Seriously thoughtful How do you plan to prove you are a citizen?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Robert Minneman

Yeah I feel sorry for you Coloradoan's... Wasn't Denver declared a "sanctuary city" where the Mayor forbade the police to enforce ANY immigration checks?

Of course there's that case where there was an illegal immigrant with 17 prior traffic citations who was eventually/finally arrested and jailed after having run over and killed a mother and her two children.
...

Yes. We've had several of those cases where illegals with traffic records have killed others in traffic related issues.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Robert Minneman

What I'm beginning to be confused on here is the following:

It appears that some of you are afraid that the AZ law enforcement community

Assumption: Only the "law enforcement community" must enforce this law. This is untrue. Everyone paid by the state is required to enforce this law.

Please explain to me prior what, to this law coming into affect, was preventing them from already being so abusive?

Assumption: They they were not already being abusive. Heard of Joe Arpaio? I certainly have, and I'm not even American.

It also appears some of you are upset that AZ would start deporting people, on the spot for not having appropriate status.

Assumption: "On the spot". Has not been stated in this thread, and certainly not by me.

Please point to the part of the law that has AZ deporting people.

Assumption: Committing crimes does not affect your immigration status. It does. This will lead to people who were legal immigrants being deported simply because of this law.

Also some of you are just upset that legal immigrants could be asked for proof of their immigration status at all.

Assumption: That anyone stated this in this thread, again I have not. I've made the point that, through no fault of their own, many perfectly legal immigrants are committing a crime under this law because of Federal paperwork processing delays.

Please explain to me what laws or expectations these non-native born citizens had that they were inviolate and forever free from having law enforcement ensure that they were abiding by ALL the laws of this nation.

Assumption: That there was ever anyone in this thread saying anything of the sort. At all.

Also, for the record, what is your take on Apartheid and the Jim Crow laws?

Quite frankly I'm tired of the press running around comparing how AZ is now the new incartnation of the Nazi Germany, or how illegal immigrants are the new hallaucasted jews of the 21st century.

Hm, and why might that be? Also, well done, you've managed to Godwin your own argument.

Yea, no wonder you're confused. See, for starters, there are these things called legal immigrants and they're not the same as illegal ones...

[Joebill]

Originally Posted by Robert Minneman

What I'm beginning to be confused on here is the following:

It appears that some of you are afraid that the AZ law enforcement community would suddenly start acting like children at a birthday party with a skyfull of mexican pinata's everywhere and immigrants, legal or otherwise, or anyone who even resembled a hispanic would suddenly start getting beat...

Please explain to me prior what, to this law coming into affect, was preventing them from already being so abusive?

It also appears some of you are upset that AZ would start deporting people, on the spot for not having appropriate status. Please point to the part of the law that has AZ deporting people.

Also some of you are just upset that legal immigrants could be asked for proof of their immigration status at all. Please explain to me what laws or expectations these non-native born citizens had that they were inviolate and forever free from having law enforcement ensure that they were abiding by ALL the laws of this nation.

Quite frankly I'm tired of the press running around comparing how AZ is now the new incartnation of the Nazi Germany, or how illegal immigrants are the new hallaucasted jews of the 21st century.

Well, nothing has prevented a police officer from being abusive.

An example are some New Orleans, Louisiana police officers who shot and killed several people right after Hurricane Katrina hit. They testified that they returned fire. Years later, a federal investigation called into question their sworn under oath testimony. Several of the police officers have pleasd guilty to murder of unarmed civilians.

As for deportation, I don't know of a state law that allows that. As far as I know, its only the US federal law enforcement that can deport.

All people living in the US are required they are I hate to say this but this is what it boils down to _authorized_ to work here. Either by being born here, naturalized citizen, or green card work permit.

I, born in the United States, must prove annually my right to work here. That is absurd.

[Joebill]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Assumption: Only the "law enforcement community" must enforce this law. This is untrue. Everyone paid by the state is required to enforce this law.



Assumption: They they were not already being abusive. Heard of Joe Arpaio? I certainly have, and I'm not even American.



