By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Arizona "your papers please" immigration law

Armads on 29 July 2010
morenoingrato said:
Armads said:
morenoingrato said:
HappySqurriel said:
morenoingrato said:
TheRealMafoo said:
morenoingrato said:

To be honest, this law is totally nonsense.

Any resident, tourist, or anone just won't fell safe since they'll have to take their papers everywhere, the an forget them, they're likely to lose them, and inmigrants are people too. And they dont affect america in any way. The only reason this law was made is because the arizona goverment are racists

wow

I am the least racist person I know, and I am 100% for the law.

To call Arizona racist for passing the law, is to call the US racist for having the same law. A federal officer is allowed to stop anyone they feel is here illegally, and investigate there citizenship. That person doesn't even need to commit a crime first.

Arizona just wants to help the Feds enforce there own law. How does that make one racist and the other not?

Also, the "they dont affect america in any way" is just 100% wrong. You don't include 12 million people into a society, and get no affect.

 



the inmigrants do the jobs no american wants to do, the degradating jobs.

And even you say it. When an officer "feels like they're there illegally"

for non ilegals, a waste of time, a risk

for ilegals they have 49 states to go, and they are also humans

The myth that illegal immigrants are doing jobs that citizens and legal immigrants are unwilling to do is unfounded. Since these individuals are often paid less than the market rate legitimate businesses pay their employees, and are often paid below minimum wage, the truth is that illegal immigrants are doing jobs that citizens and legal immigrants are unwilling or unable to do for what they’re paid. When illegal immigrants are pushed out wages are forced upwards and there is no difficulty finding workers for most of these jobs.

Now, with that said, within 10 seconds of talking with someone you will have a fairly decent idea of whether they’re an immigrant or not; from there, there are obvious signs whether someone is in the country legally or not, that most individuals would pick up within a couple of months of doing a job like police work. If I was to put a rough guestimate on it, I would expect that somewhere between 90% and 95% of people the police suspected of being illegal immigrants would be illegal immigrants, and most of the remaining would be very recent immigrants.



People I know, they do jobs that no one else does. If you go to a small ny superarket: latins, india, asia

taxis, latin, asia, india.

All the jobs that seems "shamefull" goes to the illegal.

And yes, 10 seconds, you know they're not native. So police will bother them, make them lose valuable time, if they're not ilegal.

If they are ilegal, thats a pretty cruel law, you know. Many ilegals travel to pay family debts and give their family money. I know a couple of examples of families who  has their husband in usa and sends them money to survive

 

That's a pretty terrible stereotype you just portrayed, talk about racist.  In the town I grew up in most of the supermarkets were run by white people, we don't have many taxis in the area.   The reality is that illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans because they work off the books for below minimum wage.  You want to create more jobs in America?  Kick out the illegals and the jobs they took will go to citizens and the fact that these illegals work here and send money back home makes the problem even worse, they're exporting their services.  Not only are they not getting taxed, the money is being funneled out of the US market.  Basically the US is supporting Latin American market while our own market is in decline and no matter how many families in other countries are in trouble, there are families in ours that are as well and I'm going to support the recovery of our own nation above others.


bla bla, the typical: we're selfish americans, we rock, everyone here lives peacefull and perfect. Up with usa, down with the world, screw the world. That's why the world hates you and atacks you


Wow is that the best argument you have?  You didn't address anything I said and just made up some stuff about America being perfect when my very point was that we're in a lot of economic trouble and don't have the power nor the obligation of responsibility to hold up other economies.



Around the Network
Moren on 29 July 2010
thranx said:
morenoingrato said:
Armads said:
morenoingrato said:
HappySqurriel said:
morenoingrato said:
TheRealMafoo said:
morenoingrato said:

To be honest, this law is totally nonsense.

Any resident, tourist, or anone just won't fell safe since they'll have to take their papers everywhere, the an forget them, they're likely to lose them, and inmigrants are people too. And they dont affect america in any way. The only reason this law was made is because the arizona goverment are racists

wow

I am the least racist person I know, and I am 100% for the law.

