As usual...Obama and his liberal media cronies

[rich76]

NOT telling the whoile truth and nothing but the truth, sent to me by a lifelong friend now retired in Arizona...for your perusal

About Arizona's new immigration law and what it really is----something the liberal press and US politicians won't tell you. Leave it up to President Obama to (again, like he did with the Cambridge police officer and Professor Louis Gates situation) to open his mouth without putting his brain in gear. Per the leader of PLEA (Phoenix Law Enforcement Association), "this law doesn't do anything that we haven't been doing all along for years. What it does is make SB1070 a state law that applies to all police officers and political subdivisions within the state".

The only thing new in the bill are the provisions that local police chiefs and mayors may not disregard the law, and that private citizens can sue the police departments and local governing agencies to force them to follow the law. Loser of the lawsuit pays all legal expenses. That's it, nothing else changes what has been happening for years and years. The 800 illegals deported last year by the Phoenix police were first arrested on other criminal charges. In other words, they were arrested for committing other crimes, determined to be here illegally, and were deported back to their country of origin after being convicted or pleading guilty to their crimes for which they came into custody of the police to begin with. There was not one lawsuit or complaint to Internal affairs out of the 800 arrests and deportations by the Phoenix P.D.

Read the synopsis of the law (published by the "open borders" advocate Arizona Republic newspaper that calls illegal immigrants "undocumented workers").

Get behind efforts in your states and cities to enact similar legislation.
AZ Senate Bill 1070 to become law in 90 days.

>> Prohibits state, city, or county officials from limiting or restricting "the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law"; and allows Arizona residents to sue an official or an agency that adopts or implements a policy that does so. This bill contains a "loser pays" provision meant to determine frivolous lawsuits.

>> Requires law enforcement make a reasonable attempt "when practicable" to determine the immigration status of a person if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the US/Arizona illegally. Officials do not have to do so "if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation".

>> Make it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant by creating a state charge of "willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document".

>> Make it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or solicit work in Arizona.

>> Makes it a crime to pick up a "day laborer" for work if the vehicle impedes traffic and makes a day laborer subject to criminal charges if he or she is picked up and the vehicle impedes traffic. (My note: every AZ city has a tax-payer funded Day Labor Center that doesn't check the immigration status of workers who go there to find work)

>> Makes it a crime to conceal, harbor, or shield an illegal immigrant if the person knows or recklessly disregards the immigrant's legal status. It does create a legal defense for someone providing emergency, public safety, or public health services to illegal immigrants.

>> Allows law-enforcement officials to arrest a person without a warrant if they have probably cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes him or her removable form the US.

>> Requires employers to keep E-Verify records of employees' legal worker eligibility.

>> Reiterates Arizona's intent to not comply with the Real I.D. Act of 2005, including the use of a radio-frequency I.D. chip technology.

Arizona is frustrated with the lack of commitment of the Federal government to close the border and then work with the states most affected by illegal immigration to find a solution. All Presidential administrations, Democrat and Republican, for the past 30-40 years have failed the US citizens in the states affected. The country of Mexico is equally to blame for facilitating the illegal exodus of over 20 million of it's citizens across our sovereign borders.Their corruption of their police and military is well known. Protecting drug traffickers and "coyotes" in human smuggling is institutionalized in Mexico. Their government is presently in danger of becoming irrelevant as the drug cartels exercise more control over Mexico's northern provinces.

Living here in Arizona, I thought I'd give you a real "heads-up" to the liberal bias being presented by the White House and it's propaganda committee, the alphabet television news and liberal owned newspapers. pv.-Sun Lakes, AZ.

[Thunderbirds]

Rich, I agree whole heartedly with your statements. Some real blame needs to be given to our ex governor and now Sec of HomeLand Security for ignore the situation.

A strange twist is that the Mayor of Phoenix wants to sue the state over the bill, yet the Phoenix PD supports it.

[hork]

Someone check to see if hell has officially frozen over. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but with regard to this particular law, I am forced to agree with the "honorable" Lindsey Graham (R-SC) when he says,

"“What happened in Arizona is that good people are so afraid of an out-of-control border that they had to resort to a law that I think is unconstitutional.”

