Arizona's new illegal alien law.....

[glenn kangiser]

The news people usually have their own agenda or government propaganda interests as a driving force and they know that if they spin the story correctly it will make their cause seem more just.

The amount of people being fooled by the useless sold out media is dwindling daily as more and more newspapers and agencies go broke.  More people are looking into alternative news sources to get a better take on what is really going on.  You still have to sort it out but at least it is not all twisted their way.

[OlJarhead]

This law will not reduce the number of illegal immigrants.  Most of them have been deported before, some more than once.  They are willing to risk their lives crossing a broiling desert, so I seriously doubt there is anything we can threaten them with that will prevent them from coming here.

Except...

Remove their jobs.  I say stiffen the penalties for employing illegals.  Seize outlaw employers' property: vehicles, real estate, machinery, bank accounts, lock, stock and barrel.  When the jobs are gone the illegals will deport themselves.

But that won't happen, because the truth is, the money interests don't want to lose cheap labor.  The economies in Southwest states would collapse if all the illegals went home, so there is a powerful incentive for good capitalists to make sure their representatives vote against anything that will make any meaningful change in immigration that might upset the sweet deal they have going.

In the mean time, cursing the foreigners keeps the masses busy so they won't notice who is making big money off the backs of undocumented workers.

This we can agree on.

[NM_Shooter]

I did a quick google.. seems legit :

I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which I voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer. Rancher Rob Krentz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.

Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.

One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property one shot in the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.

The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them back across the border.

Federal prisons have over 35% illegal's and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled with illegal's. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.

The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.

The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states. We have been over run and once they are here we have the burden of funding state services that they use. Education cost have been over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are not here legally. It has to stop. The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.

I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do this until the Border is secure.
It will do no good to forgive them because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under?
How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico, Canada or any of the other Central American or South American countries? We have already lost our language, everything must be printed in Spanish also. We have already lost our history it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.

The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany. Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to try and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when there is probable cause like a traffic stop to determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting license, etc.. So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street etc... The Socialist who are in power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something and that something the Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the "Transformation" to continue.

Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic. Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the Constitution the law of our land which says what you must do to be a citizen of this country. Freedom is not free.

Respectfully,

Sylvia Allen

Arizona State Senator

[OkieJohn2]

I think the biggest problem with the AZ law was that once again, a law was written by politicians who are just plain stupid.  They really need to read and study the law's they want to pass, I think if they had passed the later ammended law first, they would have had much less fuss.  They also once passed a law that local law enforcement didn't have the manpower, or funds to enforce.  Another example of this stupidity took place here in Oklahoma, a state politician wrote a law protesting the hate crimes inclusion of homosexuals.  The law stated that any city, county or state law enforcement officers were not to give any information to the federal government concerning hate crimes against homosexuals.  The problem was the person who wrote the law quoted the wrong part of the hate crimes bill, and instead denied state help for any hate crimes against people based on race or religion. 

[Pox Eclipse]

Two koran bibles?  Oh noes!!!

[peternap]

This is a post off of one of my gun boards. A lot of the members there are ex LEO and pretty reliable.

Got a phone call about an hour ago from our Texas Ranger family member. Said to check my e-mail box, and here it was.

He agrees that 90% of the real story as to what is happening on the southern border is not being reported. He, and most other Rangers working those sectors are convinced that a shooting war between border state residents and Mexican druggies is less than six months away. He said the intelligence division is predicting mid to early December for the violence to overflow and move beyond the ability of any law enforcement to control.

Worse yet, apparently command in Austin has asked for additional funds and troops, including active-duty troops, to help patrol the border where the drug cartel violence is heaviest, and where that violence has spilled over to the U.S. side.

The administration has refused.

Now word has it that Governor Perry is looking at ways to legally recall Texas soldiers in the Guard back home to secure our borders before worrying about the ragheads 5,000 miles away when we have Mexican invaders FIVE miles away.

