A whole lot of debating going on about the Arizona law to enforce the immigration rules already on the books…mostly from the “expert” talking heads like Jon Stewart and other “reporters,” but lets get down to a few of the nuts and bolts. On the legal side Jonathan Adler writes about the preemption argument that much of the legal challenges will go after. He quotes Jack Balkin who wrote:
There is a much stronger argument that the new Arizona law, while purporting to be helpful, actually sticks a thumb in the eye of the federal government by engaging in draconian measures. The Arizona legislature appears to be saying, in effect: “since you won’t police the borders, we will, and if you don’t like it, pass some new legislation.” If this is the point of the new Arizona law, then the law isn’t really an attempt at cooperation but an attempt at provocation and one-upmanship, and the chances that it is preempted increase.
Hmmm, where have we seen this kind of State practice before? A-ha! In my own state. Adler:
If I understand him correctly, he is suggesting that the preemption question turns, in part, on whether a state is seeking fill a gap left by federal inaction in the hope at provoking a federal response, such as more comprehensive federal legislation. Given that I focus much of my time on environmental law and policy, this is a particularly provocative claim, as it would seem to apply to many recent state climate change enactments. Various states have adopted climate change policies even though states are incapable of having an appreciable effect on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. One of the defenses of these laws is that the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to address climate change, so states should be free to act, even if that means adopting inefficient measures, as such actions could spur a federal response. So it was argued that California should be allowed to adopt greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles because the Bush Administration had failed to act. Further, the prospect of variable state standards might prompt the auto industry to support federal action, much as state-level environmental controls in the 1960s prompted the auto industry to support federal air pollution legislation.
Now, onto the “show me your papers” argument. Our President, being his oh so helpful self, interjected himself into the debate when he proclaimed that the average Hispanic person will get stopped by the police for getting an ice cream. Glad he was prudent in waiting for his own Justice department opinion.
Either way, its all bulls&%t. We can’t stop you for the way you look now, and we won’t be able to tomorrow. There has to be a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed ie. infraction, misdemeanor, or felony. It sucks being stopped by the police, but its necessary, as Jonah Goldberg illustrates:
It seems that whenever government expands either its powers or its enforcement efforts, you should be worried that it could go too far. But such worries have to be balanced against necessity.
I agree that there’s something ugly about the police, even local police, asking citizens for their “papers” (there’s nothing particularly ugly about asking illegal immigrants for their papers, though). There’s also something ugly about American citizens’ being physically searched at airports. There’s something ugly about IRS agents’ prying into nearly all of your personal financial transactions or, thanks to the passage of Obamacare, serving as health-insurance enforcers.
In other words, there are many government functions that are unappealing to one extent or another. That is not in itself an argument against them. The Patriot Act was ugly — and necessary.
Consider California’s decision to “lead by example” on global warming. Environmentalists argued that Washington was negligent in fighting climate change at the federal level. Hence California had no choice but to tackle a national problem at the state level. California implemented standards that are considerably more strict than those required (for now) by Washington.
Arizona’s law is more humble than that. While California pushed a stricter standard than the one Washington was enforcing, Arizona seeks to enforce the federal law that Washington isn’t enforcing.
The constitutional and legal issues make the parallel less than perfect, but the principle remains the same. Indeed, I’d wager that the costs of illegal immigration — economic, social, and environmental — on Arizona dwarf the costs on California from global warming, at least so far.
President Obama seems to get this, sort of: “Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”
This is awfully tendentious, since he takes it as a given that Arizona’s effort to take some responsibility for a problem is best understood as “irresponsible” — as if continuing to do nothing at the local level while too little is done at the federal level would be more responsible. Of course, “irresponsible” is lavish praise compared with the charges of “apartheid” and “Nazi” coming from some opponents of the law, including Los Angeles cardinal Roger Mahony.
Regardless, Obama is right insofar as Arizona’s effort is the inevitable consequence of Washington’s inability to take illegal immigration seriously.
One last thing….if you want to cry and wail about for the poor downtrodden illegals and our civil liberties, read the damn statute first.
See author page
It would seem to me that bho would consider the harrasment of American citizens first, and act accordingly. I know. That’s wishful thinking. ❗
Sounds like our two year old acting like an adult realizes he has lost the argument so now needs to try and find a new sympathy play for those poor illegals, the drug trade and the slave labor trade.
