. So why would it have to be mentioned? " Just about every law that exist or becomes law has the potential to violate civil rights. But as Dickhead said, there are many talking points about this law. There are some of my fellow officers who disagree and there are some LEO's filing lawsuits against this law citing it violates the 4th and 5th amendments and impedes investigative processes. I can totally see that point and understand it. I am of the opinion that it could seriously impede and make it more difficult for us, hence why we have such measures in place to deal with these situations. 287(g) program is an example. Though we do not have enough juridications that have that specialized training. I do see what Arizona is doing though and I agree with it to an extent. But what I hate about it though is that at the same time it was done purely for political measures.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 08:39:36 Here for an example: BRIAN J PEDERSEN| Arizona Daily Star May 13, 2010 A Tucson police officer has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Arizonaâ??s new immigration law, claiming the legislation will hinder police investigations in Hispanic-prevalent areas. The suit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Tucson by Officer Martin H. Escobar, also claims SB 1070 would make police focus more on immigration than helping people in need. â??What are we saying to the undocumented who are victims of crimes, what are we saying to the undocumented who are critical witnesses to crimes?â?? said Escobarâ??s attorney, Richard Martinez. The suit also claims that the new law, which Gov. Jan Brewer signed on April 23, violates several constitutional rights and also violates federal law because the Tucson Police Department and the city have no authority to perform immigration duties. Escobar, 45, a 15-year veteran of TPD, noted in the lawsuit his experience patrolling the Hispanic-heavy Operations Division South indicates thereâ??s no racially neutral criteria that can be used by officers to determine whether a person is in the country illegally. â??Hey, thereâ??s a lot of people lawfully who speak Spanish; thereâ??s a lot of people who speak with an accent,â?? Martinez said. â??Those tell you that theyâ??re Latino or Hispanic or Mexican, but they donâ??t tell you anything about their document status.â?? Any attempt to confirm immigration status when making contact with the public would â??seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes in the United States,â?? the suit claims. Martinez noted that when police are called to an incident at a school, such as for a report of abuse or neglect, children who are in the country illegally would then need to have their immigration status checked despite federal protection from such queries by school officials. And situations where a person was the victim of the crime or had witnessed a crime would put the officerâ??s focus more on immigration than the crime itself if the officer had reason to believe a person was undocumented. â??This doesnâ??t help law enforcement, it hurts (it),â?? Martinez said. â??Police officers always exercise discretion, but this statute takes away discretion.â??
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 08:40:20 continues: Martinez said officers who attempt to get around SB 1070 could face department discipline, loss of state peace officer certification and even the possibility of lawsuits by members of the public if, for instance, a person requested police check someoneâ??s immigration status and the officer didnâ??t do so. Escobarâ??s suit asks for police to be prevented from having to comply with SB 1070, leaving immigration duties to federal law enforcement, and to prevent state legislators from enacting any other laws dealing with immigration. Police Chief Roberto Villasenor was out of town and unavailable for comment, but department spokesman Sgt. Fabian Pacheco said TPDâ??s policy prevents comment on pending litigation. Escobarâ??s suit was not filed on behalf of TPD and doesnâ??t necessarily reflect the departmentâ??s views or opinions, Pacheco said. Contact reporter Brian J. Pedersen at bjp@azstarnet.com or call 573-4224. Clergy group brings suit in phoenix as well PHOENIX â?? One of the first challenges to Arizonaâ??s new law aimed at illegal immigrants was filed Thursday. Attorneys for the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders charged in U.S. District Court in Phoenix that the measure, signed less than a week earlier by Gov. Jan Brewer, illegally puts the state in the business of enforcing federal immigration laws. But attorney and state Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix, said there is a more immediate effect on Hispanics. The measure specifically requires police, when â??practicable,â?? to check the immigration status of those with whom they have