"Messages" have been sent across the border in the past 24-hours from Mexican cartel leaders stating that because of what Arizona passed, "there will be retribution" and that "they cannot be stopped."

Folks, it is about to get damned ugly down here.

Here is the e-mail:



    XXX,

    As you know, one of the local ranchers was murdered in Douglas two weeks ago. His funeral is tomorrow. I received three messages similar to the one below from different officers within the Rangers and law enforcement.

    Yesterday afternoon I talked to another rancher near us who is a friend of ours and whose great grandfather started their ranch here in 1880. These are good people. He told me what really happened out at the Krentz ranch and what you won't read in the papers. The Border Patrol is afraid of starting a small war between civilians here and the drug cartels in Mexico.

    Bob Krentz was checking his water like he does every evening and came upon an illegal who was lying on the ground telling him he was sick. Bob called the Border Patrol and asked for a medical helicopter evac. As he turned to go back to his ATV he was shot in the side. The round came from down and angled up so they know the shooter was on the ground. Bob's firearm was in the ATV so he had no chance. Wounded he called the Cochise County Sherriff and asked for help. Bleeding in the lungs he called his brother but the line was bad so he called his wife but again the line was bad.

    Several ranchers heard the radio call and drove to his location. Bob was dead by this time. The ranchers tracked the shooter 8 miles back towards Mexico and cornered him in a brushy draw. This was all at night. The Sherriff and Border Patrol arrived and told them not to go down and engage the murderer. They went around to the back side and if you can believe it the assassin managed to get by a BP helicopter and a Sherriff's posse and back to Mexico. So much for professional help when you need it.

    One week before the murder Bob and his brother Phil (who I shoot with) hauled a huge quantity of drugs off the ranch that they found in trucks. One week before that a rancher near Naco did the same thing. Two nights later gangs broke into his ranch house and beat him and his wife and told them that if they touched any drugs they found they would come back and kill them. The ranchers here deal with cut fences and haul drug deliveries off their ranches all the time. What ranchers think is that the drug cartels beat the one rancher and shot Bob because they wanted to send a message. Bob always gave food and water to illegals and so they think they sent the assassin to pose as an illegal who was hungry and thirsty knowing it would catch Bob off guard.

    What is going on down here is NOT being reported. You need to tell people how bad it is along the border. Texas is worse. Near El Paso it's in a state of war. 5000 people were killed in Ciudad Juarez last year and it's over 2000 so far this year. Gun sales down here are through the roof and I get emails from people wanting firearms training.

    Something has to be done but I don't hold out much hope. These gangs have groups in almost every city in the US. Please read below. This is serious business. The Barrio Azteca and their sub gangs are like Mexican Corporations and organized extremely well. If this doesn't get dealt with down here you guys will deal with it on your streets.

[NM_Shooter]

This is all really spooky.  The troubling thing is that if we don't seal up our border, that by the time any illegals are being "racially profiled" by the AZ cops, they are already here. 

Build a damn wall already.  A real one.  Use my tax money / stimulus funds for that!

[glenn kangiser]

email poster - real I think

[MountainDon]

From  MLB Fanhouse...  http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/05/03/offering-up-a-zona-defense/?icid=main|netscape|dl8|link3|http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/05/03/offering-up-a-zona-defense/
It used to be easy to spot a racist. They wore white hoods with eyeholes cut out.

Now they wear Arizona Diamondbacks caps.

At least that's the message from opponents of Arizona's new immigration law. They are calling for fans to picket Diamondbacks games. They want the 2011 All-Star Game moved from Phoenix. They want teams to move their spring training sites out of Arizona.

Boycott Fever -- Catch It!

Sorry, I can't. And I hope you'll think twice before making a picket sign.

That would be once more than the boycott crowd. It looked at the bill and quickly distilled Arizona's motives by using standard reactionary math:

New Law + Immigrants = Racism.

If anything, a boycott should be aimed at the Nationals. Washington's spineless politicians forced Arizona to take the law into its own hands before the state turned into one big O.K. Corral.

