Thousands of Hispanics fleeing Arizona

[Serafina]

By that logic, jews fleeing from the third reich were also criminals.

So you have evidence to suggest the vast majority of hispanics arrested under this law are legal citizens that are being put into prison work camps and killed in execution chambers?

Grow a fucking brain.

Maybe you should. I don't support the Arizona immigration law because it conflicts with the Supremacy Clause, but it's certainly not some kind of Nazi initiative and trying to compare it to such is sensationalist bullshit.

I just resented the way he implied that everyone fleeing the state was a criminal.
And unless he can show that no (significant amount of) legal hispanic citizens are leaving the state due to this law, it is simply bullshit.

It was poorly worded, i will readily admit that.

[hunter5]

Because individual states aren't allowed to fortify their own borders, set their own tariffs, or carry out other activities that are the duty and right of sovereign states.

Then why if this is so horribly at odds with the federal law is the Obama administration ignoring sanctuary cities that flat out say the federal law will not be enforced here at all.

Arizona can detain those it knows to be in this country illegally and hand them over to federal authorities, but what they can't do is charge them with a state-crime, put them in prison for up to 20 days, and fine them $100 dollars. Nor can they prosecute someone with aiding illegals and fine them $1000 per illegal immigrant.

By that logic there shouldn't be any state and federal laws that cover the same crime because that would be infringement on federal powers.

There is also the issue that no citizen is required to carry around identity documents, so forcing Juan Ortega, 5th generation American citizen whose family has lived in Santa Cruz since the Mexican-American war to carry around his passport while Stephan Miller, naturalized-American citizen formerly of U.K. citizenship, need not is blatant racial profiling.

Now I have read the law and from my understanding Ortega's Californian drivers license would be sufficient proof of his legality and would only need it if the police have some legal reason to be talking to him

The law has yet to go into effect, but I really can't see any way for it to be enforced effectively without racial profiling.

Truthfully it doesn't have to be effectively enforce look just the idea of it passing it scaring illegals out of Arizona.

It's a small step from Arizona prosecuting illegal immigration under its own laws to Arizona setting country quotas and requiring passports to be carried at all times. There are some realms of jurisprudence that belong to the states exclusively and some that belong exclusively to the Federal government.

Hmmm that is a big leap going from taking a law that mirrors federal law on a state level to full no shit fascist lock down.

This is proof that the American immigration system needs fixing but before that we have to stop the illegals from coming over. Why should they bother following any laws when they seem to get so many privileges just by being illegal

[eion]

Because individual states aren't allowed to fortify their own borders, set their own tariffs, or carry out other activities that are the duty and right of sovereign states.

I'm pretty sure California stops me and asks if I'm bringing any produce into the state whenever I cross the state border. You know, a distinctly customs-y thing that only "sovereign states" do.

Yes, because illegalizing people is exactly the same as protecting a state's ecology.

Arizona can detain those it knows to be in this country illegally and hand them over to federal authorities, but what they can't do is charge them with a state-crime, put them in prison for up to 20 days, and fine them $100 dollars. Nor can they prosecute someone with aiding illegals and fine them $1000 per illegal immigrant.

Arizona can't enforce residency laws that are based upon the Federal laws?

No, constituent states should have no involvement in immigration law beyond handing over anyone they know to be in this country illegally to federal authorities. It is not a state's job to prosecute illegal immigration just as it is not a state's job to launch nuclear missiles. Blurring the lines between what constitutes a state and what constitutes a country is a bad idea. I would have the same issue with a state passing a law granting alien same-sex partners of citizens citizenship, despite my desire for such a law on a federal level.

There is also the issue that no citizen is required to carry around identity documents, so forcing Juan Ortega, 5th generation American citizen whose family has lived in Santa Cruz since the Mexican-American war to carry around his passport while Stephan Miller, naturalized-American citizen formerly of U.K. citizenship, need not is blatant racial profiling.

