Imigration

[denuseri]

Compiled from reports by Free Press news services:

Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.

With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were overreacting and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.

Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill misguided and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see whether it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level -- or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

The bill, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also would require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.

The bill is to take effect 90 days after the current legislative sessions end in the next several weeks.



Is this a fair law?

Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?

Should the United States pursue stricter law enfocment against illegal aliens?

Or should we grant amnesty to existing illegals?

What are the imigration issues of other countires in the world?

How do other countries handle imigration issues in comparison to the USA?

What do you think about "Countries without borders"?

These and many questions came to mind, I am sure my fellow forum members will have more to contribute.

[Thorne]

Is this a fair law?
Probably not. It would be silly to assume that any group of elected legislators could actually write a "fair" law.

Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?
Probably. You're not likely to see too many white's getting stopped.

Should the United States pursue stricter law enfocment against illegal aliens?
Absolutely!

Or should we grant amnesty to existing illegals?
Absolutely NOT!

What are the imigration issues of other countires in the world?
What difference does that make? We have to protect our own infrastructure, our own jobs, our own ways of life. Illegal immigration threatens all of them. That being said, though, I would venture to guess that most countries have much stricter immigration policies than the US.

How do other countries handle imigration issues in comparison to the USA?
Again, what difference does that make?

What do you think about "Countries without borders"?
Never heard of it, but after a brief browse through Google I'd have to say it's a silly idea. Unless you can eliminate all racial, religious or regional strife, unless you can get everyone to speak the same language, it's just a pipe-dream. Borders are there for a reason, whether you like them or not.

[Stealth694]

IS THIS A FAIR LAW?
Its not a " Fair Law" but its a necessary law,,, My Mother lives in AZ and here is her comment...Immigration Law...GREAT...We needed to do something like this for a long time as we are getting over run by Mexicans..and the sad part is, we're the taxpayers are paying for all the medical care, food, and all that.

Does it promote a racial or ethnic profiling scare?
There will probably be accusations of Profiling but the cops are just going to have to be careful about the reasons they pull someone over ect.

Should the United States pursue stricter Law Enforcement against Illegel Aliens

Yes. Arizona has an estimated 460,000 Illegals

Should we grant amnesty to Illegal Aliens
No, There have been several amnesty programs for Illegals most fail.

[SadisticNature]

I have issues with anyone who could sign a bill saying it's ok to stop someone and demand papers based on visual evidence, but not be able to identify what visual evidence is.

There are people who feel that this bill basically says "If you look like someone who could potentially have come from Mexico, you are legally required to carry I.D. at all times."

If you had a bill that said:

All Residents of Arizona over age 16 (or 18 or 21) are legally required to carry government issued identification and may be asked for this identification by police at any time.

People would be screaming police state, and opposing the bill en masse.

Yet when you put the visual language in it seems to read:

All Hispanic residents of Arizona who look like adults are legally required to carry government issued identification (e.g. papers) and may be asked for this by police at any time.

I think the evidence of this is seen by the press conference after the Governor signed the bill into law. When asked "What does an illegal immigrant look like" she had no good answer. I can't imagine someone would sign into law a bill that allows visual identification without understanding what that visual identification is, and to me that means dodging the question.

[SadisticNature]

Speaking as someone who lives in a country with two national languages, a country that has many immigrant communities where sizable numbers of people speak neither of them, I can say that Canada as a country works.

We have freedom of religion and almost all of the worlds religions are represented here. We have a robust body of law on what religious freedom means and where the boundaries are.

That being said I don't think much of the idea of countries without borders. I don't think that being a citizen of Iraq should entail easy access to the United States, if you try anything like that you're going to get suicide bombings in the US on a regular basis.

There is a difference however between being unable to spend enough money to keep people out, then giving companies slap on the wrist style penalties for providing people who cross over jobs and breaking all sorts of US labor laws hiring illegals (The typical fine is below 50% of the cost savings, and its almost unheard of for people who forge documents enabling illegal labor to end up in jail, even when its the company doing the hiring).