To call Arizona racist for passing the law, is to call the US racist for having the same law. A federal officer is allowed to stop anyone they feel is here illegally, and investigate there citizenship. That person doesn't even need to commit a crime first.

Arizona just wants to help the Feds enforce there own law. How does that make one racist and the other not?

Also, the "they dont affect america in any way" is just 100% wrong. You don't include 12 million people into a society, and get no affect.

 



the inmigrants do the jobs no american wants to do, the degradating jobs.

And even you say it. When an officer "feels like they're there illegally"

for non ilegals, a waste of time, a risk

for ilegals they have 49 states to go, and they are also humans

The myth that illegal immigrants are doing jobs that citizens and legal immigrants are unwilling to do is unfounded. Since these individuals are often paid less than the market rate legitimate businesses pay their employees, and are often paid below minimum wage, the truth is that illegal immigrants are doing jobs that citizens and legal immigrants are unwilling or unable to do for what they’re paid. When illegal immigrants are pushed out wages are forced upwards and there is no difficulty finding workers for most of these jobs.

Now, with that said, within 10 seconds of talking with someone you will have a fairly decent idea of whether they’re an immigrant or not; from there, there are obvious signs whether someone is in the country legally or not, that most individuals would pick up within a couple of months of doing a job like police work. If I was to put a rough guestimate on it, I would expect that somewhere between 90% and 95% of people the police suspected of being illegal immigrants would be illegal immigrants, and most of the remaining would be very recent immigrants.



People I know, they do jobs that no one else does. If you go to a small ny superarket: latins, india, asia

taxis, latin, asia, india.

All the jobs that seems "shamefull" goes to the illegal.

And yes, 10 seconds, you know they're not native. So police will bother them, make them lose valuable time, if they're not ilegal.

If they are ilegal, thats a pretty cruel law, you know. Many ilegals travel to pay family debts and give their family money. I know a couple of examples of families who  has their husband in usa and sends them money to survive

 

That's a pretty terrible stereotype you just portrayed, talk about racist.  In the town I grew up in most of the supermarkets were run by white people, we don't have many taxis in the area.   The reality is that illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans because they work off the books for below minimum wage.  You want to create more jobs in America?  Kick out the illegals and the jobs they took will go to citizens and the fact that these illegals work here and send money back home makes the problem even worse, they're exporting their services.  Not only are they not getting taxed, the money is being funneled out of the US market.  Basically the US is supporting Latin American market while our own market is in decline and no matter how many families in other countries are in trouble, there are families in ours that are as well and I'm going to support the recovery of our own nation above others.


bla bla, the typical: we're selfish americans, we rock, everyone here lives peacefull and perfect. Up with usa, down with the world, screw the world. That's why the world hates you and atacks you


Wow, do you really have that skewed of a scense of reality? And boy typical foriegner, americans are wrong, they care for no one but themselves, nothing they can do is right, lets attack america and take what they built for our own ;) we can all stereo type, but you seem to be the most racist person in this thread.



I am aware thanks to what they have done their country is what it is. A mega empire. The people there are really nice and respect the laws. HOWEVER there are people like all of you who gives bad image to usa. Only usa exists, nothing else



thranx on 29 July 2010

Like me? How have I said only the US exsited? I mean this is a discussion on US policy. What have I said that is so bad about some one else? I am rather baffled



venepe on 29 July 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
venepe said:
TheRealMafoo said:
venepe said:
badgenome said:
venepe said:

@badgenome

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Supremacy Clause argument for this law is not in the context of conflict, it is rather in the issue of preemption (and the injuction to the law was made on this point).  Especifically, implied preemption, which states that where Congress has a occupied the subject area to the preclusion of state laws because of the nature of the federal interest or the pervasiveness of the federal regulatory scheme.

Now, if you want to debate this issues with me you are welcome to do it.  Although I will disclose to you that I am an immigration attorney practicing in California.

Congress can't really be said to occupy the field in this case for a number of reasons, and especially not when the feds rely so heavily on states to help them enforce immigration law. And again, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to make laws in regard to immigration status, as in De Canas v. Bica.