Assumption: "On the spot". Has not been stated in this thread, and certainly not by me.



Assumption: Committing crimes does not affect your immigration status. It does. This will lead to people who were legal immigrants being deported simply because of this law.



Assumption: That anyone stated this in this thread, again I have not. I've made the point that, through no fault of their own, many perfectly legal immigrants are committing a crime under this law because of Federal paperwork processing delays.



Assumption: That there was ever anyone in this thread saying anything of the sort. At all.

Also, for the record, what is your take on Apartheid and the Jim Crow laws?



Hm, and why might that be? Also, well done, you've managed to Godwin your own argument.

Yea, no wonder you're confused. See, for starters, there are these things called legal immigrants and they're not the same as illegal ones...

No, he didn't Godwin.

To Godwin means comparing someone to Adolf and his policies.

[DawnFalcon]

Nope! Godwin's law is as follows: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

It says nothing whatsoever about "comparing someone" just a comparison.

[Joebill]

Then it has changed in the 20 years since I first saw it mentioned.

[DawnFalcon]

No, it's just generally abused into suiting a variety of meanings, as many famous "laws" are. That doesn't mean those uses are correct.

[Robert Minneman]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Assumption: Only the "law enforcement community" must enforce this law. This is untrue. Everyone paid by the state is required to enforce this law.

Point that out. That's not what I understood from what I've read from the published law.

Assumption: They they were not already being abusive. Heard of Joe Arpaio? I certainly have, and I'm not even American.

What's he got to with the new law? Sure he's had his issues with the abuse of power, but I fail to see where this new law sanctions any of his past actions. Certainly NOT having this law didn't prevent a bully from being a bully.

That's why we need civilian oversight of our law enforcement community. The laws themselves don't allow the abuse, it's bad apples, or good apples making a bad decision or over reacting that we need to work on, otherwise by your logic we should apparently eliminate ALL laws as the laws themselves are causing the abuse of police power.

Also as far as Joe is concerned not all of what he did was bad, some of it made a heck of a lot of sense, like making prison "unpleasant" and actually enforcing existing laws, or stiffening certain laws in an effort to reduce the practice of those who were breaking those laws.

The Coyote laws that were passed were done in an effort to curb the reported 1.4 BILLION per year human trafficking industry in AZ. There's plenty of examples of these people being snuck over illegally, being held hostage until more money is paid to the smugglers.

Make the penalty sever enough to both the coyote AND the person conspiring to enter this country illegally and maybe more of an effort will be made to enter this country LEGALLY.

Assumption: "On the spot". Has not been stated in this thread, and certainly not by me.

That's the impression I'm left with in reading a lot of the posts in this thread.

Assumption: Committing crimes does not affect your immigration status. It does. This will lead to people who were legal immigrants being deported simply because of this law.

Explain to me where in the law it states this? If you could quote it, I may have missed it, and if I did I'd like it pointed out.

Assumption: That anyone stated this in this thread, again I have not. I've made the point that, through no fault of their own, many perfectly legal immigrants are committing a crime under this law because of Federal paperwork processing delays.

Assumption: That there was ever anyone in this thread saying anything of the sort. At all.

Also, for the record, what is your take on Apartheid and the Jim Crow laws?

Hm, and why might that be? Also, well done, you've managed to Godwin your own argument.

I believe those are no longer moot in the US. There is no apartheid, nor any active "Jim Crow" laws in this US that I am aware of, and have not been so for quite some time prior to AZ enacting this law, so you'll need to explain the relevancy of the question.

Since neither, to my knowledge, addressed enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Yea, no wonder you're confused. See, for starters, there are these things called legal immigrants and they're not the same as illegal ones...

So we have to not even bother going after the ILLEGAL immigrants for fear of offending the occassional legal immigrant? Again, we'd better remove all radar detectors and remove speed enforcement laws for fear we pull someone over who according to his spedometer wasn't speeding...

I think not...

[Robert Minneman]

0

Originally Posted by Joebill

...I, born in the United States, must prove annually my right to work here.