If you want to do something about the illegal immigration problem there are lots of good options:

(1) Proper border security (fully funded, etc.)

(2) Use one of the Amnesty programs that works (if you're saying most fail that implies some of them work so pick one that does and implement it).

(3) Some combination of the above

(4) Laws that require everyone to require identification and allow police to ask for it rather than laws that require an unclear subset of the population to.

Basically the government doesn't want to pay for 1,2, or 3, and they think 4. is political suicide so they choose to racial profile. And I'll believe its not racial profiling when someone can give a clear concise description of visual identifiers of an illegal immigrant without using ethnicity as a factor.

[Thorne]

If you want to do something about the illegal immigration problem there are lots of good options:

(1) Proper border security (fully funded, etc.)

Agreed. This should be a priority. If you keep illegals out at the border you don't have so many problems about identifying them within the borders.

(2) Use one of the Amnesty programs that works

Why amnesty? This makes no sense to me. Basically, you are rewarding people who have broken the law.

I agree with you, though. Making the cost of hiring illegals higher than the cost of hiring legal labor would reduce the problems significantly. The problem there is that there have been numerous politicos who have been found to have hired illegals, either knowingly or not. Certainly, anyone who forges documents, for any reason, should be sent to prison, as well as being fined heavily. Simply make the risks so high that it becomes untenable.

[SadisticNature]

What else can you do? Forced Deportation doesn't work.

Amnesty programs aren't outright forgiveness they usually involve fines, backtaxes, and citizenship requirements. In some cases they involve reporting information about the company that hired you illegally. If the IRS can give a 25+% deduction for self-reporting on errors in backtaxes, I think there is little reason that states can't have a program that enables illegal immigrants to become legal.

I think if you want to punish the illegal immigrants with forced deportation you need to make it unwise to hire them, if they can't get jobs they probably aren't staying in the US. Raise the fines on the companies by 400% if you want to take a punitive route. Jail executives who aid and abet illegal hiring. In that environment I could see a more punitive program for dealing with illegal immigrants. In the case of unreported employment go after people for tax evasion, I hear that worked well on Capone. Of course the problem is most of these executives have made CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.

But in the current situation they're practically aided across the border by American companies who will forge documents for them so they can pay them minimum wage (or in many cases less).

I highly doubt this is a problem that gets solved from the bottom up, if you remove the incentives for being here, or secure the border properly you remove most if not all of the problem.

Agreed. This should be a priority. If you keep illegals out at the border you don't have so many problems about identifying them within the borders.


Why amnesty? This makes no sense to me. Basically, you are rewarding people who have broken the law.

I agree with you, though. Making the cost of hiring illegals higher than the cost of hiring legal labor would reduce the problems significantly. The problem there is that there have been numerous politicos who have been found to have hired illegals, either knowingly or not. Certainly, anyone who forges documents, for any reason, should be sent to prison, as well as being fined heavily. Simply make the risks so high that it becomes untenable.

[Thorne]

What else can you do? Forced Deportation doesn't work.

It would work if you beefed up border control. Otherwise I agree: its a waste of time.

Amnesty programs aren't outright forgiveness they usually involve fines, backtaxes, and citizenship requirements.

Then its not amnesty, which is, according to Webster, "the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals."
Allowing otherwise law-abiding people to "buy" their way in through payments of back taxes or other means would be something different, which I could go along with. But some people either will not, or will not be able to, meet those requirements. They will have to be deported. But none of this breaking up of families crap. The law should be changed to allow only children of legal residents to be considered citizens. If you're not legal, your kids aren't either. The whole family goes back.

I think if you want to punish the illegal immigrants with forced deportation you need to make it unwise to hire them, if they can't get jobs they probably aren't staying in the US. Raise the fines on the companies by 400% if you want to take a punitive route. Jail executives who aid and abet illegal hiring. In that environment I could see a more punitive program for dealing with illegal immigrants.