I think it's evident that if a preemptive challenge is issued this law will get thrown out. The way it's written (especially section II and the reasonable suspicion clause) is very much unconstitutional and quite reminiscent of the 1930s and 40s.

I don't blame the folks in AZ for trying to deal with a situation that seems to be a futile battle, but even though their intentions might be well placed, blatant violations of the law of the land can't (and I feel certain won't) be allowed to stand. That said, with some revision I think the majority of the law is fine but section II has to go before it will ever become a mainstay in the Arizona (or any other location) legal system.

[StockTrader]

What is in section two? Trying to follow the bill, but been busy.

Nick

[P562045]

Well first things first. This may well be why a person would object to the law in Arizona in the first place.

This is the fourth amendment of the Constitution.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now I will put what section two of the Arizona bill 1070 says.

This is from the Arizona legislature website.

Sec. 2.

Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read: ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification

A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:

1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.
2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.
2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND 20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
SUBSECTION.
H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

Copy of the bill from the Arizona legislature. Hopefully for those that are interested they can open up a pdf file.

Well out of all of that I want to point a person's attention to section E of Section 2 of this state bill and I quote, "E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."

I will let what people just read sink in and I don't think there will be any further need for comment from me. Well a person may not want to comment about what they were thinking about section E at least for a little while.

So what is the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act in other words what is its purpose?

Well it was to restrict the number of people coming from other countries into the U.S..

Well that was not a very good idea so in 1965 the late Senator Kennedy decided we needed to equalize the number of people coming into the U.S. from two different Hemispheres. Even though the numbers that could come from the Western Hemisphere and the Eastern Hemisphere were not the same so I can't figure out how that could be equal. But there was a way to get around the actual number of people that could come into the United States from each of the two Hemispheres. A person that came here legally could sponsor family members and they could eventually become legal citizens as well. And I must point out there are ways for people and their families to be here legally. On the other hand there may be more people that want to come here each year than the number that is restricted for each year which is in the hundreds of thousands.

A person may want to ask themselves the question why would we want to restrict the number of people that can come into the United States in the first place back in the early 50's and mid 60's.

But the much more important question to me is why should we make all of the people that are here illegally legal citizens. And I will never speak of what I think the real reason is because it is not all of this fuzzy make us feel good about ourselves crap.

We have been down this road already back in 2007 with the debate about the so called Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. So what has changed in the last three years that makes this so necessary now again. And I can guarantee that a person that answers what I just said will not say the real reason.

[P562045]

I think this could be a little easier to read. At least it was for me and again it comes from the Arizona legislature and is not a pdf.

Arizona bill 1070

[Thunderbirds]

Several comments:
1. The local news here interviewed and illegal from Mexico and stated that if the las is found to be legal they will just move to another state.
2. The governor of Colorado supports AZ and stated that we wished they coouold pass such a bill.
3. Tim James (I believe it is) from Alabama is runnig for governor there and has made a sttement that if he is elected all drivers licenses test will only be in English, If you live here English is our language.
4. All employers are supposed to be using an I-9 form to verify if anybody that they hire are here legally. Also they are supposed to verify that all social security numbers are valid and belong to the person using.

[hork]

1. The local news here interviewed and illegal from Mexico and stated that if the las is found to be legal they will just move to another state.

and that's a real problem. and one that won't readily be avoided without federal action (which won't fly due to the recent trends in population and the effects that has on many many congressional districts.

2. The governor of Colorado supports AZ and stated that we wished they coouold pass such a bill.

for the most part i think the AZ law is solid, the parts that clearly endorse and encourage racial profiling and unlawful detention (read as section II) however must be eliminated and/or reworded before said law will ever stand the test of time. i'm not sure though the support of another politician lends any credence to the bill. there were several governors back in the 60's (and probably many today) who voiced support for segregation, thankfully that didn't fly.