Critics can't be bothered with such complexities. They are saying Hanley Ramirez will be treated like Rodney King the next time he gets to Phoenix.

The Major League Baseball players' union has come out against the law. It is shocked that a player "must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and legality of his being in Arizona."

The horror is apparently catching on. Adrian Gonzalez told FanHouse he'd boycott next year's All-Star Game "because it's a discriminating law."

Yes, just as theft laws discriminate against thieves, illegal immigration laws discriminate against illegal immigrants. Or as MSNBC breathlessly flashed in headline:

"Law Makes It A Crime To Be Illegal Immigrant."

Terms like Brownshirts, vigilantes, apartheid and Republican are being thrown around. Al Sharpton has landed. The celeb crowd has taken its standard morally superior stance.

Shakira weighed in, saying "Some of the darkest moments in human history -- persecution of Jewish people, segregation in the American South and ethnic cleansing around the world -- began just like this."

Today, they're rounding up shortstops in Phoenix. Tomorrow, they're putting you in a cattle car for having a Spanish accent.

People are so busy demagoguing you wonder if they've actually read the law. It's 16 pages that grant police broader powers to identify and arrest illegal aliens.

"Now they're going to go after everybody, not just people behind the wall. Now they're going to come out on the street," Baltimore Orioles shortstop Cesar Izturis said. "What if you're walking down the street with your family and kids. They're going to go after you."

It's no surprise a player is misinformed and easily manipulated. You expect more out of The New York Times. Or maybe you don't.

"The statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant," The Times reported.

Wrong.

Police must have "reasonable suspicion" to determine a person's immigration status. The law specifically states that race cannot be a factor in determining reasonable suspicion.

Critics automatically presuppose Arizona lawmen have been dying for an excuse to racially profile and deport 30 percent of the state's population. But before anyone can be even be suspected, they have to be part of a "lawful stop, detention or arrest."

In other words, a cop can't just stop a car full of law-abiding Mexicans or a Marlins shortstop walking down the street.

Ramirez would have had to violate some law. And you know what police would do if they suspected he's an illegal immigrant?

Ask for his papers!

(Please add evil voiceover for dramatic effect).

"It harkens back to apartheid where all black people in South Africa were required to carry documents in order to move from one part of town to another," Cynthia Tucker said on ABC's This Week.

Actually, it harkens back to 1940 when Congress passed the Alien Registration Act. Non-citizens have been required to carry a visa or green card or some form of identification for the past 60 years.

More Coverage
• Kevin Blackistone on Arizona
• Padres' Gonzalez Upset With Law
• Related News From Politics Daily
What seems like common sense is now controversial. Constitutional lawyers say Arizona's law may not stand up because states can't enforce federal laws.

That legality isn't what has boycotters threatening everything Arizona. They see xenophobia as deep as the Grand Canyon.

Never mind that every civilized country in the world has laws against anybody just wandering in. In politically correct America, merely asking someone for proof of citizenship is grounds for Klan induction.

Polls show 51 percent of Americans favor Arizona's law, while 39 percent oppose it. In Arizona, polls show 70 percent of residents support the law.

Are they all bigots?

Most illegal aliens don't come to America to deal drugs and join gangs. But according to the Department of Justice, Phoenix is the country's kidnapping capital, with 566 abductions the past two years. Attacks on Border Patrol agents increased 46 percent to 1,097 in 2008. Federal officials reported the victims usually have connections to either immigrant smuggling groups or drug traffickers.

A recent University of Arizona study found illegal immigration cost the state $1.4 billion a year. The state treasurer said the true cost is closer to $2 billion.

You can probably find a study to support whatever position you favor. Either way, it's easy to be sanctimonious when you're sitting in New York City. It's not so simple when you live in Arizona.

The state is essentially attempting to enforce federal laws on illegal immigration. Given that, shouldn't the boycott be nationwide?