Absolutely! In fact, that would be the FIRST change I would want to see: make it far more dangerous, and expensive, for those who hire illegals. And executives of companies who hire the illegals should face prison sentences if they knowingly allow illegals to be hired. And tax evasion laws should already be usable to nail these companies, since they can't be withholding income taxes on undocumented workers.

But in the current situation they're practically aided across the border by American companies who will forge documents for them so they can pay them minimum wage (or in many cases less).

And these are the ones who should pay the steepest penalties, with the longest prison terms. Forging legal documents is a felony, if I'm not mistaken. Start charging these people, and put them on trial, and if they are convicted issue the steepest penalties the law allows, which should include forfeiture of properties, similar to what the drug laws allow.

[DuncanONeil]

[B][COLOR="pink"]Is this a fair law?

So far! The state has some experience in crating sound laws.

[B][COLOR="pink"]Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?

A scare? I think that would be obvious considering the news. Of course the "racial profiling" cry is pretty standard if there is a hint of diversity involved in an issue.

[B][COLOR="pink"]Should the United States pursue stricter law enfocment against illegal aliens?

Yes!

[B][COLOR="pink"]Or should we grant amnesty to existing illegals?

No! We tried that already. Didn't work then likely won't be any better this time. Actually kind of a cop out. Like saying I give up, you win.

[B][COLOR="pink"]What are the imigration issues of other countires in the world?

Tough question. I don't have the information to answer.

[B][COLOR="pink"]How do other countries handle imigration issues in comparison to the USA?

Many quite differently. Some good. some. worse.

[B][COLOR="pink"]What do you think about "Countries without borders"?

Bad idea.

These and many questions came to mind, I am sure my fellow forum members will have more to contribute.

[DuncanONeil]

As citizens we are asked for identification constantly. And often for proof of residence.

But the bill does not allow "to stop someone and demand papers based on visual evidence".
The law does say; "WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES" (State of Arizona Senate Forty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session 2010 SENATE BILL 1070) Further the final responsibility for determination lies with the Feds. "THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)." (State of Arizona Senate Forty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session 2010 SENATE BILL 1070)

I have issues with anyone who could sign a bill saying it's ok to stop someone and demand papers based on visual evidence, but not be able to identify what visual evidence is.

There are people who feel that this bill basically says "If you look like someone who could potentially have come from Mexico, you are legally required to carry I.D. at all times."

If you had a bill that said:

All Residents of Arizona over age 16 (or 18 or 21) are legally required to carry government issued identification and may be asked for this identification by police at any time.

People would be screaming police state, and opposing the bill en masse.

Yet when you put the visual language in it seems to read:

All Hispanic residents of Arizona who look like adults are legally required to carry government issued identification (e.g. papers) and may be asked for this by police at any time.

I think the evidence of this is seen by the press conference after the Governor signed the bill into law. When asked "What does an illegal immigrant look like" she had no good answer. I can't imagine someone would sign into law a bill that allows visual identification without understanding what that visual identification is, and to me that means dodging the question.

[DuncanONeil]

Some 80% of the law in question does address issues relating to employers. In fact if an employer repeats hiring illegals thay can lose their license to operate, if one is required.

Agreed. This should be a priority. If you keep illegals out at the border you don't have so many problems about identifying them within the borders.


Why amnesty? This makes no sense to me. Basically, you are rewarding people who have broken the law.

I agree with you, though. Making the cost of hiring illegals higher than the cost of hiring legal labor would reduce the problems significantly. The problem there is that there have been numerous politicos who have been found to have hired illegals, either knowingly or not. Certainly, anyone who forges documents, for any reason, should be sent to prison, as well as being fined heavily. Simply make the risks so high that it becomes untenable.

[Stealth694]

My mother sent me a e-mail about some Hispanic kids atMontebello High School in California that really shows how much hispanics want to become American Citizens
tell me what you think about it.

google Montebello High School, mexican flag

[Miamhail]

I live in Arizona and I applaud the law. If for no other reason than to light a fire under the Federal government and bring to attention the total failure of the system as it stand right now. The problem has gotten totally out of control. We have ranchers on the southern border who are constant victims, including the recent killing of one. We have police officers being fired on by the traffickers, while trying to stop them. Our crime rate is disproportionately high due to undocumented aliens.