Let’s face, illegals are slaves of modern day.
But he says nothing about the rights of citizens of the USA and their rights. Weird he would look at things like that.
It’s obvious that he will not be able to visit Arizona anymore. They may ask him to prove his citizenship!
Perhaps the Ivy-Inbred Highly Educated Vichy class would prefer America adopt Mexico’s immigration policy?
This way the Ivy-Inbred could appear International World Thinkers while protecting their Vichy children from ever having to get their Highly Educated Vichy hand dirty mowing lawns and washing dishes.
Or, send all the illegal immigrants to Obama’s 57th State Harvard, MA where slave labor is an American Ghetto symbol of the great accomplishments achieved by the well-heeled Ivy-Inbred Highly Educated Vichy class.
Plus, Obama’s 57th State could make Grove Parc Plaza Chicago, Illinois look like paradise.
Obama speaking out in such an ignorant and inflammatory way reminds me of the time he claimed the Cambridge, Mass. Police “acted stupidly.” Only later, when confronted with the integrity and character of Sergeant James M. Crowley did he back down from that statement.
But as in this case, the damage was already done. Racial tensions were inflamed on the basis of false and deliberately misleading news reports.
Does anyone expect these crazed racebaiting Obamatons to actually READ these bills before they start screaming?
It’s the boy who cried wolf once too often.
Has Obama told the truth on anything yet? Why should we believe him on the illegal immigration law of Arizona. Look at what the illegals have helped do to Califorina, I doubt you could give that State back to Mexico.
this is a good timing for other STATES to implement individualy their law on their priority;is to cease the opportunity to also show they support their” sister STATE” to have shown gutts and their effectivness to implement law to protect the AMERICANS.
LET me add just a bit more,to end my previous comment;THE STATES would also give the message that they ,according to the” CONSTITUTION” have the power to protect the AMERICANS to live peacefully in their INDIVIDUAL STATES.
I would love to see the law work as intended, but the police side of it won’t. However, there seems to be a stronger push to make businesses accountable for employing illegals. THAT will make the big difference.
On the police side I challenge all of you to solve this situation and NOT end up occupying the “Stacy Koon” memorial upper bunk at your closest federal institution.
Here it goes.
Car full of Hispanics (and we’ll concentrate on Hispanics for now) drives by. Five in the car. Three stare straight ahead wishing you didn’t exist. Two stare at you like you had three heads. The car is going in the opposite direction away from the border which is ten miles away.
1. What do you do? Do you turn around? Why? (Remember this may end up in local/state/federal/civil court many years from now.)
2. To continue the scenario let’s say we do manage to turn around and nobody asks that question in court. We are behind the car. It has no major flaws, no traffic violations etc. How long are you going to follow it to find one? Or are you going to stop it because of the occupants and make something up later? (Remember, ethics, lying, honor, etc.)
3. So we have the car stopped. The driver you own. Driving is a privilege and the driver MUST have a drivers license etc. What about the four other occupants? The SP has ruled that an officer, for his safety, can have the occupant exit or stay in the car, pat them down (depending on circumstances) and do some other basic movements. The SP has ruled you can ask them for ID. It has also ruled that unless the person is a subject of an investigation they don’t have to talk to you, or provide you with that ID. Here the scenario splits.
4. They talk and their stories suck. But here is a problem, inside the US if you begin to believe the suspects are telling you information that may lead to probable cause for their arrest, you have to read them Miranda. Where that occurs in the investigation varies depending on the court rulings. (Remember we are a nation built on the “rule of law” and case precedent is the way we maintain those laws.) But at some point you have to tell them to shut up.
5. They refuse to talk to you exercising their 5th amendment rights they gained possession of the second they crossed into the nation, yes aggravating but a reality. (Remember the whole blow up over the Xmas day bomber and his Miranda rights?)
6. Now you have the driver, who is turns out to be legal. He has a DL and all the paperwork. He vouches for those in the car as also being legal. Do you let them go? Your gut says they are illegals. How long can you legally detain them to prove it?