Interesting. Let me tell you a tale of a pasty white lad who gets the third degree, without fail, everytime he has some kind of interaction with the cops thanks to his accent. My experience with the police is such that if I travel through AZ I would be carrying my passport if it weren't for the fact that I have a CAC in my wallet as well. If I got pulled over in AZ I am sure I would get the level of harassment that your hypothetical Ortega would.

How horrible. As a U.S. citizen you are not obligated to carry any manner of identifying document on you.

Why exactly would you want to subject yourself to such treatment?

The law has yet to go into effect, but I really can't see any way for it to be enforced effectively without racial profiling.

Yeah and I believe the letter of the law says "go after Mexicans at every opportunity" and not something more general

No but is sufficiently vague to suit the purposes of the bills primary sponsor, Russell Pearce, who makes a habit of aligning himself with and endorsing white supremacists like J.T. Ready.

It's a small step from Arizona prosecuting illegal immigration under its own laws to Arizona setting country quotas and requiring passports to be carried at all times. There are some realms of jurisprudence that belong to the states exclusively and some that belong exclusively to the Federal government.

I really love slippery slope fallacies.

"It's only a matter of time that Arizona states setting RACIAL QUOTAS".

It's only a fallacy if it doesn't actually lead to harsher measures. Senator Pearce's next bill (SB1097) will track every illegal immigrant student in Arizona, and he has plans to introduce legislation that will prevent "anchor babies" by DIRECTLY controverting the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[Soontir C'boath]

I'm going to be interested come November (perhaps sooner) the state of the economy in Arizona will be. Will it show it is fine which may bring forth other states to start passing such measures or will it hurt like hell leading to anti-illegal sentiment quieting down.

[hunter5]

I'm going to be interested come November (perhaps sooner) the state of the economy in Arizona will be. Will it show it is fine which may bring forth other states to start passing such measures or will it hurt like hell leading to anti-illegal sentiment quieting down.

It all really depends on how large of an effect illegals really have on the economy most of the jobs, other than construction, they have seems like they would be handled by kids on minimum wage. It also depends greatly on if it works in reducing the Mexican drug gangs hold on southern Arizona.

[eion]

Then why if this is so horribly at odds with the federal law is the Obama administration ignoring sanctuary cities that flat out say the federal law will not be enforced here at all.

A state deciding not to actively enforce a federal statute does not prevent the federal government from doing so. And most "Sanctuary City" laws merely seek to remove questions about immigration status from schools, police contact, and other situations where there is an overriding interest in general safety or welfare.

By that logic there shouldn't be any state and federal laws that cover the same crime because that would be infringement on federal powers.

The crime is not that the person is in Arizona illegally, it is that the person is in the United States illegally. That puts it in federal jurisdiction.

Now I have read the law and from my understanding Ortega's Californian drivers license would be sufficient proof of his legality and would only need it if the police have some legal reason to be talking to him

And if Mr. Ortega is just walking down the street, and therefore not required to be carrying ANY Identification and is stopped for some reason? Police can talk to you whenever they wish. What they can't do is search or detain you without cause.

Truthfully it doesn't have to be effectively enforce look just the idea of it passing it scaring illegals out of Arizona.

Along with lots of people who are in the state legally and just don't want to be subject to persecution. How many U.S. citizens wrongfully detained is too many?

Hmmm that is a big leap going from taking a law that mirrors federal law on a state level to full no shit fascist lock down.

See my response to Lonestar above. Sen. Pearce has more bills in the pipeline that will continue to make living in Arizona with brown skin harder and harder.

This is proof that the American immigration system needs fixing but before that we have to stop the illegals from coming over. Why should they bother following any laws when they seem to get so many privileges just by being illegal

And that reform must happen within the jurisdiction it belongs: The federal level.

And what privileges? The right to pay taxes and receive no benefit for it? The right to be blackmailed by your employer if you refuse to work for a pittance? The right to suffer because you can't use your OWN money to pay full price for healthcare? The right to be robbed, raped, and/or assaulted and not being able to call the police because they'll see you as the criminal?

The lives of illegal immigrants are in many ways similar to gay men and women living during the period of active enforcement of sodomy laws. Their very nature was against the law, and so they could not seek the protection of the law for any reason for fear of their homosexuality being discovered.