official contact if there is â??reasonable suspicionâ?? that they are in this country illegally. That, he said, opens the door to racial profiling. â??Reasonable suspicion is a standard that lends itself to a personal interpretation on the part of an officer on the scene,â?? Miranda said. Brewer and Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who crafted the legislation, have denied it will lead to racial profiling. Brewer specifically said that already is forbidden under other laws. The lawsuit was one of two filed Thursday against the law. The fear of racial profiling also is fueling another lawsuit being contemplated by three other groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union. - Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services Originally published by BRIAN J. PEDERSEN, ARIZONA DAILY STAR. © 2010 Arizona Daily Star. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved. A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 08:41:51 "This law violates the 4th and 5th amendment. It takes away any semblance of due process as guaranteed by the constitution. Hispanics that have lived in this country for several generations will not get due process under this law. This law is a clear violation of the 4th amendments guarantee of illegal search and seizure. It is an unreasonable search or seizure when the defining reason of who does or does not get searched is skin color or racial appearance. This was tried and failed by The state of California in 1994 with prop 187. This was struck down by Federal judge Mariana Pfaelzer. She rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. States like Arizon, Nevada, California do not have it within their power to usurp federal authority to enforce immigration laws. States cannot coin their own currency, they can't wage war or make treatys with with foreign governments and they can't enforce immigration laws. The Arizona law does that. So it is plainly unconstitional. In the 90's Maricopa county was one of the fastest growing counties in America. Who was highly recruited to swing the hammers and do the building in the 120 degree heat during that time. You guessed it, illegal mexican immigrants. They were heavily recruited to work at those jobs that nobody else wanted. But now, now that all the work is done, everyone is saying "Hey wait a minute, how did all these Mexicans get here". Several border states over the years have been very active in recruiting illegal Mexicans to work for cheap labor then they want to complain about them. For these metropolitan communities to benefit from cheap mexican labor then to gripe about them being here is dishonest and hypocritical. Huge cities and the surrounding areas are guilty of this. Dallas, Phoenix, Las Vegas etc... Officer Escobar Good Luck with your lawsuit. I believe that it is just a matter of time before this unconstitutional law is struck down. Just like the similar law was struck down in California in 1994. " And this was another talking point.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 08:50:54 >-But what I hate about it though is that at the same time it was done purely for political measures. Tell that to the family of the murdered rancher. Tell it to the people who live in that area and go to bed at night terrified that a gang of illegals could break into their homes and there is nothing they can do about it. How does it impede your duties. You stop someone for traffic, they have no DL or proof of citizenship. You go to a domestic violence and arrest the belligerent, he cannot prove citizenship. You chase down someone who just robbed a store. He has no proof of citizenship. What do you do in each of these cases with or without the law? You hold them for ICE. You walk up to someone and demand their papers for no reason, then you have broken both state and federal law. Where is your duty being impeded? Let's face it, the feds are not doing their job. Somebody has to.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 09:05:39 All of those law suits and their reasons are irrelevant at this point. I'm not going to try to answer each point, the courts are perfectly capable of that. I do take exception to one of your paragraphs though. ""What are we saying to the undocumented who are victims of crimes, what are we saying to the undocumented who are critical witnesses to crimes?" said Escobar's attorney, Richard Martinez." What Martinez fails to take into account is that if the illegals in question were not themselves criminals they would not be involved in crimes in The United States. Yes, this is all political. But the politics are being played by the Obama administration. Otherwise, why don't they go after the Safe Haven Communities that are indeed acting against federal law?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 09:08:24 AND, do their duty on the Arizona border?