7. The driver has no DL but insists he is a legal resident and gives you a name, DOB, but can’t remember his SSN. You run him and get nothing back. It could be your computer, it could be your spelling, it could be that he is lying. You don’t know. However, the law is circular on this and is a good spot for you to fall into a trap and gain the vaunted Stacy Koon memorial upper bunk in a federal prison. In America, a green card holder MUST have his paperwork with him. But a citizen or any other person you have contact with does not have to have an ID with him. We are so used to carrying it we don’t realize outside driving, we are exempt from carrying ID. (Which is a good thing) So by being an illegal without the paperwork and either not talking or giving a confusing story you are pretty much on solid ground.
8. Now here you sit. The driver is either legal or illegal. The passengers are legal or illegal but they aren’t much help. If you demand ID from them, and keep them detained against their will if they can’t provide it, you are sued. If you let them go, as you may have to do, what good is the law? Like I said, the driver can be taken in for no DL (I’m assuming it is an arrestable offense in AZ). Once at the station in lawful custody you will have time to investigate his status. So what is your next step? Do you take them all in?
9. You are now at the station with either just the driver or the whole bunch. Depends on how long you are willing to go to prison for, I guess. You pick up the phone and call ICE (In my experience sending carrier pigeons with notes attached works better, but I digress.) and find ICE can’t help you. They have no record of your guys, nor should they. “Hello, this is officer Smith. I have some people here I think are illegals. Can you help me?” “Sure, what are their names?” “They won’t say.” “Oh, why do you think they are illegals?” “Cause they are Mexicans near the border and have no ID on them.” “What??? click….” “Hello. Hello?”
10. Or now that Obama is pissed it is worse. You call ICE and get a message that ICE is no longer taking phone calls from any law enforcement agency in Arizona, because you are bad, bad people.
11. Now you have them, can’t verify them, they are under arrest for something they may or may not be guilty of. What are you going to do now? Your sergeant, two years from retirement and in the drop plan, sticks his head in the door of the report room and asks how things are going. What he is really saying is “FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! I HAVE TWO YEARS TO GO, WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO ME!!”
12. How do you transfer the subjects to federal custody and based on what? Will they even take them? What state charges are you going to file and based on what evidence? Do you kick them loose, hoping they will be content with just getting released and not come back to sue you? (Remember the case in Texas where a rancher on his OWN property detained two illegals at gunpoint for the feds? They sued him for unlawful detainment and won! WON! They were committing a federal offense, trespassing and were detained for the offense by a citizen of THIS nation and THEY WON!)
13. Now multiply this event a hundred thousand times. There are 430,000 illegals in Arizona alone. How many traffic stops or contacts will it take before you get them all?
Will the law work sometimes? Sure, if all things go perfectly. But on the street that very seldom happens. Cops are people, the law is written poorly, the intent is good but the execution will be poorly done. Worse the same lawyers that wrote it will be the first to condemn the cops for “screwing it up.”
However, like I said earlier if you cut off the money by fining and jailing business owner who employ them and cutting off state assistance (medicaid, public schools, etc.) the illegals will leave on their own.
Illegals being harassed would be a huge improvement over Arizonans, Americans, being terrorized by illegals – the current situation
ARCHER52: hi, why not make mandatory for having illegal that are caught;tatooed at the police station?.then it would be easy to catch them a second time,after they are return to their country;it would help more the law officers that litteraly are in danger over there. bye 🙄 the tatoo should be on their hand.
It’s amazing for me to watch the dialogue regarding those who break our laws and illegally enter our country. Arizona has made the logical choice to protect it’s citizens from those who have broken our laws. Yes it’s the responsibility of our Federal Government to protect our borders and without doubt they have failed miserably. This does NOT absolve the Arizona government from the responsiblity to protect their citizens and this is exactly what they are doing. For those of you who can’t understand this fundemental responsiblity I wouls suggest you examine how all other countries handle those who choose to illegally enter another country outside ours. If immigration reform is going to move forward the first step must be to secure our borders to protect our citizens. Next is to enforce the laws regarding those who enter our country illegally. Rewarding them with any form of special consideration for citizenship is beyond absurd. If you think amnesty is the answer then I wouls say if your IQ was 1 point less you would be a plant!!
Texas is doing their part too now!
State Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, plans immigration bill similar to Arizona law
TexasFred,
Oh, so Texas is filled with hate filled racists just like Arizona! 😛 I hope you enjoy living in a police state! Maybe, if Texas is really lucky, San Francisco will sever “diplomatic ties” with you as they did Arizona. Who knew?
TexasFred,
Hope you know I’m joking! Good for Texas!
