Immigration bill is very dangerous

imported post

Arizona OC members, this is something to think about when negative people are doing their best to rain on your parade. So remember this story the next time someone who knows nothing and cares less tries to make your life miserable........

A woman was at her hairdresser's getting her hair styled for a trip to Rome with her husband. She mentioned the trip to the hairdresser, who responded:

"Rome? Why would anyone want to go there? It's crowded and dirty.. You're crazy to go to Rome. So, how are you getting there?"

"We're taking Continental" was the reply. "We got a great rate!"

"Continental?" exclaimed the hairdresser. "That's a terrible airline. Their planes are old, their flight attendants are ugly, and they're always late. So, where are you staying in Rome?"

"We'll be at this exclusive little place over on Rome's Tiber River called Teste."

"Don't go any further. I know that place. Everybody thinks its gonna be something special and exclusive, but it's really a dump."

"We're going to go to see the Vatican and maybe get to see the Pope."

"That's rich," laughed the hairdresser. You and a million other people trying to see him. He'll look the size of an ant. Boy, good luck on this lousy trip of yours. You're going to need it."

A month later, the woman again came in for a hairdo. The hairdresser asked her about her trip to Rome.

"It was wonderful," explained the woman, "not only were we on time in one of Continental's brand new planes, but it was overbooked, and they bumped us up to first class. The food and wine were wonderful, and I had a handsome 28-year-old steward who waited on me hand and foot.

And the hotel was great! They'd just finished a $5 million remodeling job, and now it's a jewel, the finest hotel in the city. They, too, were overbooked, so they apologized and gave us their owner's suite at no extra charge!"

"Well," muttered the hairdresser, "that's all well and good, but I know you didn't get to see the Pope."

"Actually, we were quite lucky, because as we toured the Vatican, a Swiss Guard tapped me on the shoulder, and explained that the Pope likes to meet some of the visitors, and if I'd be so kind as to step into his private room and wait, the Pope would personally greet me.

Sure enough, five minutes later, the Pope walked through the door and shook my hand! I knelt down and he spoke a few words to me."

"Oh, really! What'd he say?"

He said: "Who f*cked up your hair?"

imported post

Crossfire Jedi wrote:

So the Mayor of Phoenix is going to 'sue' over the bill. I would advise everyone to reach out to him and let him know your thoughts on the matter, as I just did.

http://phoenix.gov/mayor/emmayor/index.html

Click to expand...

mayor.gordon@phoenix.gov

SB1070


Mr. Mayor:

Is this just political grandstanding or are you actually siding with these criminal aliens? What flag flies above your office? Perhaps you should consider running for Mayor of Mexico City? That seems where your allegience lies.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Crossfire Jedi wrote:

So the Mayor of Phoenix is going to 'sue' over the bill. I would advise everyone to reach out to him and let him know your thoughts on the matter, as I just did.

http://phoenix.gov/mayor/emmayor/index.html

Click to expand...

mayor.gordon@phoenix.gov

SB1070


Mr. Mayor:

Is this just political grandstanding or are you actually siding with these criminal aliens? What flag flies above your office? Perhaps you should consider running for Mayor of Mexico City? That seems where your allegience lies.

Click to expand...

So very true Brother!! Maybe you should run for an office. You'd get my vote !

imported post

I found a well thought out article on this:

http://www.infowars.com/arizona-immigration-reform-common-sense-or-police-state/



While I will still assert my Constitutional Rights when stopped by a cop, I truely hope this bill succeeds in it's intention to discourage illegal immigration. Sadly, Arizona is geographically easy for them to invade our country. The Feds have (once again) let us down, so as the article I linked to states, Arizona has taken up the fight instead. I just hope the cops don't fall to political pressure the way the TSA does in Airports and harass old ladies in wheelchairs, instead of those that fit the profile of an illegal alien. Now, the Legislature needs to pass laws banning ALL public services to anyone that can't prove they're in this country legally, as well as vigorously go after businesses that don't use eVerify. If you take away a criminal's incentive to commit a crime, they will go elsewhere, (Just please send them west instead of Colorado. We like our low crime here.)

imported post

Maybe Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Maricopa County) won't be feeling so alone and out in left field anymore!

At leastthis new law isa clear step forward...

-- John D.

imported post

March Hare,

Yes, I've seen that...I just expected more from 'The Great State of Texas' -- being a leader, not a follower.

SoI'm still trying to figure out what (in what way 'great') that phrase really means. If 'great' includes being a HUGE state land-wise, that doesn't mean anything really important, IMO.

Certainly there hasn't been anyout-front 'leadership' in the 140 years or so since OC became illegal here, which doesn't say much for a state that used to be a soveriegn Republic.