Let's picket every baseball team everywhere and demand that every All-Star Game be moved to ... Mexico!

No wait, Mexico's immigration laws make Arizona look like San Francisco. You can get two years in jail just for entering the country illegally.

Or in terms even MSNBC might understand, "Law Makes It An Illegal Crime To Be Illegal Criminal Immigrant In Mexico."

Such discrimination cannot stand.

I fully expect Gonzalez, Shakira and the MLB players union to call a press conference and demand we boycott Mexico.

[Phssthpok]

Here's what I'm surprised I haven't seen on this whole hullabaloo yet:

1:This new AZ law apparently requires occifers to stop and demand ID documents from anyone they 'suspect' of being in country illegally.

2: There is no law at either the state or federal level requiring one to possess ID documentation while out and about in public.

3: While AZ DOES have a 'narrowly defined' stop and identify statute, one is ONLY required to provide one's name. Not date of birth. Not place of residence. NOTHING but one's true legal name is required.

4: The SCOTUS held in HIIBLE v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (et al) that "There was no "articulated real and appreciable fear that [Hiibel's] name would be used to incriminate him, or that it 'would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute' him." Because Hiibel's name was not an incriminating piece of evidence, he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to disclose it."

5: Bearing in mind points 3&4, the 'suspicious' occifer would be legally hog tied when attempting to enforce this new law, as the state requires only a name (and even then ONLY under valid 'Terry' stop conditions), and SCOTUS reinforced the protection via HIIBLE against being required to provide anything that would directly implicate one in a crime. So refusal to provide documentation is non-actionable, ESPECIALLY if one is in country without said 'proper documentation', since any action would be a direct violation of ones rights as a natural born human being specifically enumerated in (not 'granted' by) the fifth amendment, and actionable in response under Title 18 Sec 242 USC (criminal) and  Title 42 Sec 1983 USC (civil).

[MountainDon]

I believe your point 1 is incorrect.  I believe city, county, state police must have "reasonable suspicion" to determine a person's immigration status. The law specifically states that race cannot be a factor in determining reasonable suspicion. We'll have to wait and see how that works in practice.


As for #2 holders of "green cards", also known as a Resident Alien card if one is a legally admitted non US citizen resident, are required by the conditions governing their status to always carry their card with them.  Always, no if's and's or but's.  The rules are different for a US citizen. 

If I ever am stopped for something, no matter how stupid the pretext for the stop may be, I will be happy to provide my DL, birth certificate copy, citizenship status or living will, if asked for ID. I might not be pleased but I'm not going to argue the point then and there. If I figure that the stop I will take it up later with someone other than the inquiring officer. Confrontation usually ends up with a situation akin to that of Prof. Henry Louis Gates. A strict constitutionalist may differ with my opinion/view. That fine with me too.


I start with the question, "is it right to allow 'undocumented' people to freely wander around the USA without being legally admitted? If the answer is No, then, to me, it follows that steps have to be taken to put a stop to the practice. But I don't want to beat a dead horse.  [deadhorse]

[glenn kangiser]

There are sufficient laws already in place to handle the problem if I recall correctly.  When I first moved down here and they were allowed to, La Migra knew how to take care of the problem.

[MountainDon]

But one more observation. My oldest passport has entry and exit and in some cases visa stamps from over a couple dozen other countries.  This was a Canadian passport.  Even Great Britain required to see my passport in order to enter their country, even with Canada being a member of the Commonwealth.  Not only that they wanted to see proof (some money) that I could support myself while in their country as well as proof that I had the means to leave (a return flight airline ticket).  I still think that is all reasonable.

[NM_Shooter]

You know what?  I'd pass on the AZ law in exchange for a law that requires proof of citizenship in order to receive any sort of immediate benefit. 

Want your kid to go to school here?  Need emergency services (ambulance, police, fire?) Want food stamps? Want to ride on public transportation?  Want a drivers license?  Access to public land?  Use of interstate and local highways and roads? 