Has a criminal class, illegal aliens, ever been granted so much protection or the rights of a citizen anywhere else in the world?
I believe in legal immigration; but it should be calibrated on a scale with unemployment. If Americans can’t find jobs, bringing in immigrants will only add to our welfare rolls or is that the purpose?
Ilove-
I’m sure you are kidding. tattooing? How about an ID number along the inside of their forearm? That worked great the last time it was used to track “undesirables!”
Seriously, I just finished reading the statute and it confirmed my fears. Study the part concerning business violations and what “penalties” they suffer for the first, second and third offenses. No jail time, no fines, only the loss of their licenses. AND the investigation is not going to be handled by the police. It seems the District Attorneys Office will be in charge of whether a complaint will be filed. That means politics will play to the employer rather than the law.
Too bad, Arizona almost had it…almost.
ARCHER52:i was not kidding;it would be a start,and easy for the police,that’s important to look at,and a tatoo could prevent a shoothing spree;are they criminals or not? bye 🙄
ARCHER52 more of it;it look pretty the same as the ROE for military;going around the bush to do a job;i would not blame the law officers to keep away from that job. bye 🙄
In politics and in the law there are two principles you must always remember:
1. Nothing in politics happens in a vacuum or by accident.
2. If nothing else, politics is the hotbed for the rule of “unintended consequences.”
You want to tattoo bad guys for I.D.? Ever been arrested before for anything? Because if we start marking illegals and felons, be sure that soon they will mark everyone for anything. “It is only fair” right?
Imagine a world where you are marked for a mistake or even a lie. Wife says you threatened her, cops arrest you, you get marked as a domestic violence offender. You get drunk in a bar and arrested and you get marked for being a drunken criminal. DUI? How about a good one. Your teenage son who is nineteen falls for a girl around say fifteen or sixteen, a juvenile. They break up or her mom finds out and a complaint is filed against the boy. (Happens ALL THE TIME!) The boy is arrested in charged with a lewd and lascivious crime, a sex offense, and he gets marked for that for the rest of his life (which happens now with the sexual offender lists).
No, if you like it, then knock yourself out. I’m a constitutionalist and a man who believes that government has gotten far too powerful for its own good. Worse, you’ll never see a Kennedy or a Gore or an Obama marked for any offense, because they are elites. Only us drones.
Nahh. sorry.
Archer, excellent comments and pretty much jives with my experience also. As far as the complaint, the DA is always the one to decide whether they will file or not. Not sure which State you work for but is this different there? Can’t see how it would be.
Yes, final approval of criminal charges lies with the state. However, the law seems to be broken into two parts.
One part is the police handling of the offenses- being illegal, harboring, transporting etc. That will result in an arrest, booking, jail, and bond if you can make it based on PC.
The other part is handled by the DA and that pertains to the businesses and owners. There seems to be no provision that has them arrested, booked, jailed and forced to make bond. Although it could be argued their employment of the illegals is one of the main causes of why the illegals are crossing in the first place.
So in essence, the guy with the money and pull avoids being held responsible outside the loss of a license. It is more of a “call my lawyer to handle this” situation.
In reality, I think you will find it hard pressed to see much happening to them at all. DA’s are elected officials who need campaign money and “Friends” in the community. Trust me on this, as a person who lived through the great dope smuggling days of the seventies in SW Fla where “square grouper” was smuggled in by all sorts of people up and down the economic scale. The low end dopers were handled, the high end smugglers were somehow never looked into seriously. It was so bad that one complaint of a suspicious low flying plane landing at a private strip was called off by the Sheriff’s second in command, or so I heard from the guys working it that night.
It is and has always been about the money.
I have never really thought that another president would be impeached in my lifetime, but this guy sure seems to be pressing the envelope with all his might.
What I am trying to say is if he did nothing further to damage and ruin this country, I believe history will without question determine him to be the worst unmitigated disaster this country has ever had the misfortune to have as a leader.