Every year my employment file is reviewed to ensure I have a properly filed I9 form with appropriate photocopy of the associated forms proving my eligibility for employment. Also, if I were to change jobs, I'd have to file a new I9 and have copies made of my driver's license and social security card.

This is a federal requirement put in place to supposedly put an end to allowing illegal immigrants find work in this country to encourage them to enter this country LEGALLY to find work instead.

This form has to be submitted by citizens as well as noncitizens. Obviously legal immigrant noncitizens will have their particular pieces of paper showing their authorization to work in this country as well.

I'm white, was born in this country, and I have this expectation and comply with it, without hesitation.

Nothing absurd about it all as far as I'm concerned.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Nope! Godwin's law is as follows: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

It says nothing whatsoever about "comparing someone" just a comparison.

Oh, let's get off topic, shall we...

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Robert Minneman

Point that out. That's not what I understood from what I've read from the published law.

From the factsheet:

"Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state..."

What's he got to with the new law?

He's one of the main vocal backers.

Sure he's had his issues with the abuse of power

Deliberately had at least two people killed and one paralysed for life, yes.

Certainly NOT having this law didn't prevent a bully from being a bully.

So giving him more tools to abuse is a good idea?

That's why we need civilian oversight of our law enforcement community.

You already elect your law enforcement leaders, and that's where much of the issue comes from in the first place. Oversight of the wrong (politically motivated) sort is worse, afaik, than lax oversight.

otherwise by your logic we should apparently eliminate ALL laws as the laws themselves are causing the abuse of police power.

Many laws not essential to the functioning of the state and protection of people's freedoms, yes. The law should never, ever, be an ass.

Also as far as Joe is concerned not all of what he did was bad

Mm-hum. HE HAD AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE MURDERED. Shit, there's nothing someone won't defend.

Make the penalty sever enough to both the coyote AND the person conspiring to enter this country illegally and maybe more of an effort will be made to enter this country LEGALLY.

Not as long as there's a death grip on the numbers entering legally, no effective control over the border and higher wages on the American side. All you do is ensure the Coyote's grip over the people they've trafficked.

Same reasoning you're using as is used in the War on Drugs, remind me how well that's going? (Hint: drug import volume's up again)

Explain to me where in the law it states this? If you could quote it, I may have missed it, and if I did I'd like it pointed out.

Here, for example. Offences can lead to deportation.

I believe those are no longer moot in the US. There is no apartheid, nor any active "Jim Crow" laws in this US that I am aware of, and have not been so for quite some time prior to AZ enacting this law, so you'll need to explain the relevancy of the question.

I believe you're ducking the question. Those laws were entirely legal, and you have called for adherence to all laws. Your not answering the question is an answer in itself, you realise?

So we have to not even bother going after the ILLEGAL immigrants for fear of offending the occassional legal immigrant?

Assumption: You're "offending" the "occassional" legal immigrant. The correct words are "deporting" and "a large proportion of". To explain, see, legal immigrants are the people from other countries you want sticking around, and removing them is not generally considered a good thing.

A simple wording change would protect legal immigrants, but the Governor of Arizona has refused to do so. This means you can't realistically pretend that this is about anything but ALL immigrants, legal and illegal both.

I think not...

Well, you said it, not me. But hey, thanks for admitting it.

[cklammer]

By producing your ID card, of course?

Oh, you don't have an ID card system in the US - how sad: every other country in the world has one ....

Time to apply for a passport ...

[WT Sharpe]

My dad always said, "If everyone else jumps off a cliff, does that mean you have to?"

Anyway, here's the entertainment portion of this thread:

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by cklammer

By producing your ID card, of course?

Oh, you don't have an ID card system in the US - how sad: every other country in the world has one ....

Time to apply for a passport ...

not Great Britain .... and less likely now we've had a change of government...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

My dad always said, "If everyone else jumps off a cliff, does that mean you have to?"

Anyway, here's the entertainment portion of this thread:

smart man, yer dad...