AZ is the second worst in the county in regards to the state budget. We're broke! We can not afford to keep the social and educational programs we have, much less keep increasing the rolls by enrolling undocumented aliens. We can't keep teachers in the classrooms, yet we have to offer additional classes to Limited English Learners. We can no longer afford the high health care costs associated with undocumented aliens.

National and local news keeps hawking the racial profiling aspect. Racial profiling has always been a buzz word, and rightly so. But the law in AZ is very clear in regards to when an officer may ask about citizenship. It may only happen when another crime or offense has been commissioned. In other words, the police may not just randomly stop someone or walk up to someone and ask for identification. As for having to provide identification, let me ask anyone who has ever been pulled over by an officer this. What is the first thing an officer asks? Drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance. Done. No racial profiling. What happens if you can't provide ID or a means of being identified? They take you to the station and ID you. Once again, it happens to us all. No racial profiling. We all have to carry ID. The law in AZ was written to mirror the Federal law. We're not asking for anything in addition to what the Federal Government is already asking for. The only difference is - we plan on enforcing it.

[Jennifer Williams]

Maybe instead of spending so much time and energy on keeping "them" (other human beings) out, we should fix the issue that is causing "them" to so desperately want to come to America (though coming from a poor country to America for a better life has been the way it's gone since this country was founded, and don't tell me every person who came here had the right papers).

One big reason Mexico is so poor is because of NAFTA. We sell U.S. corn in Mexico under "Free Trade" for so cheap that the native Mexicans can't sell their own corn. They can't farm their traditional staple crop and live off of it. They're starving. Oh, and it's our fault.

If you were starving and your family was starving would you wait for papers to save them, or would you risk annoying the people in the rich country just above you? Think about what you would do if you were in "their" shoes.

When people have nothing to lose, fancy laws, papers, and highly-guarded borders aren't going to do a thing, they will still find a way to a better life.

Just like the rest of us did.

By spending all of our efforts on trying to keep "them" out and removal once "they" get in, we waste all of our time and money and energy on a futile effort. As long as Mexico is a miserable place to live and the United States is a better to go, people will find ways in. Instead, wouldn't it benefit everyone if we treated the problem at the source? And then if you want to say "what business is it of ours how Mexico wants to run itself", look around you, it makes itself our business when their people come busting down our door. If we repealed NAFTA instead, and let the Mexicans sell their own corn in their own country, then maybe "they" would stay where "they" belong.

[mkemse]

If and when the Arizona Law makr it to the Sunited Sates Suprmem Court, it wil be ruled Unconsituional, aside from the possability that that iswhy the law was passed and signedinto tlaw to test the courts and the push the Goerment and Cnogres to do real Immigarino REform, as it makes it throughthe cour systme the Supreme Court wil rule the Law Uncontituional

[IAN 2411]

Compiled from reports by Free Press news services:Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were overreacting and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill misguided and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see whether it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level -- or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."The bill, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also would require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.The bill is to take effect 90 days after the current legislative sessions end in the next several weeks.
[1]Is this a fair law?
[2]Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?
[3]Should the United States pursue stricter law enfocment against illegal aliens?
[4]Or should we grant amnesty to existing illegals?
[5]What are the imigration issues of other countires in the world?
[6]How do other countries handle imigration issues in comparison to the USA?
[7]What do you think about "Countries without borders"?

These and many questions came to mind, I am sure my fellow forum members will have more to contribute.

[1] Laws are only fair for the persons making them.
[2] It has in the UK
[3] Yes and so too should the UK
[4] No, in no circumstances should you show weakness
[5] The UK has 1 Million illegal immigrants and that just the ones we think are here.
[6] Our border agencies tried their best but they were messed with by the bungling Labour Government for the last 13 years.
[7] It was because of Countries without borders that we have so many over here. If it were not for the channel they would be living in my back garden waiting for a free hospital bed or a Labour run council, Free Council house.

