Immigration

[leroyspuds 0]

The murder of that rancher was indeed a horrible crime, but the passing of legislation requiring people to carry proof of citizenship because of it is like swatting a fly with a buick. Particularly when the statistics indicate there's no relationship between immigrants (including the unauthorized) and higher crime rates. I'm sure there have been murders committed by whites in Arizona without such a drastic public reaction.

No rational person would support illegal immigration, but this law has nothing to do with that. It's merely an expression of the prejudice against Hispanics in Arizona.

[Nycfw 1]

thats what i don't understand how is it a prejudice against "Hispanics in Arizona" where for one thing it doesn't only apply to them and the second thing ITS A LAW; BEING IN UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY IS AGAINST THE LAW

its a law already when it was made and from what i am aware of (and i could be wrong) no protest

they just let it happened if it was such a big deal it should have been a big protest stating thats wrong.

i mean should everyone protest drinking and driving lets say a guy get pulled over for driving drunk and he says

"well cop i know I'm drunk but i was driving because i had to pick up my kids they are sick"

the drunk driver has a good reason his kids are somewhere and he needs to get them so should they send him on his way should he get locked up for drinking and driving because it is against the law

and should his family start a whole protest about drinking and driving, and say "you should only drink and drive for important reason so his kids were sick so he almost hit someone he had a (litgetiment(:biggrin:) reason to drive drunk" lol pleaseeeeeeeee

:confused:A LAW IS A LAW POINT BLANK

[tdslf1 0]

I think the first thing is a BIG BAD A-- border fence. High enough where they can be seen crossing and hard enough so they think twice about climbing. Lets do that first on ALL borders, top and bottom. There are many Canadians here illegally too. They just look more like the native pop.

[ariscus99 1]

I think the first thing is a BIG BAD A-- border fence. High enough where they can be seen crossing and hard enough so they think twice about climbing. Lets do that first on ALL borders, top and bottom. There are many Canadians here illegally too. They just look more like the native pop.

I'm all for fencing up the south, but the number of illegals from Canada just doesn't justify the money needed to add a fence there at this time. Where as there are close to 12 million illegals nationwide, with about 78% percent coming from Mexico and latin America. All of Europe and Canada make up only about 6%. Asian countries make up about 13%. So while I know you were being facetious, I think it's a good idea.

[tdslf1 0]

There was no facetiousness about it. Keep 'em all behind the fence, then we will have no need for this outrage in the future when canadians decide that USA might be more prosperous.

[ariscus99 1]

There was no facetiousness about it. Keep 'em all behind the fence, then we will have no need for this outrage in the future when canadians decide that USA might be more prosperous.

Whats the plan for the ones who are here already?

[leroyspuds 0]

Round 'em up and make 'em eat Canadian bacon while pledging allegiance to the flag!

[lauragshsu 6]

Round 'em up and make 'em eat Canadian bacon while pledging allegiance to the flag!

OMG, I just laughed so hard I peed a little.

[tdslf1 0]

Leroy,

You crazy, lol.

[Chris_NJ 9]

Arizona Immigration Law: AG Eric Holder Admits "I Have Not Read It".

LiveLeak.com - Arizona Immigration Law: AG Eric Holder Admits "I Have Not Read It".

Sad... :redface:

[tdslf1 0]

What is your point about Chris?

[leroyspuds 0]

from the Washington Post:

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.

On Thursday Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.) at a House Judiciary Committee, asked Holder, "Have you read the Arizona law?"

Holder responded that he had not yet thoroughly read it but his staff was in the process of reviewing it.

Holder said he based his comments about the legislation on reading news reports, watching television and talking to Justice Department lawyers who are reviewing it. "I've not reached any conclusions as yet" about the law's constitutionality."

Holder's spokesman, Matthew Miller, said Friday that his boss "has been thoroughly briefed on the law, which has already been amended since the initial version passed, and has heard concerns from a range of law enforcement and community officials. He and the Department will continue to review it in detail to determine what options are available to the federal government."

_______________________________________________

In my opinion Holder got caught with his pants down. Before threatening a lawsuit he should have read it. That doesn't mean I think the "law" is OK, just that he should have waited until it was fully investigated before saying too much.

By the way, LiveLeak is a racist site. Listen to the radio broadcasts and it will give you the chills.:redface:

[tdslf1 0]

Holder said they were reviewing the case. That is double speak for we will sue if it is politically viable to do so pending american reaction. Trust me, Holder has probably read that law and specific section regarding probable cause many times. He has worked in that office for a while. He know the AZ immigration law. According to many posters, it is the same as the federal law, except a few inserts. If you think he doesn't know the law and is waiting to see what impact these rallies and protest will have, you don't know too much about "washington speak".

[Chris_NJ 9]

What is your point about Chris?

Point is here is the Attorney General threatening lawsuits and he hasn't even read a 10 page law? Whats he there for ?

Sad is what it is !

[ariscus99 1]

Point is here is the Attorney General threatening lawsuits and he hasn't even read a 10 page law? Whats he there for ?

Sad is what it is !

Looks like the LA city council is in the same boat as Holder.

LA City Councilman blasts AZ law for provisions in CA penal code

Share

129

POSTED AT 10:55 AM ON MAY 17, 2010 BY ED MORRISSEY

PRINTER-FRIENDLY

Before critics of Arizona’s new immigration law make fools of themselves, they should really try to read the bill. And if those critics are officials of other states or cities, maybe they should take a quick tour of their own laws first, too. Kerry Picket at the Washington Times interviewed Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Reyes, who said that he would need his passport to travel in Arizona, but she points out that the very same provisions to which Reyes objects exist in California’s own penal code:

The Los Angeles City Council’s vote to boycott Arizona caused more consternation than anything else. LA City Council members voted an overwhelming 13 – 1 to terminate any city contracts with Arizona (worth around $7.7 million) as did other American cities who have considered resolutions to protest the Arizona law or seek boycotts. Among these cities are San Francisco and Saint Paul, Minnesota. …

“I cannot go to Arizona today without a passport,” Los Angeles Councilman Ed Reyes, a Democrat, said before the vote. “If I come across an officer who’s had a bad day and feels the picture on my ID is not me, I could be summarily deported — no questions asked. That is not American.”

Kerry has plenty of audio within the Times article, but transcribes the key points:

PICKET: Where exactly in the law does it say that? Considering that it prohibits that? As I’m asking here, federal law which has been around for about seventy years has been saying that undocumented individuals have to be carrying papers, so what exactly has changed between federal law of the last seventy years and Arizona’s law?

REYES: What’s changed is you have a very active effort to round up people that look a certain way, and if you have proof you are an American citizen that let you go, and if you don’t they deport you. So now, that I look like a Mexican, and I am Mexican American, I become a target.(AUDIO)

PICKET: Why is this law considered any different than what has been around for the last seventy years…because it’s being enforced?

REYES: Why does a state have to call that out? Why can’t it just follow the federal law like you said for the past seventy years? (AUDIO)

Well, why does California have to call it out, Councilman Reyes? Kerry did a little digging and found this nugget in Section 834b in the California Penal Code:

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (:thumbup: With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. © Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

Sounds very similar to the provisions of SB 1070, the bill that prompted LA’s City Council to launch its boycott of Arizona. Will they also now boycott their own state? They do seem to be conducting a boycott of common sense and legal scholarship at City Hall.