De Canas v. Bica, decide in 1976, decided that a specific California statute was not in conflict with the federal law and the law was not traditionally occupied by the feds.  In that case, the CA law prohibited employers from knowingly employing persons not authorized to work.  Back then there was no Federal statute regarding such penalties, as the employer sanctions law was not acted until 1986.  Now De Canas did lay out a 3 prong-test to check whether or not a state law is preempted.  the Arizona Law does not pass the test, espcifically the second prong of the test.

Now whether the feds are being efficient at their job is another argument. But is irrelevant to the legal issue.  And the feds reliance on the states in this case it is actually because the federal government partnered with state agencies as it is within the feds power to do so.  Congress can grant the state police the power to check immigration status if it wants to.  But the state cannot do it on its own.

Let me put this in simple terms, and see if I understand.

If the feds don't have a law about something, it's ok for the state to make a law, but if the feds then make a law about something and chose to never enforce it, the states can't make the same law and enforce it?

So for example, if the feds want to allow everyone the ability to get away with statutory rape, they can just make a federal law saying sex under the age of 18 is illegal, and never prosecute anyone for it? Thus tying the hands of the states in the matter?

I know the law lacks common sense sometimes, but that is the way things are when it comes to constitutional issues.

See, the constitution was made in such a way that it creates a federal government but at the same time gives the states certain freedoms.  So in essence it creates a limited federal government.  Now, the constitution makes sure that the limited federal government has some powers over the states so that the union is maintained.  Those are often called the "enumerated powers" listed in Article I of the constitution.  Among those powers, one of them is the power over immigration matters.  Now the scope of such power has been defined over 200 years by the US Supreme Court.

So the problem now with the Arizona Law (and the reason it has been blocked) is that the Federal Government has made laws over the matter and that law covers a lot of aspects of immigration.  When that happens it "preempts" any state law that tries to cover the same aspects  even though they may have the same purpose. 

Like I said, it seems to lack certain common sense, but that is the way it works.  Over 200 years over the Constitution there has always been a struggle between Federal and State Powers, I mean there even was a Civil War over it! 


Sorry, but I don't think this is right.

I have been looking for the quote, but lack the experience to find it. Anyway, as I understand it, a law can be created in a state that covers the same issue as the federal law, as long as it does not conflict with the will of congress.

This law does not conflict with the will of congress. This law enforced the will of congress. (meaning it mirrors the same law, and does not impose and additional punishment).

The federal government, even if this law is enacted, could make the worse thing that could happen to someone who is stopped, is they are taken to an immigration office and released.

There is no enforcement in this law. It's still up to the federal government.

I know a lot of people don't think is right.  But the legal problems are for the Courts to decide and they will decide based on precedence and constitutional analysis. That is how it works.

US Constitution, Article VI

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This is the supremacy clause, now by itself it doesn't say much. "the laws of the United States" means the Federal Laws.  Because the clause it somewhat generalistic, the US Supreme Court over the years has interpreted it and defined it.  And yes, future courts can change its interpretation in theory.  But realistically they have been pretty much settled on what it means.

As far as immigration, the supremacy clause pretty much says that if the state law conflicts then is no good.  But also if the Feds intended to "occupy the field" in the subject then the States can make no law on the same subject.  Now, occupying the field means that the Feds made laws on the matter, it doesn't matter matter if they are not enforcing them.  So, immigration laws are very extensive and cover pretty much every aspect of immigration as of now.  So there is little out there for the States to do that the feds did not intend to occupy.