Yes, immigration laws ought to be enforced, and we must find a way to discourage people from entering this country illegally, but we cannot do so at the expense of the safety of all those who live here.

[hunter5]

And what privileges? The right to pay taxes and receive no benefit for it? The right to be blackmailed by your employer if you refuse to work for a pittance? The right to suffer because you can't use your OWN money to pay full price for healthcare? The right to be robbed, raped, and/or assaulted and not being able to call the police because they'll see you as the criminal?

well according to a study in 2004 they costs Califorina about $10 billion a year in services. From what I can tell most Illegal immigrants just go to the emergency room and get free care ($1.4 billion a year was spent in just California on that and the same amount was spend incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals, ie did something other than just be here illegally).

A state deciding not to actively enforce a federal statute does not prevent the federal government from doing so.

When most of these cities tell their police forces not to report illegals they do find to ICE that does prevent the federal government from doing so. The federal government doesn't have enough agents to do all the leg work so they rely on assistance from local law enforcement. And the entire justification for the Federal government suing Arizona is they don't want a bunch of patch work conflicting laws and yet here they are allowing a set of conflicting laws to exists. Besides how exactly does the Arizona law interfere with Federal enforcement?

[eion]

And what privileges? The right to pay taxes and receive no benefit for it? The right to be blackmailed by your employer if you refuse to work for a pittance? The right to suffer because you can't use your OWN money to pay full price for healthcare? The right to be robbed, raped, and/or assaulted and not being able to call the police because they'll see you as the criminal?

well according to a study in 2004 they costs Califorina about $10 billion a year in services. From what I can tell most Illegal immigrants just go to the emergency room and get free care ($1.4 billion a year was spent in just California on that and the same amount was spend incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals, ie did something other than just be here illegally).

Because they can't buy health insurance safely, and in some cases legally.

And you ignored all the other “rights” illegals enjoy, or do you just see creating a lawless underclass as an effective deterrent for illegal immigration.

A state deciding not to actively enforce a federal statute does not prevent the federal government from doing so.

When most of these cities tell their police forces not to report illegals they do find to ICE that does prevent the federal government from doing so. The federal government doesn't have enough agents to do all the leg work so they rely on assistance from local law enforcement. And the entire justification for the Federal government suing Arizona is they don't want a bunch of patch work conflicting laws and yet here they are allowing a set of conflicting laws to exists. Besides how exactly does the Arizona law interfere with Federal enforcement?

"Warden Jones, I understand you're holding a Mr. Jesus Calderon. We're ready to deport him."
"No problem, Special Agent, just as soon as he's done serving his 2 year sentence for being here illegally. See we don't trust you Federals to enforce the law. He'll be back across the border before the week is over."

"Warden Jones, I understand you're holding Maria Ortiz. She's a federal witness in a child trafficking case who is to be given immunity and residency. I need to take her away."
"No can do, Special Agent. She's serving 2 years for illegal immigration and 4 years for aiding two other illegal immigrants by buying them groceries."
"Would that be Julio and Antonia, her two children."
"Yep, got those two over in the juvenile wing."

I have big issues with SOME "sanctuary city laws," but not the ones that recognize that if you demand identity documents from every single person who the police talk to you are going to have a lot more unsolved murders, rapes, robberies, etc.

Until we actually secure the border, provide a secure work-eligibility card, increase the penalties for hiring and/or mistreating undocumented workers, and establish a sustainable guest worker program we will continue to have a serious problem with illegal immigration. No amount of "look tough" state laws are going to help. Not only am I interested in the economic impact of the upcoming implementation of SB1070, but also the impact on the safety of all Arizona residents once undocumented immigrants fear going to the police for any reason lest they be discovered.

Is Murder less important that illegal immigration? Is rape? Robbery? Extortion? Child abuse?

[Lonestar]

Yes, because illegalizing people is exactly the same as protecting a state's ecology.

It's California trying to legislate commerce over state lines, isn't it? Isn't that a inherently "Federal" thing that you keep jabbering about?