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 09:16:21 "Hot Rod Member Wed Jul 07 08:50:54 Tell that to the family of the murdered rancher. Tell it to the people who live in that area and go to bed at night terrified that a gang of illegals could break into their homes and there is nothing they can do about it. " So you're going to go with the reactionary law argument? Hot Rod, there are alot of things that happened out there that isn't soley the cause of illegals. It's the type of environment they live in, and yes it is sad that it's happeneing. But you also have to keep in mind for those people to have to be identified you have to work with the hispanic community AND in doing so working with the hispanic community and you have a law such as this that "obliges LEOs" to question a persons status. Alot of hispanics who are legal or not will or may not come forward with any information to help with the investigation or find those responsible for such crimes. Also did you know that the crime rate in Arizona has decreased? So instead of using the emotinal reactionary law argument. Perhaps try the practical, logical, explore other viewpoints that could render or impede other processes that are critical in order to maintain some type of a relationship instead its "us against them" mentality that unfortunately is happening between LEO's and the public anyways. For the record I am for this law, but there are some stipulations that I do not agree with it. "Hot Rod: How does it impede your duties. You stop someone for traffic, they have no DL or proof of citizenship. You go to a domestic violence and arrest the belligerent, he cannot prove citizenship. You chase down someone who just robbed a store. He has no proof of citizenship." Yeah, shouldn't be our job per se to established if your a citizen. You don't have to be a citizen in this country in order to live here. Or have you forgotten this? If I cannot established an identity of who you are then thats a different story. Hot Rod: "What do you do in each of these cases with or without the law? You hold them for ICE. You walk up to someone and demand their papers for no reason, then you have broken both state and federal law. Where is your duty being impeded? Let's face it, the feds are not doing their job. Somebody has to." As stated previously it would impeded because it has potential to ruin the relationship with communties specifically hispance communties to solve other crimes if they fear that any time we do pull them over we have to established their legal status in this country and they would be more reluctant to speak. It's called community police and the effectiveness of such would start to wane. That is the fear and one point I agree with. Again, I am for the law, but I have my reservations about it. That is why I am so much for what we have in regards to 287(g). We just do not have enough jurisdictions participating. Partly due to budgets.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 09:22:13 "Hot Rod:All of those law suits and their reasons are irrelevant at this point. I'm not going to try to answer each point, the courts are perfectly capable of that.' I am not expecting you to answer those points. I was merely pointing out to you why there are issues regarding this law. It appears that you are going to sit there and just ignore other reasons and not be open and take into account as to why there are reservations and oppositions. If you're mind is made up then there is no point of discussing this with you. My part in this is to relay information for those so they have a better understanding. Which is important for cops like me. We have to be opened about situations. The guy dressed in baggy clothes and sagging may be innocent versus the guy in the suit who just shoplifted. Hot Rod: "What Martinez fails to take into account is that if the illegals in question were not themselves criminals they would not be involved in crimes in The United States. Yes, this is all political. But the politics are being played by the Obama administration. Otherwise, why don't they go after the Safe Haven Communities that are indeed acting against federal law? " And that is where your downfall is that if you believe that all illegals are involved crimes. No the politics are being played by both sides, starting with Arizona and then the adminstration are fighting back. That is one big issue I have about this whole situation.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 09:50:36 S2 - And that is where your downfall is that if you believe that all illegals are involved crimes. Please don't imply that I said things I did not say. I answered your specific point about certain victims of crimes and/or certain witnesses to crimes. Nowhere does that imply that all illegals are involved in crime in anyway except that they are criminal to be here in our country in the first place. There is no way you can slant that. There is one more point I missed earlier. "PHOENIX â?? One of the first challenges to Arizonaâ??s new law aimed at illegal immigrants was filed Thursday." These folks are in no way, shape or form, immigrants. Immigrants is to illegals as house guests is to burglars.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 09:59:32 Hot Rod: Hence why I used the word "IF". "These folks are in no way, shape or form, immigrants. " Really? Seriously? You take issue with the words being used? The word immigrant is appropiate, the words illegal immigrants is more appropiate and correct. Have you read the definition of what immigrant means? Seriously? You're going to take issue with that? You've got to be kidding?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 10:12:35 It may be accurate, I'm not so sure about appropriate. It carries the wrong connotation IMHO. In the minds of most people there is little difference between legal and illegal 'immigrants.' Personally, I prefer illegal aliens, just a little quirk of mine. If you think it is silly and insignificant then you are perfectly welcome to refer to them as illegal aliens. :)
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jul 07 10:12:54 Wow. Trying to engage HR in a discussion? Good luck.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 10:19:17 I'm not going to get in a elaborate discussion about it. But if the word illegal is attached, it should suit it just fine. Both terminologies would suffice. "miltonfriedman Member Wed Jul 07 10:12:54 Wow. Trying to engage HR in a discussion? Good luck. " Is there something I should know about milty?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 10:28:40 Actually, I thought it was a very good discussion. I learned a bit adout the concerns of some of the LOE in Arizona and I hope you saw some valid reasoning on my part. Thanks S2.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Jul 07 12:37:57 There is noting to know - just look at his posting style and judge whether he is worth any serious inputs on your part.