So, there it is.  It may lack common sense but that is how it works.  So the only thing the people can do is exercise their power to vote.

thranx

 

"I see what your saying, but by what I understood from the law, all they will be doing is handing them over to imigration (feds). So they really aren't enforcing it per se, they are just handing them over to the feds, wich as far as I know is ok to do. If some commits a federal crime and a state crime at the same time they may be handed over to the feds. Am I right on  that? If so since they can only question someone who is already violating a law is that not a similar case? You also said that imigration law has been shaped by the courts, doesn't that mean there is a possibility that this can be constitutional so long as the highest courts say so? Would that not just be a contuation of the courts shaping laws not in the constitution? Sorry for all of the questions, I just want to get this right"

Well the law gave power to the police to check immigration status of someone they stop, and made criminal sanctions and fines for Visitors, Foreign students, people on work visas, and permanent residents, who are not carrying their "papers" with them.  So that is the problem.  The state made an immigration law on its own.  And since the Feds have one already, the State law is invalid based on the supremacy clause even if they are not  in conflict.



"¿Por qué justo a mí tenía que tocarme ser yo?"

MARCUSDJACKSON on 29 July 2010

worst idea ever. it's another form of harassment thats just going to make the police jobs even harder.  

the point i'm trying to make is that it won't get easyer the community can't trust you. the answer will always be no i didn't see anything, i don't know anything, and if i did i would help no cop.

cops already face this, but in Arizona, you can imagine how it would get worse. they're putting cops in a situation to where if they ask a simple question unrelated to this new law they can't get an answer cause it will already be assumed that they want to look at your immigration status and it's an insult to any American.

this stretches out furtherer then just the Mexican boarder. this could effect anybody that speaks Latin, French, Arabic, German, Russian, etc or anyone with an accent found in Arizona. 

so the real question is, should a Mexican American born in the us be harassed, stopped, or profiled because of how he/she looks. this is racial profiling at it's best  the only difference is that it legal.



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

Around the Network
Slimebeast on 29 July 2010

I think it's ridiculous that we're even discussing this. It's ridiculous that it's a controversial issue in America.

Oh how the goalposts have been moved in the last two decades. 

This is just another sign of the weakness of Western society.



MARCUSDJACKSON on 29 July 2010
venepe said:
TheRealMafoo said:
venepe said:
TheRealMafoo said:
venepe said:
badgenome said:
venepe said:

@badgenome

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Supremacy Clause argument for this law is not in the context of conflict, it is rather in the issue of preemption (and the injuction to the law was made on this point).  Especifically, implied preemption, which states that where Congress has a occupied the subject area to the preclusion of state laws because of the nature of the federal interest or the pervasiveness of the federal regulatory scheme.

Now, if you want to debate this issues with me you are welcome to do it.  Although I will disclose to you that I am an immigration attorney practicing in California.

Congress can't really be said to occupy the field in this case for a number of reasons, and especially not when the feds rely so heavily on states to help them enforce immigration law. And again, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to make laws in regard to immigration status, as in De Canas v. Bica.


De Canas v. Bica, decide in 1976, decided that a specific California statute was not in conflict with the federal law and the law was not traditionally occupied by the feds.  In that case, the CA law prohibited employers from knowingly employing persons not authorized to work.  Back then there was no Federal statute regarding such penalties, as the employer sanctions law was not acted until 1986.  Now De Canas did lay out a 3 prong-test to check whether or not a state law is preempted.  the Arizona Law does not pass the test, espcifically the second prong of the test.

Now whether the feds are being efficient at their job is another argument. But is irrelevant to the legal issue.  And the feds reliance on the states in this case it is actually because the federal government partnered with state agencies as it is within the feds power to do so.  Congress can grant the state police the power to check immigration status if it wants to.  But the state cannot do it on its own.

Let me put this in simple terms, and see if I understand.

If the feds don't have a law abou



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

MARCUSDJACKSON on 29 July 2010
venepe said:
TheRealMafoo said:
venepe said:
TheRealMafoo said:
venepe said:
badgenome said:
venepe said:

@badgenome

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Supremacy Clause argument for this law is not in the context of conflict, it is rather in the issue of preemption (and the injuction to the law was made on this point).  Especifically, implied preemption, which states that where Congress has a occupied the subject area to the preclusion of state laws because of the nature of the federal interest or the pervasiveness of the federal regulatory scheme.

Now, if you want to debate this issues with me you are welcome to do it.  Although I will disclose to you that I am an immigration attorney practicing in California.