No time to really chime in (10 pages to go!), but I’ll share the following:
Steven Colbert’s Word:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/281867/april-21-2010/the-word—no-problemo
Rachel Maddow with Bill Richardson:
ARCHER52;that is an extreme way to look at it;that’s why the war is still on;i am pretty sure that you do it to the criminals who where throwing bottles and a few of theirs leaders bullyes and you probably would not need to continue that ,the word would be out very fast among them;but here the law officers are so much restrained by human right organization and lawers ecetera;it give the people feeling that the polices are bullyes and not to be thrusted;same as the criminals;so who make the best of it it’s the criminals who wont hesitate to shoot anyone in the back;ONE commenter was saying of the rancher try to help one faiking criminal laying down on the ground and after shot the rancher in the back;he died trying to call for help;some other in ARIZONA said how much they are scare to leave their house,ecetera;i dont have sympathy for criminals who are the rotting humans among society; IT’S TIME to reverse that and thrust the police to do what has to be done,they know better. bye 🙄
ick, @Cary… I feel the need for a second shower now…. Colbert and Madcow links in one comment??? I repeat… ick. What bastions of legal brain power they are. /sarc
Hope the screen/stage play is doing well for you. We have noticed your absence.
Ms. bees… sorry, I’m going to have to come down on the side of both Curt and archer on the mandated tatoo bit. You can’t “brand” someone for life. What if, by happenstance, they did become a legal naturalized citizen in the future?
Not to mention that creeps me out as much as the tatoo’d numbers on Jews in concentration camps.
@jlfintx, nice thought impeachment but not likely with the current Congress, who is Obama’s partner in crime with his agenda.
But there’s no law against dreaming… yet.
The best we can hope for is minimizing the fiscal damage in “fundamentally remaking America”, and him and family being ushered to the WH exit doors in Jan 2013.
MATA;hi,i was talking about criminals illegals to tatoo when they are caught before send them to their contry;and now that you mention it;i don’t think they would be given an citizen card in the future;”unless”we never know,who would give them the okay. again ARCHER52 and CURT would say what if the extreme is done. bye 🙄
I wish I could get my head around why it is a bad thing to harass illegals. Illegal is illegal.
I live in So. California and I doubt there is much sympathy for the libs of San Fran and their proposed boycotts of Arizona.
@ilovebeeswarzone, maybe I should explain the context of “crime” as it relates to illegal presence in the US.
Per US federal code, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code – Section 1325: Improper entry by alien, the presence, attempt to enter, or misrepresentation of an illegal alien is punishable by no more than six months, and fined between $50 and $250 dollars for the first violation. Subsequent attempts etal can be no more than 2 years, or/and a fine of $100 to $500 dollars.
If they are caught after refusing to voluntarily deport, the fine is still a civil penalty of $500 for each day they don’t leave.
Defining “crime”, and the differences between misdemeanors and felonies, the dividing line is typically the sentence maximum. This makes being an illegal alien entering, attempting to enter or misleading about their status the first time a misdeamor.
Sure you can’t be suggesting that people be tatooed for a misdeamor violation, right? And even if they fell into the felony category with subsequent attempts, shall we permanently brand all US felons with tatoos who’s sentences are no more than two years as a max?? We don’t even brand those with more than two year sentences.
In this country, when you serve your time, you’ve paid the price for your crime.
So no… there is no category of aliens I support with permant tatoo markings. That truly IS East Germany.
And oh, BTW, the pittance of the fines is the reason I am so opposed to placing the onus of the INS on private employers since they would be paying more than those violating the federal regulations. Is it correct that employers should be punished more than the person here? Not in my book.
Then, of course, there’s that pesky fact that discrimination against an immigrant is a federal crime as well. I will also point out that it is already against federal law to knowingly hire an alien present illegally. For the first time employer offender, the fines are $250 minimal to $2000.
Therefore it’s unnecessary to apply hefty penalties to employers since there are already hefty penalties. The problem is, if an employer asks for anything outside the norm, such as SS card or Driver’s License, are they going to be hauled up by the potential employee for discrimination lawsuits?
Now a flip side on this “crime” is Judge Napolitano… a guy I agree with about half the time, but have to respect hearing his opinion. He made an appearance on a show I dodge every AM… Fox & Friends. More like “Two Guys and a Bimbo do Oprah”, in my book. But that’s neither here nor there. Napolitano says being in the US illegally is not a crime, because it’s not prosecuted.
As usual, the idiot hosts framed the bill wrong, saying law enforcement can stop anyone based on appearance at will. When one of the hosts quoted the “reasonable suspicion” requirement, Napolitano states that “reasonable cause” is subjective and unconstitutional. What is “reasonable” to one officer may not be “reasonable” to another.
There’s two comments I have on that.