kargen Member	Wed Jul 07 13:25:48 ""What are we saying to the undocumented who are victims of crimes, what are we saying to the undocumented who are critical witnesses to crimes?" said Escobar's attorney, Richard Martinez." If this law is followed as written the illegal immigrants wouldn't have to worry about reporting a crime whether they were victims or witnesses. Reporting a crime (in my opinion anyway) wouldn't be probable cause for checking citizenship. Yeah we all know there is the huge potential for it to not work that way, but don't the illegal immigrants have that exact same problem now? If they report a crime eventually their idenity is going to come into play. I'm not sure this law changes anything in that respect. That is yet another reason to crack down on illegal immigration into the country. Because they are reluctant to report crimes it makes them more vulnerable to the criminal element.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 13:48:37 It's the umbrella effect kargen. Before police had their discretion, this law for Arizona would "oblige" them to enforce this law, which you're trying to capture the criminal, but now you are dealing with someone who yes, is an illegal alien, but you're dealing with them and the ones who committed the crime are not a priority anymore. It's not the focus, but its the ramifications that not only will affect those who are illegally here, but ones who are legally here and their empathy towards thems. My views on how to deal with this? It's extreme, but in the long run I believe it would work. Amnesty. All of those who are here now that are illegal, they now can become citizens, but they have a deadline to get the proper documents in order. Make the deadline reasonable. Once the deadline comes and passes anyone, no matter what the circumstances now, since there was a reasonable timeframe set, if caught automatic deportation. Don't care if it splits families or whichever. There has been a sufficient timeframe. Tag 'em and goodbye. Don't come back until you go through the proper channels.
voodooprophet Member	Wed Jul 07 17:56:02 "And that is where your downfall is that if you believe that all illegals are involved crimes." eh? Seriously? All illegals are committing a crime by being in the US, therefore, all illegals are involved in crime.
voodooprophet Member	Wed Jul 07 17:57:59 Amnesty? Seriously? Fuck no. Deport or execute.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 18:29:21 Voodooprophet: "eh? Seriously? All illegals are committing a crime by being in the US, therefore, all illegals are involved in crime." In a general scope of things, yes, its a crime. Though, looking at a practical view, most are not affiliated with drugs, human trafficking, gang affiliations, or various other violent crimes. If you cannot differentiate between levels of crime then there is nothing else to say. Voodooprophet: "Amnesty? Seriously? Fuck no. Deport or execute." Yeah, not going to happened. Not practical either considering how many millions are here now. You think this is the 19th century where we can round them up and march them on their trail of tears back to where they come from? So your other option is execution. Yeah, that's clever. Seriously?
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Wed Jul 07 18:34:13 Dude what do you expect from a racist KKK shizzhead?