No, constituent states should have no involvement in immigration law beyond handing over anyone they know to be in this country illegally to federal authorities. It is not a state's job to prosecute illegal immigration just as it is not a state's job to launch nuclear missiles. Blurring the lines between what constitutes a state and what constitutes a country is a bad idea. I would have the same issue with a state passing a law granting alien same-sex partners of citizens citizenship, despite my desire for such a law on a federal level.

The difference being, of course, is that illegal immigration is associated with crime and so a State certainly DOES have the right to try to curb crime, especially if it feels that the Feds are not doing their inherently "federal" job.

The other difference is that many states have their own militaries anyway. And I'm not talking about the NG.

How horrible. As a U.S. citizen you are not obligated to carry any manner of identifying document on you.

Why exactly would you want to subject yourself to such treatment?

Because ultimately it DOES help deter illegal immigration. The solution to shitty immigration laws(or at least funding) isn't "well it's okay to break the law coming in" it's reforming the process.

No but is sufficiently vague to suit the purposes of the bills primary sponsor, Russell Pearce, who makes a habit of aligning himself with and endorsing white supremacists like J.T. Ready.

Poison the well much?

It's only a fallacy if it doesn't actually lead to harsher measures. Senator Pearce's next bill (SB1097) will track every illegal immigrant student in Arizona,

So? Maybe they'll get kicked out then.

and he has plans to introduce legislation that will prevent "anchor babies" by DIRECTLY controverting the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

So? Forgetting for the moment that it won't pass judicial muster(then again, maybe it will, after all intent is an important part of judicial interpretation and I'm sure it will be pointed out that the 14th Amendment was laid out for ex-slaves) at least it's addressing problem of anchor babies.

[Zixinus]

Annnnd white Arizonians are learning the hard way what the immigrants actually bring to their state. I wonder just how large the economic damage will be?

Too bad that nobody is talking about a reform to the immigration system, nobody wants to create have Big Brother central registry required at work (and hospitals, and schools, etc) or you know, actually make steps to solving the problem.

[Samuel]

It's California trying to legislate commerce over state lines, isn't it? Isn't that a inherently "Federal" thing that you keep jabbering about?

Not anymore than any other state attempting to keep out invasive species. It is an inherently local thing because the ecologies are local.

The difference being, of course, is that illegal immigration is associated with crime and so a State certainly DOES have the right to try to curb crime, especially if it feels that the Feds are not doing their inherently "federal" job.

You mean illegal immigration is a crime, not that it is associated with one. Being poor and black are also associated with crime, but amazingly the government tries not to crack down on poor blacks (except for voting time).

The solution to shitty immigration laws(or at least funding) isn't "well it's okay to break the law coming in" it's reforming the process.

Some of us has a very low opinion of the US government. As in the laws will be fixed around the time of duke nukem forever comes out.

So? Forgetting for the moment that it won't pass judicial muster(then again, maybe it will, after all intent is an important part of judicial interpretation and I'm sure it will be pointed out that the 14th Amendment was laid out for ex-slaves) at least it's addressing problem of anchor babies.

Yes, how dare people born in this country become citizens!

[Knife]

I don't disagree. The problem I've got isn't with paying people a fair wage at all, it with this dumbass idea of "boot out all the illegals and the problem goes away" that I think is retarded. You're still going to have the same problems, Mexican economy sucks so the Mexicans come here looking for work and since our immigration system is hilariously fucked up they're going to do so illegally. Cracking down on the illegals themselves doesn't make the problem go away, it just temporarily hides it.

Indeed, and it won't take long for business lobbies to chip away at the law to get their cheap labor back.

[eion]

Yes, because illegalizing people is exactly the same as protecting a state's ecology.

It's California trying to legislate commerce over state lines, isn't it? Isn't that a inherently "Federal" thing that you keep jabbering about?

If you're referring to the California Border Protection Stations, those exist to enhance the natural barriers to invasive species. It is not interstate commerce, it's pest control.
And I'm not jabbering. the Supremacy clause is a pretty fundamental part of the Constitution.