What do you think about "Countries without borders"?
Never heard of it, but after a brief browse through Google I'd have to say it's a silly idea. Unless you can eliminate all racial, religious or regional strife, unless you can get everyone to speak the same language, it's just a pipe-dream. Borders are there for a reason, whether you like them or not.

There are no borders in Europe and it was for that reason all the immigrants camped at the channel ports trying to get to the UK. I still can’t figure out why, but maybe they like living in countries that are up to their necks in debt.
Regards ian 2411

[steelish]

The bill, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.

Er um, if you are in the country ILLEGALLY, doesn't that automatically mean you are committing a crime?

Is this a fair law?

Yes. It's actually already a crime to be in the country ILLEGALLY

Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?

No. The police have to be in action already (stop someone for speeding, for instance) and also have probable cause to investigate whether or not the person they have already stopped FOR ANOTHER REASON is in the country illegally.

Should the United States pursue stricter law enfocment against illegal aliens?

Yes

Or should we grant amnesty to existing illegals?

No. There are thousands who come to America legally. They study and work hard at becoming legal citizens. Why negate all their hard work and also open the door for even more illegals? (We grant amnesty and our borders will be bombarded with more illegals hoping for future amnesty)

What are the imigration issues of other countires in the world?

They are much harsher than simply asking for proof of legal alien status and deportation.

Italy
Mexico
Law battle in Europe

(Just a few - I can research it further at a later date)

How do other countries handle imigration issues in comparison to the USA?

See above

What do you think about "Countries without borders"?

That's like a candy store without doors in a neighborhood of unruly children

[DuncanONeil]

Maybe instead of spending so much time and energy on keeping "them" (other human beings) out, we should fix the issue that is causing "them" to so desperately want to come to America (though coming from a poor country to America for a better life has been the way it's gone since this country was founded, and don't tell me every person who came here had the right papers).

You have the concept here both correct and incorrect at the same time. Is it wrong for people to "desperately want to come to America "? No! But to do so in an illegal fashion is wrong. As for having the "right" papers! That set of requirements has changed over the years. All in all you seem to be saying that we should have no borders or rules for entry into the country. How do you wish to justify that position.

One big reason Mexico is so poor is because of NAFTA. We sell U.S. corn in Mexico under "Free Trade" for so cheap that the native Mexicans can't sell their own corn. They can't farm their traditional staple crop and live off of it. They're starving. Oh, and it's our fault.

Mexico was poor long before NAFTA! This is supported by the fact that as a nation we granted amnesty to somewhere between 12 - 20 million illegal aliens in 1986 (under a Republican President). If Mexico was not "poor" then why were so many of them here? NAFTA did not come along until 10 years later. I note that you gloss right over the trade advantage for Mexican companies into this country. "Some[who?] argue that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen its poverty rates fall and real income rise (in the form of lower prices, especially food), even after accounting for the 1994–1995 economic crisis." (^ U.S.-Mexico Corn Trade During the NAFTA Era: New Twists to an Old Story USDA Economic Research Service)
"According to Issac (2005), overall, NAFTA has not caused trade diversion, aside from a few industries such as textiles and apparel, in which rules of origin negotiated in the agreement were specifically designed to make U.S. firms prefer Mexican manufacturers. The World Bank also showed that the combined percentage growth of NAFTA imports was accompanied by an almost similar increase of non-NAFTA exports."
"Maquiladoras (Mexican factories which take in imported raw materials and produce goods for export) have become the landmark of trade in Mexico. Hufbauer's (2005) book shows that income in the maquiladora sector has increased 15.5% since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. Other sectors now benefit from the free trade agreement, and the share of exports from non-border states has increased in the last five years ... This has allowed for the rapid growth of non-border metropolitan areas, such as Toluca, León and Puebla; all three larger in population than Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Reynosa."
"Production of corn in Mexico has increased since NAFTA's implementation. However, internal corn demand has increased beyond Mexico's sufficiency, and imports have become necessary, far beyond the quotas Mexico had originally negotiated" ( NAFTA, Corn, and Mexico’s Agricultural Trade LiberalizationPDF (152 KB) p. 4)

If you were starving and your family was starving would you wait for papers to save them, or would you risk annoying the people in the rich country just above you? Think about what you would do if you were in "their" shoes.