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 18:37:18 I don't know the majority of the posters here. So I'm not keen on everyone's viewpoints or their affiliations.
voodooprophet Member	Wed Jul 07 18:44:27 crime is crime. Your idea in it's most basic sense is to teach these people that there are no consequences to committing a crime. I could just see all sorts of amnesty getting popular. "You are here illegally? Oh, what the hell, Welcome to America!" "Is that a stolen TV you have there? Hope it gets good reception! Now run along." "Is that meth in your pocket? Smoke or snort it up!" It's all ok because there are no consequences for breaking the fucking law!
voodooprophet Member	Wed Jul 07 18:47:27 JMB, i am not a racist. I also live in Mesa, AZ. I can assure you there are a whole helluva lot of Hispanics that support 1070. You just don't see them on MSM channels/sites.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 18:54:06 Voodoo prophet. I'm a cop who supports the law. But also see the concerns that opponents have and I also have a better insight than you in regards of what is affecting various police agencies and the balance that has to be kept between public and law enforcement. And you calling out the systematic deportation of people is naïve and purely dumb at best. Especially calling for execution, that is purely absurd. And for the rest of your hyperboles; due to the extent that you made them really tells me how you do not have a grasp on things nor understand what I'm telling you.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 19:02:22 They could all be made to go home voluntarily if we had the leadership to make it happen. There is a way.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 19:19:22 Okay, I'm curious. What type of leadership does there have to be in order to voluntarily get those who are here illegally that are to an extent contributing to society and have roots and establishment?
PATOM Member	Wed Jul 07 19:38:44 Make it too expensive to hire illegal aliens. Make employers verify through the government that all employees are legal US residents. If an employer is found to have hired illegal aliens fine the bejesus out of them, or bring legal charges against the employers and have them spend a little time in one of our fine jails. What happened the last time we gave a general amnesty to all illegal aliens in the country? Most of them that were employed lost their jobs to the next wave of illegals who would work cheaper. The ones granted amnesty ended up on welfare.
PATOM Member	Wed Jul 07 19:43:15 Besides Signal 2, as a cop you don't really have to deal with them for long. You ascertain that they are arrestable, arrest them, bring them to jail, fill out the safe keeping form and you are on your jolly way. The personel in the jail is stuck with dealing with you arrestee until they are either bailed or the courts let them loose.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 20:23:01 "PATOM Member Wed Jul 07 19:38:44 Make it too expensive to hire illegal aliens. Make employers verify through the government that all employees are legal US residents. If an employer is found to have hired illegal aliens fine the bejesus out of them, or bring legal charges against the employers and have them spend a little time in one of our fine jails." More money. And even with those measures you're still only going toi nail a fraction of businesses. Keep in mind of those illegals who do have false identification haven't been caught...yet. At the same time though I can assure you though that as it stands and in fact there probably won't ever be enough resources and funds to eliminate all or even cut in half who are functioning under false pretexts . Patom:" What happened the last time we gave a general amnesty to all illegal aliens in the country? Most of them that were employed lost their jobs to the next wave of illegals who would work cheaper. The ones granted amnesty ended up on welfare" When did we have general amnesty? And as I suggested if you make a reasonable deadline for those that are here now to get proper identification and by that time they do not and get caught. No matter the circumstances. Go ahead and punt them out of the country. And of course fined those businesses knowingly employing illegals. But I don't see in any form you're going to rid 20 million + it's not feasible and unlikely.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 20:25:49 You're right I really don't. However my expertise is in administration.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 20:27:03 thank god for 287(g).
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 20:32:20 1. Secure the border, finish the fence. Use razor wire if necessary. Set up tent cities in the desert to hold detainees until ICE can deport them. Border guards to be heavily armed, use drones, dogs, electronic surveillance, whatever it takes. 2. Take some of the brightest census workers and train them in assisting the illegals, that need assistance, to return to their place of origin. They would also be trained to make initial determination as to whether a subject has the necessary proof they are legal. Others would be turned over to ICE for further investigation. 3. Set up a transportation system to get those who need it help in getting back to their borders. Bus, train, plane etc. Those who can must supply their own transportation. 4. Upgrade the E-Verify system to handle the extra load. Make the system available to all employers. 5. Pass a law that any company or individual that employs an illegal will be fined $5,000.00 per day per employee. 6. Suspend Posse Comitatus in necessary. 7. Start a Constitutional Amendment that rescinds the citizenship of all babies born in America unless at least one parent is a citizen. Once everything is in place, give employers one month to make their determination using E-Verify. Anyone with a legitimate claim of legal residence would have that month to prove themselves. There would be a mass exodus heading for the border as soon as these measures were announced, the rest would be a matter of cleanup. You may say this is all a bit draconian, it is. But I think it would be ultimately successful. Bear in mind, these people have no right to be here in the first place. They should all be made to leave. They are bankrupting many of our local communities and it is time to put a stop to it. Then you can think about reform and a guest worker program.