1: It clearly states in the law that determination of “suspicion” may not be based solely on race, color or national origin.
2: I have been pulled over by CA law enforcement more times than I care to remember for BS “reasonable suspicion” that includes crap like my pipes being “too loud”, or they failed to see my turn signal when changing lanes so they wanted me to prove they worked. Their end goal? It was merely because they didn’t like my helmet and wanted to ticket me for that. But lawsuits and injunctions that ended up being applied to all agencies prohibited them for pulling me over for a helmet “suspicion”. So they made up something else instead.
The first point is, in both instances above, I have the right to drag that officer to court to challenge his original detention as legal. So does any legal alien in the same position.
The second point is, I’m not an illegal alien, but even I have to deal with those who like to push the intent of the law for even traffic infractions, let alone misdemeanors. So why should suspected illegal aliens get a pass for what the rest of us contend with in our lives as well?
MATA : I sure would like to see your helmet;it made me laugh as they did’nt like it;i had an white helmet myself with a leather white jacket and white boots,when i was going with a past boyfriend to motorcycle dragster races,all over the places;that lasted one year because he became so jealus that it freak me to envisage marrying him,but it was fun to have experience that part of my life;thank you for i have lost of respect for your superior knowledge and wisdom;nobody will say to me that the conservatives are violent or dangerous as the democrats want people to beleive; bye 🙄
From here on the front lines of immigration reform it seems that the legal Hispanics are not pleased with the illegals and don’t have a problem. In fact the same day the law was passed, ICE raided a supermarket chain and busted 300 illegals, and the next Monday hundreds of citizens were there applying for work.
All the complaints I’ve seen show a poor understanding of the law and a poorer understanding of what goes on around here. Come on! Half the people in AZ are dark and have black hair. And so are half the cops. It isn’t going to happen that people are stopped on the street unless the cop would be stopping them anyway. And they have stopped my white self on the way to work, so pooh on all these hysterics.
On the driver’s license question, long ago I know my white self got stopped and didn’t have the DL along, but, the cop ran my name through his computer like he would any time, and I got a minor ticket. I had to mail in proof (a copy) that I did have the DL to get it dismissed. It may have changed.
PATTER:yes,they have there eyes on you;hummmmthere most be a reason; what else do’nt we know? bye 🙄
Most of you are on point including the issue of what is reasonable suspicion. Can it be made up? Sure, but mostly it is a subjective thing. For example, I spent twenty years on the street interacting with bad guys of all stripes. What I see as suspicious behavior a rookie would simply miss, and what I knew as normal for street people a rookie would go ape over.
That said, Mata gets the big picture as do some others. Being an illegal in this nation is not frowned upon by the law or the enforcement of the law until it becomes a problem, like now with the drug traffickers using illegals as mules and demanding payment from them to use the paths they control. Add to the fact that we don’t have any more discretionary jobs left to give away, Y’know, the ones that we won’t do because we have a better job, and suddenly it is unfashionable to be illegal. When we aren’t in a recession and there are tons of middle class jobs available you won’t find the same situation as one of the posters stated earlier where 300 illegals are tossed and all replaced by legals. In addition, let us see how long those people last on that job. I figure many have no idea what they are getting into.
Guys, this is really simple. It is much like the vaunted Cap and tax bull—t we are seeing. Everybody claims that illegals are killing the country, but the businesses employing them don’t get fined and the owners don’t get jailed, so how bad is it really? Cap and trade and carbon credits are much the same in that the leaders and the eco-nuts scream the world will end if we don’t stop pollutants in 10 yrs. BUT, their response to this earthly death sentence is not to outlaw CO2 or pollutants, but to say, “Of course if you are willing to pay extra taxes on the emissions, we’ll be fine. Go ahead and keep belching out the deadly waste!” What???
If it is deadly how does taxing it make it safer? Truth is, this is just another way to get money out of your pocket and not be directly linked to the theft. Illegals are such a threat then pass the laws Mexico uses with the same penalties and end it right now.?
They won’t because it is always about the money.
Don’t normally come in with such simple comments, but I have to say this to you, archer…. amen! It’s all about the money…. and what little is left – after “all” – becomes all about the potential voters in the future.
ARCHER52;how do you like KNOCK YOURSELF OUT ? how does it feel?
I’ll confess I’m one of those who expressed an opinion without first reading the new Arizona statute. I was surprised by some of what is in there when I did.