No, constituent states should have no involvement in immigration law beyond handing over anyone they know to be in this country illegally to federal authorities. It is not a state's job to prosecute illegal immigration just as it is not a state's job to launch nuclear missiles. Blurring the lines between what constitutes a state and what constitutes a country is a bad idea. I would have the same issue with a state passing a law granting alien same-sex partners of citizens citizenship, despite my desire for such a law on a federal level.

The difference being, of course, is that illegal immigration is associated with crime and so a State certainly DOES have the right to try to curb crime, especially if it feels that the Feds are not doing their inherently "federal" job.

So in order to curb some crime we're going to cut police off from any informant in teh illegal immigrant community leading to more crimes unreported and unsolved, but the statistics will be lower I guess. I ask again: is catching murderers less important to you than catching undocumented immigrants?

Also, I do not grant your premise that illegal immigration is invariably linked with crime, and if we provided a way for more people to enter the country as guest workers, maybe the wouldn't have to hitch rides with drug mules.

The other difference is that many states have their own militaries anyway. And I'm not talking about the NG.

And do those militaries ship out to war on the state's directive? Do those states sign treaties with foreign powers? States are not nations and ought not to act as such. They are subordinate to federal authority in matters of international law, and immigration is certainly a matter of international law.

How horrible. As a U.S. citizen you are not obligated to carry any manner of identifying document on you.

Why exactly would you want to subject yourself to such treatment?

Because ultimately it DOES help deter illegal immigration. The solution to shitty immigration laws(or at least funding) isn't "well it's okay to break the law coming in" it's reforming the process.

So would tattooing "US CITIZEN" on all citizen's foreheads at birth, but that too would be an infrigement of my civil liberties.

And I agree we need NATIONAL reform, not statewide reform. The lack of such is the very reason we have "Sanctuary Cities" in the first place.

No but is sufficiently vague to suit the purposes of the bills primary sponsor, Russell Pearce, who makes a habit of aligning himself with and endorsing white supremacists like J.T. Ready.

Poison the well much?

Yeah, when people say, "OH all they're doing is catching illegal immigrants" it's nice to recognize that there is a force and a name behind this effort, and some of his closet political allies are neo-nazis and he's forwarded racist e-mails about.

He's either an idiot or a neo-nazi sympathizer.

I'm not poisoning the well, I'm telling people there's a dead carcass at the bottom because there is!

It's only a fallacy if it doesn't actually lead to harsher measures. Senator Pearce's next bill (SB1097) will track every illegal immigrant student in Arizona,

So? Maybe they'll get kicked out then.

Ah, I see we have a difference of perspective. You see them as illegals in our schools and I see them as children who don't have a choice where they live and deserve an education nonetheless.

and he has plans to introduce legislation that will prevent "anchor babies" by DIRECTLY controverting the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

So? Forgetting for the moment that it won't pass judicial muster(then again, maybe it will, after all intent is an important part of judicial interpretation and I'm sure it will be pointed out that the 14th Amendment was laid out for ex-slaves) at least it's addressing problem of anchor babies.

Ah, another difference of perspective. You see anchor babies and I see citizens with all the rights of citizens.

Also, go read: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Schneider v. Rusk, Afroyim v. Rusk. The application of the 14th amendment to ALL persons born within the borders of the United States (excepting children of diplomats) is very much starre decisus.

A country wholly founded, supported, and perpetuated by immigrants cannot suddenly decide to start applying citizenship by jus sanguinis.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I just resented the way he implied that everyone fleeing the state was a criminal.
And unless he can show that no (significant amount of) legal hispanic citizens are leaving the state due to this law, it is simply bullshit.

It was poorly worded, i will readily admit that.

Yeah and so is this response, since what you effectively did was commit a negative proof fallacy by saying it's his job to prove hispanic citizens (legal citizen is redundant, they're either citizens or they're illegal immigrants) aren't leaving en masse. If you want to assert that they are then it is your responsibility to show that they are doing so.