mexicantornado Member	Wed Jul 07 20:39:06 Well arizona is going to win because eventually it will go to the supreme court which will vote 5-4 in favor of arizona and Obama and his cohorts will looks dumb, until Obama decides to EO amnesty.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 20:42:15 And please don't say that you can't do that to 20 million people. Durin WWII we put 16 million in uniform, sent them to the four coners of the earth and supplied them with all of theier needs. Our tech is a great deal better now. Of course this would be very expensive, but not as expensive as some other programs we have seen recently and this would pay for itself.
Ronald Reagan Member	Wed Jul 07 20:55:28 we can't talk to you because you're dead.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 20:55:37 I asked what leadership would get those to voluntarily leave. And then you respond with that. Do you honestly think we have the resources to conduct such a measure. Let alone the ramificiations of your suggestions. Do you not think that with those measures there are going to be a portion of those inadvertantly effected. Or are you willing to accept the casualities of these measures you're want to implement. This really isn't a cut and dry situation. I wish it were. But when you have people who have been here already a generation and established themselves. It's not going to be so easily to remove them. We flat out don't have the resources and we won't ever have those resources. And such measures will not go into place fearing the constitutiinal rights would be infringed upon inadvertantly. Won't happen. The only thing you have going is that securing the borders would be ideal.
Y2A Member	Wed Jul 07 21:01:55 good
mexicantornado Member	Wed Jul 07 21:02:20 Getting rid of illegals is quite simple, you build a connected wall/fence along the border, build border houses separated by lets say 3 miles each manned by 5-6 border guards, place cameras and sensor detectors all along the fence. That will stop the inward flow of illegals and dramatically stop the flow of drugs into America. Next you take the middle rode for illegals, you force them to come out of their dens by going after employers who hire them and suing them into bankruptcy while offering illegals a way to buy citizenship for them and their family, monetary value to be determined later. End of discussion.
Dickhead UPer Member	Wed Jul 07 21:04:12 What an elaborate and thought out execution of the utmose stupidity roddy. Did you think of all that by yourself or did you have some paranoid rightwinged extremist douchebag that is blogging from his mother's basement come up with that and you borrowed it? Please do share I'm fucking piqued now.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 21:07:09 I can accept mexicantordanoes terms much easier as they almost seemed practical say for a few modifications.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 21:08:07 I wasn't talking about the leadership of a single person, I was speaking of a national mandate. Of course there would be some folks wrongfully effected, but it would sort itself out. Just look at the overwhelming refugee problem after WWII. No it would not be easy and it would be expensive, but it could be done. Success is a decision. All we need to do is elect a government willing to do what it takes. Not going to happen, unfortunately, but it could be done.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 21:09:37 Y2A Member Wed Jul 07 21:01:55 good Hey y2a! How the heck are ya? And who were you responding ?
voodooprophet Member	Wed Jul 07 21:12:38 like everything you said MT, but i'd add the stipulation they would have to return to their country of origin for 6 months to a year before being allowed to buy citizenship.
Y2A Member	Wed Jul 07 21:13:29 to the title of the OP. i'm good. u an old school poster posting under a new name?