Arizona has been an E-Verify state since the beginning of 2008. Employer use of E-Verify has been mandated since then by A.R.S. § 23-214. Compliance hasn’t been anything to brag about.
Under provisions of the new statute, it looks like Arizona might be about to come down hard on non-complying employers.
I approve of that approach. I’ve always thought that flagrant disregard for hiring law was the root of the entire illegal immigration problem.
Maybe I’ll suspend judgement on the whole thing until I start seeing how Arizona’s approach works out in practice.
Greg–
Yes, we had an equally reviled bill (by referendum, which overrides the legislature) called prop. 200, which made it a crime to hire illegals. Oh, the whining about the poor illegals and where would they find jobs, the ones that work. And the legal challenges, and the rewrites, and and and eventually it more or less became acceptable to think about checking ID. So there have been other big busts, the 300 at Rancho Market was the most I remember, but they go on.
PS
forgery is well developed now, you know. Another recent bust was a document ring.
@Archer52
At the current time we are not required to carry ID and you say this is a “good thing”.
Perhaps once upon a time no ID requirement was a good thing. Under the current circumstances I cannot see how requiring people carry an ID would be a bad thing. All of the various scenerios that you outlined in post #9 would go away.
If I travel outside of the US I am required to have a passport on my person. “Your papers please” is in no way a huge infringement on my freedoms. A national ID will go a long way to solving a lot of problems and I doubt that requiring what any other country on earth pretty much requires would instantly turn us into a fascist police state.
It would be a small price to pay in order to achieve a more secure nation in an age of terrorism and invasion.
I think these IDs became objectionable when some bright mind decided to make them more foolproof by putting in RF chips that would not only give a unique signature (good) but enable big brother, or anyone, to eavesdrop/track them from a distance (special wallets to shield your cards are available). I’d be more in favor of some different code system.
Mata
Well, maybe not impeachment, but the states are going (I hope since I am in TX) stand against this and it could get ugly enough that it forces the DC pols hands to make drastic changes.
Don’t you feel that even with how you felt about BHO before the election that he has gone far beyond what we thought he would do (the surprise to me is largely the complicit congress; I knew the msm was evil to the core long ago) and especially in a short period of time?
The creepiest thing about this guy is the way he lies as if he thinks he is telling the truth. That is why I believe he is owned by the forces of darkness, because the father of lies is having this man do his bidding. Black is white, up is down. I do not think he has any goodness within his soul at all. That goes for his piece of trash wife as well.
Naw, jlfintx… can’t say as what he’s done surprises me in the least. I believed every promise he made. I also figured he’d try for the moon in the first year and a half since that’s when he was guaranteed the supermajority support.
I have mixed feelings about the 21 states… or 42% of the nation’s republics… that are now engaged in a lawsuit against the federal government. A sage SCOTUS opinion will rescue the Constitution. One made with the “living Constitution” robed ones taking the majority will doom us to an out of control Commerce clause that knows no boundaries. But they can no longer skirt that issue. The time is at hand.
As far as Obama as Darth Vadar, so to speak…. genuine socialists/communists do not feel they are doing harm. The dark forces are those in the country, and in our Congress, who allow this nation’s founding principles to be subverted.
Liberals are now calling for a boycott of Arizona goods. Some of the bozos falling in line with that are boycotting goods that don’t even come from Arizona, but which they think do.
Let’s all find out what they are boycotting and buy more “Arizona” goods! While we’re at it, pick up an item or two at Whole Foods, another business that the left is supposedly boycotting.
I say boycott Mexico and anything made in that country.
To realize where I’m coming from remember I’m the guy that wrote the novel “REVOLT” http://www.revoltthebook.com first drafted in 1997! I predicted all that you are seeing here today except the financial meltdown. And in my opinion, it will get worse. Beck mentioned some kind of new regulation was sneaked into the financial reform package concerning the Internet. Read my book. In it, as I describe how
Why do I dislike “national IDs” because if you must have them, then that means someone knows everything about you, can increase what they want to know about you, can limit your movement with them (as Donald points out about traveling abroad), can load it up with all kinds of info about you that you may not want disclosed-“For the greater good of society”, etc. I will guarantee a national ID will limit or track your gun buying, ammo buying or personal security buying activities. Imagine if you had to show your ID, with that darned mag strip on the back, to buy a gun. Then you have to show your national ID to purchase what would be single payer insurance from the government. Now they swipe the card and it tells them YOU ARE A GUN OWNER!!! Mr. Smith I can see here you have a gun. Well now, we would like to let you have insurance at the normal group rate, but since you have chosen to own a firearm, and we know how dangerous those nasty things are, we’ll have to raise your rates, maybe double them! Of course if you turn in your guns to the store and make record of their destruction or removal from your home, we can give you that lower rate.”