[Erik von Nein]

The problem with the link about how much California is losing to illegal immigrants is that, when pressed for information, no organization could provide numbers, either because they can't afford to or aren't allowed to ask if they're here legally or not. Some amount of cost could be coming from illegal immigrants, but (at least for the agencies asked) they don't keep track of them, so the whole "California spends X amount" isn't accurate.

[Broomstick]

legal citizen is redundant, they're either citizens or they're illegal immigrants

You entirely forgot a category there: legal immigrants (some of which are board members here, in fact). Your statement implies all immigrants are illegal and that is certainly NOT the case!

[Ritterin Sophia]

legal citizen is redundant, they're either citizens or they're illegal immigrants

You entirely forgot a category there: legal immigrants (some of which are board members here, in fact). Your statement implies all immigrants are illegal and that is certainly NOT the case!

Legal immigrants are citizens...

[General Zod]

legal citizen is redundant, they're either citizens or they're illegal immigrants

You entirely forgot a category there: legal immigrants (some of which are board members here, in fact). Your statement implies all immigrants are illegal and that is certainly NOT the case!

Legal immigrants are citizens...

Exhibit A: Sir Nitram. Legal immigrant, no citizenship. You seem to forget that acquiring citizenship is rather different from acquiring residency thanks to legal immigration.

[Broomstick]

No, they're not. Legal immigrants are foreign nationals who have permission to live and/or work in the United States. In other words, they're foreign, but legally in this country. Didn't you know that status exists, or did you honestly think all foreigners in the US (other than tourists) were here illegally?

Legal immigrants who become citizens are properly referred to as naturalized citizens.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Exhibit A: Sir Nitram. Legal immigrant, no citizenship. You seem to forget that acquiring citizenship is rather different from acquiring residency thanks to legal immigration.

Thank you, I wasn't aware of that. And you did it without coming off like a patronizing twat.

Didn't you know that status exists

Obviously not, Mrs Indignant.

I was under the impression that they weren't immigrants but temporary workers.

[The Yosemite Bear]

then there's my cousins and my uncle, all three have their British Passports/citizenship, though my cousins are natural born US Citizens as well (American Mom, Scots Dad whose a resident alien and not a US citizen (never went for that last part as he's still a damn proud son of Glasgow)

[Big Phil]

45 posts of pissing and whining could really be resolved if someone had some hard numbers, instead of touchy feely anecdotal crap. Those blocks of closed businesses might simply be a result of the economy, except for a couple of people responding to this law.

A few years back a big fuss was made about the PUMAs and how millions of them were going to vote for McCain... and then when people started looking at the numbers and not the hype they realized there were only a couple of hundred squawking shrews. There's a lesson in there somewhere, I'm sure...

[The Yosemite Bear]

well the real numbers from what I've read second hand is that immigration legal or otherwise is down by HALF since 2003, the economy is in the shitter, and no one really wants to pick lettuce for less than minimum wage in AZ, with a chance of being forced to do that for even less by a for profit prison chain gang.

[Broomstick]

Didn't you know that status exists

Obviously not, Mrs Indignant.

I was under the impression that they weren't immigrants but temporary workers.

I apologize if that came off snarky, I was genuinely puzzled that you didn't know that. The US does not have a "temporary worker" category, or a guest worker visa, or anything of that nature. There is a student visa, which may or may not permit working, I'm a little hazy on the particulars of that one.

For at least a couple decades some people have lobbied for a guest worker/temp worker category as a possible solution to the illegal immigrant problem. At least we'd have a better idea who's here and where, they'd have a legal status and (this is my opinion) it might reduce some of the more egregious abuses of these people. But it's been a strict no-go. Legal immigration in the US is set up with the idea that if you come here you intend to do so permanently (with some even saying that if you don't become a citizen once you're eligible you should be kicked out - not an opinion I share). Hence, the other term for a legal immigrant: "permanent resident" which, I believe is actually the official term.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Hence, the other term for a legal immigrant: "permanent resident" which, I believe is actually the official term.

I believe 'resident alien' is also a valid term, though it sounds rather silly.