Arizona Immigration law

[James48843]

How do you propose to rid the American society of people who are here illegally? How James? How can you do it legally? I'll look back in for your repsonse.

The way that is it going to be done.

By not having them be illegal anymore. You can't have mass deportations. It's not workable.

Giving them a "path to citizenship", as President Bush once proposed, and as this Congress is going to have to approve:

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/bush_rejects_mass_deportation_of_illegal_aliens/

 

[FAB1]

Why do so many hispanic heritage individuals carry Mexican flags in these protests? Did the Irish carry flags of Ireland? Did the Norwegian immigrants carry flags of Norway?

Maybe they are part of an invasion on the usa? Santa Anna got his @ss whooped. Get over it Mexico.

 

[XL-entLady]

I have to disagree with you on that one Lady.

We don't need them to build our homes, pick our orchards and fields, or clean hotel rooms. There are many unemployed U.S. citizens who can and will do those jobs. It might not be done so cheap- but now we're talking what the VALUE of that work is to our society. Economics has a way of making the value paid to the wages earned. If only U.S. Citizens perform those tasks, it may cost a little bit more- but there will be no shortage of workers to do the job. Anyone will work- for the right price. Illegal aliens only depress labor market wages.

Enforce the law regarding who can work, and we'll solve two problems- illegal immigration, and unemployment of citizens.

I agree. I wasn't saying that it is RIGHT. I was just saying that's the way it IS now. Illegal immigrants hold so many of those jobs that if we deported them all tomorrow (not going to happen, not workable, logistically impossible) food would rot in the fields, Holiday Inn would have dirty rooms, and the neighbor's new roof wouldn't go on.

Legal aliens doing those jobs, for minimum wage rather than all but slave labor, makes more taxpayers. That's a win, even in the Conservative's book, right?

 

[Buster]

Once upon a time ...

A beautiful fairy appeared one day to a destitute Mexican refugee outside an Arizona immigration office just inside the US border.

"Good man," the fairy said, "I've been sent here to grant you three wishes, since you just arrived in the United States with your wife and eight children."

The man told the fairy, "Well, where I come from we don't have good teeth, so I want new teeth, maybe a lot of gold in them."

The fairy looked at the man's almost toothless grin and -- PING! -- he had a brand new shining set of gold teeth in his mouth!

"What else?" asked the fairy, "Two more to go."

The refugee claimant now got bolder. "I need a big house with a three car garage in Annapolis on the water with eight bedrooms for my family and the rest of my relatives who still live in my country. I want to bring them all over here" --- and -- PING! -- in the distance there could be seen a beautiful mansion with a three car garage, a long driveway, a walkout patio with a BBQ in an upscale neighborhood overlooking the bay.

"One more wish", said the fairy, waving her wand.

" Yes, one more wish. I want to be like an American with American clothes instead of these torn clothes, and a baseball cap instead of this sombrero. And I want to have white skin like Americans" ---and --- PING! -- The man was transformed - wearing worn out jeans, a Baltimore Orioles T-shirt and a baseball cap. He had his bad teeth back and the mansion had disappeared from the horizon.

"What happened to my new teeth?" he wailed, "Where is my new house?"

The fairy said:
"Tough sh!t, Amigo, Now that you are a White American, you have to fend for yourself."

And she disappeared

 

[Minnow]

I'm for all of it.

If you think the 10th is violated by something, by all means, use the existing legal process set up by the Constitution to validate or invalidate the Constitutionality of the law. That would be the U.S. Supreme Court.

Which has already ruled in cases about stopping a person and demanding I.D.- it's called the Terry Stop rule. (Terry Vs. Ohio), and also is cited in Beck Vs. Ohio. You can't just stop someone, and detain them, without probable cause that a crime has been committed. 4th Amendment is pretty clear on that one. The Arizona case above- where a U.S. Citizen was detained, and had to get their wife to bring a birth certificate to come down to the ICE Station, is flat out a violation of the citizen's rights. We need to do better than that, and the new Arizona law is in the opposite direction. The Arizona law is ripe for getting thrown out on 4th Amendment grounds.


We'll have to see what falls out of the new Arizona law- but something tells me it's going to face a lot of challenges.

Note the highlighted area in your post above. Terry says no such thing. Probable cause is not the standard for stops nor detention.

 

[nnuut]

I agree- if you catch them in the act of crossing. In that case, what you really want to do, is create a zone in which anyone trespassing is subject to asking that question. But that would entail the government buying enough land to make such a zone. (or eminment domain to aquire it- still- requiring large expendatures to make such a purchase thru eminent domaine ).

Once you are outside of that zone, however, rights to freedom from stopping and asking, without probable cause, should prevail.