3. Tim James (I believe it is) from Alabama is running for governor there and has made a statement that if he is elected all drivers licenses test will only be in English, If you live here English is our language.

a common misconception among many in this nation. we do not in fact have a national language and to discriminate against folks based on language is the very anti-thesis of this nation's founding ideals. there are many who are in this country completely legally who do not speak english. to say they shouldn't have the same rights we do could not be any less "american"

4. All employers are supposed to be using an I-9 form to verify if anybody that they hire are here legally. Also they are supposed to verify that all social security numbers are valid and belong to the person using.

with this i agree completely. it's the law, has been the law, and should continue to be the law. that said the argument about illegals taking american jobs is a straw argument for the most part. i've never seen lines of americans waiting around to be migrant workers or day laborers. i'm not condoning the act of hiring illegals, just being pragmatic is all.


bear in mind i'm not completely against the law in AZ. I do have some reservations about extending the powers and authority of law enforcement and most definitely have issues with the powers granted them under section II of this law. but i think most folks (regardless of which side of the aisle they reside - see Lindsey Graham) do as well. a bit of reworking and this law would be acceptable. til that's done, the simple truth is it's not. and the courts will determine that the first time it's challenged.

[SiteWolf]

I swear it'd be better to just do what's happening over and over again in big business.........work out a merger and just add Mexico as part of the US.........that Guatamalan border is a lot easier to watch than the Mexico/US border.....

I'm not fully serious, of course......................or am I..

[rich76]

The simple fact is...Az has been forced to attempt to make laws because our own federal govt will not. Why? My frien in Arizona tells me that he knows people living near the border that are ready to move themselves....WHY the hell should they have to do that and not get the assistance in curbing such shiznit from their govt.? It's insane and I'm for putting the power in the hands of the States involved. There are millions of illegals in this country that WANT to be a prt of this society and contribute in positive ways. There has to be a way to weed out the ones thast do not.

[StockTrader]

So, the biggest hoopla with Section II is that a police officer that has probable cause [reasonable suspicion] can ask for immigration papers?

Nick

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

I swear it'd be better to just do what's happening over and over again in big business.........work out a merger and just add Mexico as part of the US.........that Guatamalan border is a lot easier to watch than the Mexico/US border.....

I'm not fully serious, of course......................or am I..

Its just the full realization of manifest destiny. We already have about half of what was originally Mexico, might as well take the other half I, for one, wouldnt mind traveling to Cancun without needing a passport

[rich76]

Originally Posted by -mmm-

Its just the full realization of manifest destiny. We already have about half of what was originally Mexico, might as well take the other half I, for one, wouldnt mind traveling to Cancun without needing a passport

or a gun to defend yourself.

[hork]

Originally Posted by StockTrader

So, the biggest hoopla with Section II is that a police officer that has probable cause [reasonable suspicion] can ask for immigration papers?

Nick

pretty much yep. some might ask what's the big deal? of course those some might also want to check out recent world history and see the obvious parallels and then i'm sure they'd understand what all the hoopla is about.

but take those extended powers away (especially since they're clearly illegal powers) and the rest of the law will have a chance at standing up to legal challenge.

[StockTrader]

Originally Posted by hork

pretty much yep. some might ask what's the big deal? of course those some might also want to check out recent world history and see the obvious parallels and then i'm sure they'd understand what all the hoopla is about.

but take those extended powers away (especially since they're clearly illegal powers) and the rest of the law will have a chance at standing up to legal challenge.

Is it considered unjustified for Egypt to ask for my passport when I enter their country?

If this were Kansas or Nebraska, the law would be a completely different scenario. But the very real fact is that Arizona has an issue with illegal immigration. If an officer pulls somebody over and they cannot produce a driver's license, or the license appears invalid, what do you propose they do?

If you are walking along the border of Mexico and the US, you have a backpack on and you look like you have been walking for days, that is suspicious. Heck, I would like to think that even I would be asked to product an ID, and at least questioned as to why I am out in the middle of a desert.

What is your solution to help curb illegal immigration? I am not saying that this law is the right one, but I can see why a need could arise for such a drastic change of law.

Nick