Congress can't really be said to occupy the field in this case for a number of reasons, and especially not when the feds rely so heavily on states to help them enforce immigration law. And again, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to make laws in regard to immigration status, as in De Canas v. Bica.


De Canas v. Bica, decide in 1976, decided that a specific California statute was not in conflict with the federal law and the law was not traditionally occupied by the feds.  In that case, the CA law prohibited employers from knowingly employing persons not authorized to work.  Back then there was no Federal statute regarding such penalties, as the employer sanctions law was not acted until 1986.  Now De Canas did lay out a 3 prong-test to check whether or not a state law is preempted.  the Arizona Law does not pass the test, espcifically the second prong of the test.

Now whether the feds are being efficient at their job is another argument. But is irrelevant to the legal issue.  And the feds reliance on the states in this case it is actually because the federal government partnered with state agencies as it is within the feds power to do so.  Congress can grant the state police the power to check immigration status if it wants to.  But the state cannot do it on its own.

Let me put this in simple terms, and see if I understand.

If the feds don't have a law about something, it's ok for the state to make a law, but if the feds then make a law about something and chose to never enforce it, the states can't make the same law and enforce it?

So for example, if the feds want to allow everyone the ability to get away with statutory rape, they can just make a federal law saying sex under the age of 18 is illegal, and never prosecute anyone for it? Thus tying the hands of the states in the matter?

I know the law lacks common sense sometimes, but that is the way things are when it comes to constitutional issues.

See, the constitution was made in such a way that it creates a federal government but at the same time gives the states certain freedoms.  So in essence it creates a limited federal government.  Now, the constitution makes sure that the limited federal government has some powers over the states so that the union is maintained.  Those are often called the "enumerated powers" listed in Article I of the constitution.  Among those powers, one of them is the power over immigration matters.  Now the scope of such power has been defined over 200 years by the US Supreme Court.

So the problem now with the Arizona Law (and the reason it has been blocked) is that the Federal Government has made laws over the matter and that law covers a lot of aspects of immigration.  When that happens it "preempts" any state law that tries to cover the same aspects  even though they may have the same purpose. 

Like I said, it seems to lack certain common sense, but that is the way it works.  Over 200 years over the Constitution there has always been a struggle between Federal and State Powers, I mean there even was a Civil War over it! 


Sorry, but I don't think this is right.

I have been looking for the quote, but lack the experience to find it. Anyway, as I understand it, a law can be created in a state that covers the same issue as the



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

Kasz216 on 29 July 2010
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:
MrBubbles said:

what happens if you are just visiting and get pulled over for something? 

You show them your drivers liscense and your fine?   Really, I wasn't a fan of this law at first... looking at it though, I don't see anything that shouldn't arleady be done. 

 I mean, if someone comits a crime that has a penalty you should need to confirm their identity... so you make sure they pay the price.

And if it turns out they are an illegal alien... they should be turned over to immigration.

I mean, there isn't anything reall controversial about it.

They should just remove the "If there is reasonable suspison" part since it might lead to illegal candadians, british etc from slipping through the cracks.

So you want a police officer to say the following.

"Excuse me, sir, you were going 5 miles an hour over the speed limit. Can I see your green card please?"

Also, why the hell would anyone from Canada or Britain go to Arizona of all places? Both are among the wealthiest countries per capita in the world. Hell, Canada has a higher development index than the United States, and Britain is 0.009 points lower.

Or just... you know.  There Driver's liscense.  Once they run your Drivers liscense they'll know everything about you.

As for your second question.  The Weather. 

As for Development index... eh, it's not even worth getting into it.   I'll just say, take a good look at what makes up the development index.

Edit: eh what the heck... we'll go into it a little.

A) One reason Canada beats the US and the UK is close?  Infant Mortality rate.

Why does the US have such a high Infant mortality rate...?   Because we report it differently from the rest of the world.  Any baby born alive that dies is considered a death. 

AIn the rest of the world like the UK and Canada... they have to fit "standards" to be considered alive.   Babies that are below a certain height or weight aren't counted in other countries because there was "no chance" to save them.