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 21:20:05 The only thing MT has that my plan doesn't is allowing someone to buy their citizenship. I have mixed emotions about that. I certainly would not sell memberships to my family, not sure I would want to do it for my country either.
voodooprophet Member	Wed Jul 07 21:26:53 all LEGAL immigrant buy their citizenship, HR. Fees and all that jazz. Oh, and welcome back from the dead.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 07 21:32:14 Yeah but these guys would be jumping the line. Not fair to those sitting in their respective countries waiting their turn.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 21:56:44 Y2A Member Wed Jul 07 21:13:29 to the title of the OP. i'm good. u an old school poster posting under a new name? I'm citadel from U-P.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jul 07 23:00:07 Citadel... if I remember you were a bit of a communist, but not fully insane.
Signal 2 member	Wed Jul 07 23:03:40 Don't know how you figure I would be a commie but okay. I rememebr you as Satan, a pilot, but not really. Lol what's up man?
patom Member	Thu Jul 08 05:39:14 Big waste of money building a wall across the southern border. The French found out how well walls work when the Germans did an end arount in WWII. As for how will they get back to their country of origin? Same way they came to this country! Drugs? Hell people most of the drugs being used today are made by big Pharma's in this country. Fastest growing abuse is of prescription drugs. Oxy's, Perc's, etc. A wall across Mexico ain't going to stop shit. If you allow the illegals to buy their citizenship, do you really expect them to continue working in their current jobs for the same wages they are getting now?? Paying taxes?? Their employers will only get rid of them and hire more illegals to replace them.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 08 06:12:07 Maricopa County Jails: 1100 illegals being held for violent crimes. 300 illegals held for lesser crimes. Total of 15% of jail population = illegal aliens.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 08 06:13:08 ^-No typos there.
Dickhead UPer Member	Thu Jul 08 07:00:35 http://www...iefing-FULL-SET-OF-REPORTS.pdf 187 pages on how and why a fence will not be as effective as some of you uneducated, or high school drop-outs think.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 08 07:23:34 OBSTRUCTING HUMAN RIGHTS: THE TEXAS-MEXICO BORDER WALL OBSTRUCTING BURGLAR RIGHTS: LOCKING YOUR DOORS (FIXED)
Adolf Hitler Member	Thu Jul 08 07:27:21 OBSTRUCTING HUMAN RIGHTS: THE CRAWLSPACE WALL OBSTRUCTING LIL DAVEYS RIGHTS: LOCKING THE CRAWLSPACE DOORS (FIXED)
Dickhead UPer Member	Thu Jul 08 07:29:46 I know the high school drop out wasn't going to take the time to read any of that. Due to his inability to understand rational and concise and documented reasons why it wouldn't be as effective. What can ya do? Oh that's right....plug your fingers in your ear and stomp around while yelling "I can't hear you, facts hurt my brain"
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 08 07:34:18 Why read it? It is abundantly axiomatic that crossing the borders of a sovereign country illegally has absolutely zero to do with human rights.
Dickhead UPer Member	Thu Jul 08 07:35:44 Like I said, you're not going to take the time to read it, because that isn't the whole synopsis of those 187 pages.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 08 07:39:28 So the title is a lie. Another reason not to read it.
Dickhead UPer Member	Thu Jul 08 07:53:59 Your reason not to read it is because your inability to understand. Usually high school drop outs have a reading level of an 8th grader. Which again explains why you won't read it. Because you wont 'un duh stend'.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 08 07:58:26 I once tried to get a French guy I worked with to go to a meeting of The Libertarian Party Radical Caucus. He said to me, "why should I want to go there, I am a socialist." Well, why should I read any part of a 187 page report that goes against my belief that no person has a right to enter a sovereign country illegally?
Adolf Hitler Member	Thu Jul 08 08:01:24 Hot Rod. We've all been taking a secret ballot in PM's about your future here. It looks bleak. Noone likes you, nothing personal though. You are after all famous for being the biggest liar ever at UP, no offence. Unfortunately, and don't take this the wrong way, the unanimous decision was for you to kill yourself again. I'm sorry, but there you have it.
	show deleted posts