And with no TX legislature meeting until 2011, add another year wasted.

-- John D.

imported post

Firepower wrote:

I found a well thought out article on this:

http://www.infowars.com/arizona-immigration-reform-common-sense-or-police-state/



If you take away a criminal's incentive to commit a crime, they will go elsewhere, (Just please send them west instead of Colorado. We like our low crime here.)

Click to expand...

I'm in favor of packing em up and sending them to DC. Let that bunch of useless oxygen thieves deal with the problems day in and day out.


Steve

imported post

"Stop and Identify" is NOT the same as "show me your papers." :quirky

I am in Nevada, and there is NO law on the books requiring a person to show an ID card. If you believe differently, do your homework and present your references.

DocNTexas wrote:

mzbk2l wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

As far as it causing a problem for the common citizen, well, there is already a law (has been for many years now) that allows an officer to stop anyone he wishes for any reason and demand they positively identify them self. If the person does not have a drivers license, government ID, passport or other legitimate form of ID then the officer can detain the person until their true identity can be determined or verified.

Doc

Click to expand...

That might be the case in Texas, but it's not in Arizona (nor in most of the rest of the free states of the union). I'm sorry you have to live under such tyranny.

We are required to verbally identify ourselves if asked, but cannot be detained without reasonable suspicion that we have committed a crime. (Although this law may have muddied that up.)

Sounds like Texas has a long ways to go on MANY counts! (Open Carry, Constitutional Carry, stop-and-detain laws, etc.)

Click to expand...

Actually, mzbk2l, Texas is one of the EXCEPTIONS to this rule (for the moment). However, at least 24 other states have specific “stop and identify” statutes (including Arizona) that criminalize the failure of a suspect to identify when asked by a police officer. Arizona statute 13-2412 “Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained”, states:

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.


In addition to Arizona, at least 23 other states have such statutes (this is all I am aware of at the moment, but there are likely others), including Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin.


The constitutionality of these laws was upheld by SCOTUS in 2004 in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. The court linked the practice to Terry, finding that the such laws did not violate ones fourth or fifth amendment rights, as long as the conditions of Terry were met. The court wrote: “In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment. Since Terry, it has been clear that a police officer who reasonably suspects that a person is involved in criminal activity may detain a person long enough to dispel that suspicion. Questions related to a person’s identity are a “routine and accepted part of many Terry stops.”


In addition, SCOTUS has held that an officer can detain any person he reasonably suspects of committing a crime or being involved in criminal activity. This can be as vague as suspecting someone of being intoxicated while driving due to their actions or simply lurking around an area they have no apparent reason to be. In short, the vague nature of the terminology (reasonably suspects of) leaves it wide open for an officer to stop anyone for any reason and demand they provide ID. Is this an abuse of the intended use? Sure. Is it legal? Not really. Can they do it? Yes they can and do. Has it been a real problem anywhere? Not that I am aware of and apparently not that you have noticed either. Will it become a problem now? Not likely (except for the illegals anyway).


As for this new Arizona law, it merely expands on this old law by allowing officers to arrest those found to be here illegally, just as they currently can for those found to be committing other violations of the law. Currently, there is a federal law against illegal entry into the U.S., so this law is no different. The difference is, now local officers can enforce it and do not have to depend on federal officers to do it.


Doc

Click to expand...

imported post

kenpoprofessor wrote:

For those of you who do not live and work in AZ, it's none of your damn business what we do here, bottom line. At the very least, this law will scare them (ILLEGAL invaders) out of AZ into your states and you'll find out what it's really like to have a third world people infecting your neighborhoods.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. I care about laws that get passed in CA, because residents of CA tend to cross the border into NV to retire, and bring their ideas with them. It matters much, because states look to other states to see if laws are viable.

I am aware that illegal immigration is a big issue. But, if the extent of this bill is unconstitutional, it DOES matter to people outside of your state.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

kenpoprofessor wrote:

For those of you who do not live and work in AZ, it's none of your damn business what we do here, bottom line. At the very least, this law will scare them (ILLEGAL invaders) out of AZ into your states and you'll find out what it's really like to have a third world people infecting your neighborhoods.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. I care about laws that get passed in CA, because residents of CA tend to cross the border into NV to retire, and bring their ideas with them. It matters much, because states look to other states to see if laws are viable.

I am aware that illegal immigration is a big issue. But, if the extent of this bill is unconstitutional, it DOES matter to people outside of your state.

Click to expand...