Then I am to presume that you would advocate that a person that steals food from the supermarket not experience any legal consequences? That they are to be permitted to break the law just because they are experiencing hard times?

When people have nothing to lose, fancy laws, papers, and highly-guarded borders aren't going to do a thing, they will still find a way to a better life.

Just like the rest of us did.

This is an attempt to change the debate from one of reason to one of emotion. The problem there is one of unintended consequences. One of which is that I can no longer order meat from my local chain supermarket because the meat cutter can not understand what I am saying to him!

By spending all of our efforts on trying to keep "them" out and removal once "they" get in, we waste all of our time and money and energy on a futile effort. As long as Mexico is a miserable place to live and the United States is a better to go, people will find ways in. Instead, wouldn't it benefit everyone if we treated the problem at the source? And then if you want to say "what business is it of ours how Mexico wants to run itself", look around you, it makes itself our business when their people come busting down our door. If we repealed NAFTA instead, and let the Mexicans sell their own corn in their own country, then maybe "they" would stay where "they" belong.

Again an emotional based argument! We are not trying to keep "them" out. We are trying to keep the law breakers out. Why is it the "duty" of the US to repair the problems in a foreign nation? Where does the authority come from to do so? Seems to me the only legal way to accomplish what you desire is to make Mexico part of the USA! I do not think there are enough Mexicans that wish for that to occur. "If we repealed NAFTA instead, and let the Mexicans sell their own corn in their own country, then maybe "they" would stay where "they" belong." I have shown earlier how you belief in this as a cause is not supported. And again your words give the impression that it is wrong for us to have borders and rules to enter the country. Why is that?

[DuncanONeil]

That the SCOTUS "will" rule the law unconstitutional is an assumption. First of all this is an amendment of an existing law, the greatest portion of the law is directed at employers.
More than that other laws crafted by AZ have been challenged in court for very similar reasons. All have been upheld! By the most Liberal court in the land, to boot.
Why such an uproar when all AZ is seeking to do, is enforce Federal law? And AZ does not determine immigration status the Feds are required to make that determination!

If and when the Arizona Law makr it to the Sunited Sates Suprmem Court, it wil be ruled Unconsituional, aside from the possability that that iswhy the law was passed and signedinto tlaw to test the courts and the push the Goerment and Cnogres to do real Immigarino REform, as it makes it throughthe cour systme the Supreme Court wil rule the Law Uncontituional

[mkemse]

I live in Arizona and I applaud the law. If for no other reason than to light a fire under the Federal government and bring to attention the total failure of the system as it stand right now. The problem has gotten totally out of control. We have ranchers on the southern border who are constant victims, including the recent killing of one. We have police officers being fired on by the traffickers, while trying to stop them. Our crime rate is disproportionately high due to undocumented aliens.

AZ is the second worst in the county in regards to the state budget. We're broke! We can not afford to keep the social and educational programs we have, much less keep increasing the rolls by enrolling undocumented aliens. We can't keep teachers in the classrooms, yet we have to offer additional classes to Limited English Learners. We can no longer afford the high health care costs associated with undocumented aliens.

National and local news keeps hawking the racial profiling aspect. Racial profiling has always been a buzz word, and rightly so. But the law in AZ is very clear in regards to when an officer may ask about citizenship. It may only happen when another crime or offense has been commissioned. In other words, the police may not just randomly stop someone or walk up to someone and ask for identification. As for having to provide identification, let me ask anyone who has ever been pulled over by an officer this. What is the first thing an officer asks? Drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance. Done. No racial profiling. What happens if you can't provide ID or a means of being identified? They take you to the station and ID you. Once again, it happens to us all. No racial profiling. We all have to carry ID. The law in AZ was written to mirror the Federal law. We're not asking for anything in addition to what the Federal Government is already asking for. The only difference is - we plan on enforcing it.