Let all of us do our best to remember what nation we live in here. This is America. If Europe wants to stamp tattoos on their people or force ID card with information on them, that is THEIR business, not ours. How many times do we have to stumble over the same fact to remember that a good tool in one administration’s hands is a bad tool in another. The key is to limit the tools. I’m a former intel detective for my department. You have NO idea what we already know about you. Why help us out by giving up more???? Just because you have “nothing to hide” doesn’t mean that will always be the case. Heck, you may think your “nothing” is nothing but I might think it is very important to know.
Remember the incident in Wis where the Intel unit did a write up on the pro-life group and disseminated the information like that group was a potential domestic terrorist threat??? That happened either late last year or early this year. That is a violation of about a half dozen laws. They destroyed the reports when discovered. Which is ANOTHER couple of violations. But they did it because they thought they had the right to.
To Greg, when you get the chance post the link you looked at for the law. I read one that I thought was the law and found the business violations extremely weak.
http://truthandcommonsense.com/2010/04/28/arizona-law-has-no-teeth-for-the-businesses-a-bunch-of-outs-fueled-by-political-connections-it-was-too-good-to-be-true/
It seemed limited to the “potential” loss of a license for a limited time, only after the county DA got a complaint, AFTER it was vetted by the attorney general. Think about the politics for a second. If the complaint is filed with the AG, who looks at it then sends it down to the local DA, and THEN it is investigated you don’t think that business is not going to get a heads up? “Hey Phil, this is DA Buddy Bodunk. Remember me from that fundraiser you attended for my re-election? Well, brother, it seems we have a complaint you are employing illegals and we are probably going to have to come out say next Tuesday from noon to 2 to make sure you aren’t. So…well, just saying…about Tuesday…if you get my drift.” Why do I say this? Been there, done that.
( A quick story to explain my concerns- When I was a young detective I caught some local burglars who informed me that had found a huge stash of cocaine in the house they were hitting. They separately described the amount and location of the drugs. I turned that information over to my politically connected Captain (I didn’t know that back then) who said he would pass it on to our narcotics division. A month passes and nothing happens so I ask the Sgt in charge of the narcs and he has no idea what I’m talking about. Turns out the Captain was buddies with the people involved. Those people were important members of a big corporation in the city. Were they corrupt dope using losers? Yes, and eventually they were snagged up by the feds for wrongdoing in that corporation. It taught me a very important lesson. )
Even if they aggressively chase down the business it seems, again from my reading of that statute, the business only fears the temporary loss of a license. So, let me get this straight- If you cross the border it is criminal, if you transport an illegal it is criminal, if you pick up one for day labor it is criminal, if you actually employ an illegal in your business on an ongoing basis (the reason the illegals are here in the first place) you may or may not get your license suspended for maybe thirty days.
Huh???
Hey, everybody has an opinion, I’m just giving you mine. Take it, leave it, make fun of it. don’t care. Bottom line is remember who you are and where you came from. What we are seeing happening to us today is not some classroom experiment. This is a serious effort to push this nation over a cliff. And Obama has at least three more years and almost six if he gets re-elected.
You want to know where this very well may end up? Read the book.
Sorry if I’m curt, but we are in a sinking ship. If I yell “get to the lifeboats” I’m not yelling AT you, I’m yelling FOR you.
@Prarie
Good idea. And boycott San Fransisco! (I guess that means no more Rice-A-Roni.)
One thing we can not allow, is for a Democratically held Congress to “Reform immigration” they will “reform” all the wrong things. Our immigration laws are not broken and don’t need to be reformed, they simply need to be enforced. It’s Washington that need to be reformed.
IF YOU write a comment 3 feets long and in a previous comment,you have put a sentence to offend who you where aiming to:WELL; if you have not the courtesy to give an apology to that person {ME];well,no matter what you say it’s like talking to the wind