Uh, we're not talking about CA, this is the AZ board.

imported post

kenpoprofessor wrote:

wrightme wrote:

kenpoprofessor wrote:

For those of you who do not live and work in AZ, it's none of your damn business what we do here, bottom line. At the very least, this law will scare them (ILLEGAL invaders) out of AZ into your states and you'll find out what it's really like to have a third world people infecting your neighborhoods.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. I care about laws that get passed in CA, because residents of CA tend to cross the border into NV to retire, and bring their ideas with them. It matters much, because states look to other states to see if laws are viable.

I am aware that illegal immigration is a big issue. But, if the extent of this bill is unconstitutional, it DOES matter to people outside of your state.

Click to expand...

Uh, we're not talking about CA, this is the AZ board.

Click to expand...

As I am well aware. It was an example; one which all residents of AZ should easily be able to understand. Do you?

imported post

Wow, after two pages of people practically breaking their arms patting each other on the back over this law I'm about to give up on Arizona. To be fair there were some sprinkles of reason here and there.

Before I give up on this I'd like to try one more time to wake people up on what is so terribly wrong with this law.

One problem I see is people don't understand what this law does. It makes being an illegal alien a primary enforcement offense. What that means is that you can be stopped and questioned only on the basis of being a suspected illegal alien. This is in contrast to a secondary enforcement offense, where a person must first be charged with another crime before an officer can charge one with a secondary enforcement offense.

Take seatbelt laws for example. In some states not having your seatbelt on is a secondary enforcement offense, others it is a primary enforcement offense. In states where it is a primary offense an officer can pull you over on suspicion of not wearing your seatbelt absent any other charge. In a secondary enforcement state an officer must first pull you over for speeding, running a red light, expired plates, or whatever before they can look to see if you have your seatbelt on.

The enforcement of immigration law was always a secondary offense. Nothing prevented local law enforcement from reporting a suspected illegal alien to the federal authorities.

Now I could be mistaken on the primary/secondary enforcement enabled in this law but it seems that many articles I have seen on this law agrees with me. I have read the law but I speak English, not "legalese", and in my mind could be read either way.

Now, in keeping this on the RKBA track of this forum I must point out that this law has just negated your right to carry laws. Citizens are now required to carry ID, when they were not before, to carry a firearm. Failure to prove your citizenship while armed is a felony. Of course people have pointed out that the felony arrest is unlikely to result in a conviction since it should be relatively simple to resolve the issue.

One problem is that an arrest on a felony charge means that you will not be able to obtain a firearm until the felony charge is resolved. This arrest will come up on a background check. That could mean loss of a permit to carry in the future. It could also raise issues with any current or future employer. I wish you luck in explaining away a felony arrest.

Here's another thing, this law requires that local law enforcement check people for being in the country illegally, enforcement is still a matter for the feds. Any person in the country illegally will be handed over to the federal law enforcement for entering the country illegally.

How is this supposed to be a big win for immigration and customs when those violating this law are handed over to the very people that have failed to enforce the laws to begin with? This law only allows the arrest for being in the country illegally, the actual courts and punishment must still be handled by the feds. If the federal government won't jail or deport these people they will still remain within the state.

I suppose you might be able to scare away a few illegal aliens in the process but at the same time legal immigrants and visitors will be hassled and scared off as well. A few illegal aliens might spend some time in state prisons but so might legal visitors. Is that what you want? Apparently it is. I'll be watching how this plays out safely from 1500 miles away. When this law comes crashing down, and it will either from legal challenge or voter outrage, I'll be ready with an "I told you so".

imported post

Perhaps if we had 1 or 2 million Russians move into Iowa without permission some of you might begin to understand what the bill is about. As it is you haven't the foggiest idea what is going on in the southern border states. Have any of you actually read the bill and its companion federal law?

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

This law only allows the arrest for being in the country illegally, the actual courts and punishment must still be handled by the feds. If the federal government won't jail or deport these people they will still remain within the state.

Click to expand...

Naw, don't fret none...we'll bus em over to Needles, CA and turn em lose over there.....or if you'd like we could give em all a bus ticket to your home town.

imported post

.45acp wrote:

IA_farmboy wrote:

 This law only allows the arrest for being in the country illegally, the actual courts and punishment must still be handled by the feds. If the federal government won't jail or deport these people they will still remain within the state.

Click to expand...

Naw, don't fret none...we'll bus em over to Needles, CA and turn em lose over there.....or if you'd like we could give em all a bus ticket to your home town.

Click to expand...

Hell, we'll just bus those illegals over to good 'ol Bill Richardson state who will cheerfully hand out New Mexico Drivers Licenses and/or ID cards.

imported post

TOF, GW, Sonora, and all of you other "supposed" freedom-loving Americans, explain to me why this bill is going to make a single bit of difference.