When you account for this... Life Expectancy doesn't matter.  So a wash.

 

B)  The second part is the education Index... This really isn't going to effect anybody who would move to the US, since the big laggard here for the US is literacy rate... which if your worried about your kids... it'd be easy for you to teach them to read.

 

C)  Per Capita income adjusted for PPP.   The US actually wins in this.   It's also basically the only stat that would effect an immigrant.   Coming here to make more money, keep more of it, and it being able to buy more seems like a pretty good reason.

I could grant you that, in some respects, the US is a nicer country than the UK or Canada, but:

a) If I was moving to the US, Arizona would hardly be the first state I would consider. New York, California, Florida, all of these would probably come to mind first. Since I'd need a plane, anyway, it wouldn't make much difference.

b) The difference isn't significant enough to illegally immigrate. Compare Mexico to the USA. One is impoverished and full of starvation and crime. The other isn't. Compare Canada, the UK, and the USA. None of them are impoverished, none has particularly high crime, all are among the best places in the world to live (not counting those cheating Central European countries with no tax).

A) You'd be surprised a LOT of people in the US move to Arizona when they're older because of the climate and area.

B) Again, you'd be very surprised.   There are a lot of Europeons in the US illegally... and vice versa actually.  Due to how immigration is set up it's VERY hard for the average person switch countries.  Often times they tend to fly to the country they perfer on holiday and just decide to stay there.   For a famous example, I'm pretty sure David Sedaris actually lives in France... illegally.  Or at least that's what he said back when I saw him.  



Kasz216 on 29 July 2010
morenoingrato said:
HappySqurriel said:
morenoingrato said:
TheRealMafoo said:
morenoingrato said:

To be honest, this law is totally nonsense.

Any resident, tourist, or anone just won't fell safe since they'll have to take their papers everywhere, the an forget them, they're likely to lose them, and inmigrants are people too. And they dont affect america in any way. The only reason this law was made is because the arizona goverment are racists

wow

I am the least racist person I know, and I am 100% for the law.

To call Arizona racist for passing the law, is to call the US racist for having the same law. A federal officer is allowed to stop anyone they feel is here illegally, and investigate there citizenship. That person doesn't even need to commit a crime first.

Arizona just wants to help the Feds enforce there own law. How does that make one racist and the other not?

Also, the "they dont affect america in any way" is just 100% wrong. You don't include 12 million people into a society, and get no affect.

 



the inmigrants do the jobs no american wants to do, the degradating jobs.

And even you say it. When an officer "feels like they're there illegally"

for non ilegals, a waste of time, a risk

for ilegals they have 49 states to go, and they are also humans

The myth that illegal immigrants are doing jobs that citizens and legal immigrants are unwilling to do is unfounded. Since these individuals are often paid less than the market rate legitimate businesses pay their employees, and are often paid below minimum wage, the truth is that illegal immigrants are doing jobs that citizens and legal immigrants are unwilling or unable to do for what they’re paid. When illegal immigrants are pushed out wages are forced upwards and there is no difficulty finding workers for most of these jobs.

Now, with that said, within 10 seconds of talking with someone you will have a fairly decent idea of whether they’re an immigrant or not; from there, there are obvious signs whether someone is in the country legally or not, that most individuals would pick up within a couple of months of doing a job like police work. If I was to put a rough guestimate on it, I would expect that somewhere between 90% and 95% of people the police suspected of being illegal immigrants would be illegal immigrants, and most of the remaining would be very recent immigrants.



People I know, they do jobs that no one else does. If you go to a small ny superarket: latins, india, asia

taxis, latin, asia, india.

All the jobs that seems "shamefull" goes to the illegal.

And yes, 10 seconds, you know they're not native. So police will bother them, make them lose valuable time, if they're not ilegal.

If they are ilegal, thats a pretty cruel law, you know. Many ilegals travel to pay family debts and give their family money. I know a couple of examples of families who  has their husband in usa and sends them money to survive


Er... You don't think people would be wanting to work in supermarkets right now.

VS... not having a job?