Yes I think the Law was passed for just that reason, to light a HUGE FIRE under the Federal Governement if for no other reason
Plus as Inderstand it LEGALY, State do not have the power or Authority to set their own Immigarions rules and laws

[DuncanONeil]

I missed this the first time through!
The law, AZ SB 1070, does not make it "make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. What it does is permit the arrest of an individual the Federal Government has reported is in the country illegally.

Compiled from reports by Free Press news services:

Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.

With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were overreacting and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.

Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill misguided and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see whether it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level -- or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

The bill, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also would require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.

The bill is to take effect 90 days after the current legislative sessions end in the next several weeks.



Is this a fair law?

Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?

Should the United States pursue stricter law enfocment against illegal aliens?

Or should we grant amnesty to existing illegals?

What are the imigration issues of other countires in the world?

How do other countries handle imigration issues in comparison to the USA?

What do you think about "Countries without borders"?

These and many questions came to mind, I am sure my fellow forum members will have more to contribute.

[DuncanONeil]

We currently accept some 300,000 legal each year! Perhaps a solution would be to increase that number.
It is estimated that some 500,000 illegally cross each year!
So if we increase the "quota" to 800,000 or even 1,000,000 might that not be a way to correct the problem.

Er um, if you are in the country ILLEGALLY, doesn't that automatically mean you are committing a crime?

Yes. It's actually already a crime to be in the country ILLEGALLY

No. The police have to be in action already (stop someone for speeding, for instance) and also have probable cause to investigate whether or not the person they have already stopped FOR ANOTHER REASON is in the country illegally.

Yes

No. There are thousands who come to America legally. They study and work hard at becoming legal citizens. Why negate all their hard work and also open the door for even more illegals? (We grant amnesty and our borders will be bombarded with more illegals hoping for future amnesty)

They are much harsher than simply asking for proof of legal alien status and deportation.

Italy
Mexico
Law battle in Europe

(Just a few - I can research it further at a later date)

See above

That's like a candy store without doors in a neighborhood of unruly children

I like that analogy!!

[DuncanONeil]

Yes I think the Law was passed for just that reason, to light a HUGE FIRE under the Federal Governement if for no other reason
Plus as Inderstand it LEGALY, State do not have the power or Authority to set their own Immigarions rules and laws

However, Az has not established its own immigration laws. Nor has it usurped the powers of the INS or ICE.
The law requires that the Federal Government make the determination of the persons legal status in the country!
ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS 11-1051.
B. ... "THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."

[DuncanONeil]

People, it has come to my attention that all of this talk about people being unfairly asked for their "papers" is a moot point.

An alien in the country legally is required UNDER 8 UNITED STATES CODE to register, be fingerprinted and to carry on their person "Certificate of Alien Registration or Alien Receipt Card". So the issue of now having to carry proof of legal status because of AZ law is incorrect.

[Stealth694]

I think its more about how the Police can stop someone and ask for said immigration card.
We had something like this in Wisconsin several yrs ago, Afro Americans were complaining about being racially profiled by the police, Turned out that they were being pulled over for legal reasons, the case was dismissed.

I think Arizonia should be allowed to enforce this law for a Year and see what the results are. Something does have to be done, our border is a joke, and population density can get nasty.

[Jennifer Williams]

Duncan, you are quite educated and informed and I feel honored to be bested by you in debate, Sir.

We currently accept some 300,000 legal each year! Perhaps a solution would be to increase that number.
It is estimated that some 500,000 illegally cross each year!

So if we increase the "quota" to 800,000 or even 1,000,000 might that not be a way to correct the problem.

It seems so simple, yet I'm sure it isn't. I am completely ignorant of who sets these quotas and how they are determined, and why the number 300,000 is chosen, for example.

[mkemse]

However, Az has not established its own immigration laws. Nor has it usurped the powers of the INS or ICE.
The law requires that the Federal Government make the determination of the persons legal status in the country!
ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS 11-1051.
B. ... "THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."