Show some ID. 

[Woodsrule]

All excellent ideas. Here's mine: Let's adopt Mexico's immigration laws. They are quite specific and any violations carry a stiff penalty.

[glenn kangiser]

You know what?  I'd pass on the AZ law in exchange for a law that requires proof of citizenship in order to receive any sort of immediate benefit. 

Want your kid to go to school here?  Need emergency services (ambulance, police, fire?) Want food stamps? Want to ride on public transportation?  Want a drivers license?  Access to public land?  Use of interstate and local highways and roads? 

Show some ID. 

Hmm, Frank, all of those would be used against us too.  I prefer racial profiling....

[Phssthpok]

Another question to ask yourself:

Does this law pass the 'Jews in the attic' test?

[NM_Shooter]

Non-applicable.  Jews were legal residents who were declared otherwise.

[Woodsrule]

Invoking the Jews' plight is a bit over the top here. Jewish folks were legal residents of Germany and the atrocities perpetrated against them should never be used to attempt to make a political point. Quite simply, the reference is ridiculous.

[glenn kangiser]

Yup - due to the controversial nature of the Jewish plight we do not discuss it here.

[MountainDon]

Nothing controversial about history. In the 1930's Germany was not the only anti-Semite state in the world. Hitler's gang took things to a new level, that of trying to exterminate them.  I've never read anywhere that the Jews did not have the right to be where they were.


Here and now, the argument is really about whether or not immigration to the US should be controlled and what to do about those who break the immigration laws. Remove the emotion and that is what's left. Then if one is to disregard the immigration law and say "Oh that's alright", that reinforces the view that it is okay to break some laws. It doesn't set a very good example for the new residents of the country. "We can get away with that so there's no need to obey these other laws either", sort of a mentality.

[Phssthpok]

Concentrating on the 'jew' part of the test seems a bit myopic to me, but then that's just my personal opinion. It could just as easily read 'gays in the military', or 'slaves in the basement'. Going on the assumption that you read the whole page you will recall that the test can be applied to many diverse situations, from gun ownership, to health care, and a myriad other rights regardless of citizenship (or whatever determining factor is chosen).  It's simply a matter of singling out one class for persecution.

Note also that almost all of the (few) examples given could easily affect (be applied against) someone in an 'exempt' class (in this case citizens) in the course of an effort to 'enforce the law' against the 'target' class (illegal aliens) which is where this 'law' runs up against it's biggest legal hurdle.

[NM_Shooter]

Concentrating on the 'jew' part of the test seems a bit myopic to me, but then that's just my personal opinion. It could just as easily read 'gays in the military', or 'slaves in the basement'. Going on the assumption that you read the whole page you will recall that the test can be applied to many diverse situations, from gun ownership, to health care, and a myriad other rights regardless of citizenship (or whatever determining factor is chosen).  It's simply a matter of singling out one class for persecution.

Note also that almost all of the (few) examples given could easily affect (be applied against) someone in an 'exempt' class (in this case citizens) in the course of an effort to 'enforce the law' against the 'target' class (illegal aliens) which is where this 'law' runs up against it's biggest legal hurdle.

Nonsense.

[Phssthpok]

Nonsense.

In what way?

[glenn kangiser]

Nothing controversial about history. In the 1930's Germany was not the only anti-Semite state in the world. Hitler's gang took things to a new level, that of trying to exterminate them.  I've never read anywhere that the Jews did not have the right to be where they were.


Here and now, the argument is really about whether or not immigration to the US should be controlled and what to do about those who break the immigration laws. Remove the emotion and that is what's left. Then if one is to disregard the immigration law and say "Oh that's alright", that reinforces the view that it is okay to break some laws. It doesn't set a very good example for the new residents of the country. "We can get away with that so there's no need to obey these other laws either", sort of a mentality.

I am more speaking of current events and opinions one way or the other, however the topic is off limits per John's policy.