Those that are not Naturalized Citizens or Permanent Residents can apply for work permits that allows them to cross the border and work and this can be for a time period based on the duration of available approved work. If we need folks to pick the strawberries and work in construction that's fine and can be done just as it is now with the exception that they have to go through the proper channels. Other countries do this but limit the kind of work that they can do based on the available work force in their country, they prohibit Illegal immigrants from working and that's it. A friend of mine from the Shetland Islands got a visa to work in the USA she was a Dental Technician over in the homeland and it happened to be one of the types of work authorized for non citizens to do in the USA, that was back in the late 1970s, what happened to that law that protected our citizens and Permanent Residents from losing their jobs to foreigners? Let's not be stupid make them all register and do this thing legally.

 

[72Zorad]

Other countries don't have the U.S. Constitution.

When we are there- we have to obey their laws.

When we are here, we should be able to exercise the rights given us in ours.

A very valid point. When they stop me I'm still not thinking about the laws. I'm thinking "Holy smoke, that's an Uzi's slung over his shoulder! We are definitely not in Kansas anymore."

 

[XL-entLady]

... If we need folks to pick the strawberries and work in construction that's fine and can be done just as it is now with the exception that they have to go through the proper channels. ...

Woohoo! You and I are on the same page on this, my friend. That's a nice feeling.

If we could truly figure out a workable way to do this it would cut down on crime and human misery too. Coyotes and mules are animals, especially when they're human.

 

[Frixxxx]

The way that is it going to be done.

By not having them be illegal anymore. You can't have mass deportations. It's not workable.

Giving them a "path to citizenship", as President Bush once proposed, and as this Congress is going to have to approve:

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/bush_rejects_mass_deportation_of_illegal_aliens/

And that was useless as well. ENFORCE the laws on the books and this will disappear. Someone sooner or later will have to be the bad guy. Might as well be this administration.

Enforce, enforce, enforce!

I think the see-saw is broken:

Path-to-citizenship vs enforce the law....pick a side.

XL-entLady: people who cross the border illegally are aliens, not immigrants. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

 

[James48843]

Note the highlighted area in your post above. Terry says no such thing. Probable cause is not the standard for stops nor detention.

From the Decision in Terry vs. Ohio:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1

"We do not retreat from our holdings that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, see, e. g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 (1964); Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (1961), or that in most instances failure to comply with the warrant requirement can only be excused by exigent circumstances, see, e. g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) (hot pursuit); cf. Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 -368 (1964). But we deal here with an entire rubric of police conduct - necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat - which historically has not been, and as a practical matter could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure. Instead, the conduct involved in this case must be tested by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. 17
Nonetheless, the notions which underlie both the warrant procedure and the requirement of probable cause remain fully relevant in this context. In order to assess the reasonableness of Officer McFadden's conduct as a general proposition, it is necessary "first to focus upon [SIZE=-1][392 U.S. 1, 21] [/SIZE]the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen," for there is "no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search [or seize] against the invasion which the search [or seizure] entails." Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534 -535, 536-537 (1967). And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. 18 The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances.

19 And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts [SIZE=-1][392 U.S. 1, 22] [/SIZE]available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate? Cf. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 -97 (1964). 20 Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction. See, e. g., Beck v. Ohio, supra; Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959). And simple "`good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be `secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." Beck v. Ohio, supra, at 97. "


Terry is about more than just whether or not a person can be patted down. It also includes the Court's citation about having to have cause for the stop in the first place.

Good faith on the part of the office is not enough. There has to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Terry, including the citation to Beck.

 

[nnuut]

Right!!
And another thing, the current law about Natural Born Citizens needs to be changed by the SUPREME COURT! Currently a person born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen even if their parents are ILLEGAL, if they are born while flying over the USA, they are Natural Born Citizens. This encourages ILLEGALS (You notice I didn't call then UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS) to sneak across the border and have their children free of charge in the emergency room and their child is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, then the child's parents can legally stay in the USA do to the citizenship of their child, they can also bring the Grand Parents of the child and whoever else. Just more on welfare rolls and a terrible burden to the American People!
It right should be for Legal Residents and Citizens only and not for folks just here on a visa or work permits. Legal is the word!

 

[Steadygain]

Woohoo! You and I are on the same page on this, my friend. That's a nice feeling.

Well I'm glad you two are finally getting along.

It's a difficult subject ~~ especially for AZ; as it has to be a highly susceptable state ~~ due to its location.

So I guess it largely boils down to the bottom line of US Citizens as well as everyone else. How do we distinquish the 'Free Loaders' from the ones willing and committed to work hard and do everything possible to earn a good life and fulfill the Dream that drives them to the USA.

Maybe we could use the Immigrants in a POSITIVE way ~ and carrry that over to all Americans ( Citizens or visitors or anyone in our borders for whatever reason).

Give them the opportunity to make the most out of their lives -- and for all those who Prove their Dedication and Committment GIVE them a Green Card after a working a full year -- maintaining a solid reputation. With this Green Card let them openly expect the benefits and rights of an American Citizen.