Yes they have, they just passed their own "Imigration Law" that among otherthings alllows THEIR Law Enforment to question ANYONE who ppears suspecious or Illegal, that is what the clamore is all about, and based on what you posted regarding FEderal Law, that is why thier State Law wil be Rules Uncontitutionmal, they as a State can not set their own Immigarion Laws, which is precisley what they just did, their New State Law Violates this Article 8

[roxi.slut]

Well, i'm not so sure about the Article 8 business. It is a federal law that marajuana is illegal, yet it is legal in some states.

What it amounts to is turning illegal immigrants in to the Feds, who have final say on the matter. Living in a state where there are plenty of illegals, it's not difficult to figure out who is who for the most part.

i am required by law to hand over documentation proving my identity and non-alien status every time i apply for a job, or get pulled over by police. This is nothing new, and i don't believe it is profiling, honestly. A person's status can be easily checked in the system just by rattling off a series of numbers that is found on their state issued ID card or DL. i know this because i listen to a police scanner. They know when your last brush with the law was, what it was for, if you're on parole or probation, and of course, if you have warrants. They also know if the number on your ID card is a fake. Hell, they know if you have warrants in another state, and if that state is willing to extradite for the particular offense that is stated on your warrant! All in about 5 minutes. So i don't think this is such a terrible thing to do.

Profiling? We are all profiled in one way or another. There is plenty about life that isn't fair. What isn't fair is that i am paying for babies to be born in hospitals so that the mothers can stay here (anchor babies). i am paying to feed and clothe and house some of these people who didn't give enough of a crap to go through the steps it takes to be here legally. They aren't paying anything. THAT is damn sure not fair!

i believe that much attention needs to be paid to this issue. There are other countries that are strict on illegals. Mexico is one of the main ports of entry to the US, and since we don't watch our border crossings as closely there as we do in cooperation with the Canadians, we are leaving ourselves open to more than just taxpayer problems. If it is that easy to get multiple families across the border, what else can be brought in?

Not to mention the crime issues that have grown in Mexico over the last year.

i believe that the Arizona Law is good for drawing attention to the problem and showing Washington that we are serious. i also think that if the rest of the states with large illegal immigrant populations would get their balls pumped up and show some solidarity with Arizona, something might actually change on Capitol Hill. Squeeky wheel gets the most grease.

[chuck]

Is this a fair law?

Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?

Interesting questions. It seems like there should be a level headed evaluation of the law before jumping to conclusions about what it represents.

The law has been condemned by the current federal administration so they must have a good idea about the content of the law, Right? Not according to this article:

Holder is criticized for comments on Ariz. immigration law, which he hasn't read - By Jerry Markon

FTA:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said that Arizona's tough new immigration law could drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities. He has expressed concerns it could lead to racial profiling, and he has made it clear that his Justice Department is considering a lawsuit to block the legislation from taking effect.

But what Holder has not done, as least as of Thursday, is read the law...

... and these are the people we rely on to run our country.

[MMI]

Can't speak for Americans and Mexicans, but over here, it is frequently pointed out to the anti-immigration lobby that for all the "burden" they place on us, we still benefit economically (not to mention socially and culturally) from immigration.

We frequently hear that, They're taking our jobs, claiming social benefits and having babies for free on the NHS!!! What this really means is that immigrants are doing work we are too "good" for, are sometimes given enough money for food, clothes and sanitary towels, and have been royally screwed by the people already living here before they try to send them back home.

Furthermore, we seem to approve of white Brits who say, I'm leaving this place to go somewhere where ordinary, decent people (that means people like them, by the way) can live ... the unspoken addition, without my senses being assaulted by foreign smells, costumes or accents is understood. I don't know whether it's true of other cultures, but Anglo-Saxons seem to have such a self-regard that they see it as noble to keep themselves pure and separate from other peoples regardless of how it muddles their thinking and distorts their behaviour.

Surely it can't possibly be the same in that huge melting-pot of humanity called the USA