Then maybe we can come to see people for who and what they really are ~~ not as immigrants or foreigners ~~ but as people who display the ethics and morals and committment and dedication that make our Country Strong. If they don't Deport them.

 

[James48843]

Right!!
And another thing, the current law about Natural Born Citizens needs to be changed by the SUPREME COURT! Currently a person born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen even if their parents are ILLEGAL, if they are born while flying over the USA, they are Natural Born Citizens. This encourages ILLEGALS (You notice I didn't call then UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS) to sneak across the border and have their children free of charge in the emergency room and their child is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, then the child's parents can legally stay in the USA do to the citizenship of their child, they can also bring the Grand Parents of the child and whoever else. Just more on welfare rolls and a terrible burden to the American People!
It right should be for Legal Residents and Citizens only and not for folks just here on a visa or work permits. Legal is the word!

It's not a law. The Supreme Court can't change that one, Nnuut- you ought to know that one.

It's in the Constitution. Only a Constitutional Amendment can change that.

14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....

 

[WorkFE]

You can't just stop someone, and detain them, without probable cause that a crime has been committed. 4th Amendment is pretty clear on that one.

I can be stopped at anytime of day, usually weekends at night, when I approach DUI enforcement road blocks which happens frequently in our tristate area. License, registration and insurance please. Of course if my passenger had no form of ID and they detained them to check their citizenship that would p!$$ me off as well.

 

[XL-entLady]

Lady: people who cross the border illegally are aliens, not immigrants. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

I thought illegal aliens were little grey folks with black almond eyes who violated the open container laws while in the upper atmosphere. :nuts:

Okay, "undocumented alien" then, how's that?

 

[WorkFE]

We don't need them to build our homes, pick our orchards and fields, or clean hotel rooms. There are many unemployed U.S. citizens who can and will do those jobs. It might not be done so cheap- but now we're talking what the VALUE of that work is to our society. Economics has a way of making the value paid to the wages earned. If only U.S. Citizens perform those tasks, it may cost a little bit more- but there will be no shortage of workers to do the job. Anyone will work- for the right price. Illegal aliens only depress labor market wages.

Enforce the law regarding who can work, and we'll solve two problems- illegal immigration, and unemployment of citizens.

+1. Take away the cheap labor market will make the job more appealing to others.

 

[Minnow]

From the Decision in Terry vs. Ohio:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1

"We do not retreat from our holdings that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, see, e. g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 (1964); Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (1961), or that in most instances failure to comply with the warrant requirement can only be excused by exigent circumstances, see, e. g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) (hot pursuit); cf. Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 -368 (1964). But we deal here with an entire rubric of police conduct - necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat - which historically has not been, and as a practical matter could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure. Instead, the conduct involved in this case must be tested by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. 17
Nonetheless, the notions which underlie both the warrant procedure and the requirement of probable cause remain fully relevant in this context. In order to assess the reasonableness of Officer McFadden's conduct as a general proposition, it is necessary "first to focus upon [SIZE=-1][392 U.S. 1, 21] [/SIZE]the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen," for there is "no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search [or seize] against the invasion which the search [or seizure] entails." Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534 -535, 536-537 (1967). And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. 18 The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances.

19 And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts [SIZE=-1][392 U.S. 1, 22] [/SIZE]available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate? Cf. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 -97 (1964). 20 Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction. See, e. g., Beck v. Ohio, supra; Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959). And simple "`good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be `secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." Beck v. Ohio, supra, at 97. "


Terry is about more than just whether or not a person can be patted down. It also includes the Court's citation about having to have cause for the stop in the first place.

Good faith on the part of the office is not enough. There has to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Terry, including the citation to Beck.

It's called specific and articulable facts (you just didn't bold it in your citation -- but I put it in red)... in other words, a law enforcement officer is allowed to do his job and to protect himself and the public using common sense (not hunches), training and experience -- plus, he still has to be prepared to have his judgment in every situation put under scrutiny.

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are not interchangeable terms -- don't confuse the issue.

 

[FAB1]

Show them the PATH back home to mexico. i think they know the way tho.

 

[Frixxxx]

I thought illegal aliens were little grey folks with black almond eyes who violated the open container laws while in the upper atmosphere. :nuts:

That ther is down righ' funny, ma'am:laugh:

Okay, "undocumented alien" then, how's that?

Zounds good to me!

 

[alevin]

State of Oregon practiced DUI inspection roadblocks a couple years while I was in grad school. They publicized when they were in effect-usually around holidays. To avoid what I considered "unreasonable" and unwarranted stops, I just stayed home or drove the back roads since I knew I wouldn't blow a breathalyzer even if I were stopped. The whole idea just made me mad! They knocked off with the roadblocks within a year or 2 after starting. I think there were court cases that stopped the practice as unconsititional.