Don't we already have the employer sanctions law, the "toughest anti-immigration law in the US" on the books? Can any of you tell me how many employers or illegals have been busted because of this law? (Hint: at last count, I think it was 3.)

This is coming down EXACTLY like gun control; every time a new incident happens, the gun-grabbers scream for a new law, ignoring the fact that the other 20,000 laws did nothing to prevent the situation.

You're doing the same thing here. We already have a great tool for completely killing off the market for illegals in AZ, but law enforcement refuses to use it. Instead of trying to fix that, you all cry for a new law that not only will not fix the problem, but will also infringe on OUR rights.

Whoever quoted the Franklin saying was completely correct: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

You people fall squarely into that category.

imported post

GWbiker wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Real simple... No Green Card, Visa or resident ID... 'Don't speak English well... (if at all) you get ICE'd. I don't give a damn what any of y'all from 'outside' think... or don't think. It's a done deal...

'Don't like it... don't come here. Most of you doin' the bitchin' have never been anywhere near this border anyway... or ever would. The Feds have ignored this situation since the early '90's. Y'all have only had your panties inna wad for about 2 weeks (if that). Oddly... nobody had a cow when Oklahoma passed essentially the same legislation 2 years ago.

Anybody who leaves the house carryin' a gun or driving a vehicle w/o ID is goofy to begin with. It's a proud day to be an Arizonan... We have a legislature and a Governor with more balls than any state in the Union.

Click to expand...

I believe it's safe to say we have a female Governor with more BALLS than Congress or the "Chocolate Messiah".

Click to expand...

As some people's sentiment is toward the messiah Barry Sotoro i mean Barack Obama, Halelujah Black jesus! And also off topic, Barry should go home http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3XsO9I6swg&playnext_from=TL&videos=4_Puk0AYiXM

imported post

mzbk2l wrote:

TOF, GW, Sonora, and all of you other "supposed" freedom-loving Americans, explain to me why this bill is going to make a single bit of difference.

Don't we already have the employer sanctions law, the "toughest anti-immigration law in the US" on the books? Can any of you tell me how many employers or illegals have been busted because of this law? (Hint: at last count, I think it was 3.)

This is coming down EXACTLY like gun control; every time a new incident happens, the gun-grabbers scream for a new law, ignoring the fact that the other 20,000 laws did nothing to prevent the situation.

You're doing the same thing here. We already have a great tool for completely killing off the market for illegals in AZ, but law enforcement refuses to use it. Instead of trying to fix that, you all cry for a new law that not only will not fix the problem, but will also infringe on OUR rights.

Whoever quoted the Franklin saying was completely correct: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

You people fall squarely into that category.

Click to expand...

My friend, this bill was drafted by the STATE of ARIZONA because the federal government has failed or absolutely refused to enforce the laws of this country. Arizona simply said enough is enough!



Steve

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

What that means is that you can be stopped and questioned only on the basis of being a suspected illegal alien.

Click to expand...

Now I could be mistaken on the primary/secondary enforcement enabled in this law but it seems that many articles I have seen on this law agrees with me. I have read the law but I speak English, not "legalese", and in my mind could be read either way.

Click to expand...

You are mistaken. Don't trust the media to tell a fair story.

As I'll state again, you need reasonable articulable suspicion that the individual is here illegally. That does not mean "Hey, he's wearin' a cowboy hat and drivin' an old beat up pickup with a brahma bull sticker on it, and he looks Mex'can". That is not RAS. That is racial profiling--which is not allowed in the law.

An officer would have to have a legal detention be asking for ID. Generally, we're talking about traffic stops, minor crimes (drinking in public), or suspicious behavior (hanging out behind that closed business at 11pm).

Now, once contacted, in the course of investigation, said officer may develope RAS. If the subject has no AZ, or other state's ID--or in absence of physical ID, a record of said ID (checked via computer)--said officer might start to develope RAS, and start questioning subject about his place of origin, legal status, and proof thereof (since by fed law you must have your resident alien card, visa, or foreign passports with you).

In AZ, a driver's license from here or any other state presumes you are here legally. Once records show you have been issued a license from AZ, or somewhere else in the 50 states, there is no RAS.

I suppose you could be a guy who was raised by Yugoslavian parents, born in the U.S., but only grew up around other Slav's, only watched Slav TV, and never bothered to get a driver's license. Then you'd have that Slavic accent, pidgeon English, and no state proof on record you ever existed in this fine land. But, really, we're grasping for straws here, aren't we? And in all honesty, I've dealt with people who are more or less completely off the grid, and guess what---THEY CARRY THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATE WITH THEM AS ID.

imported post

TOF wrote:

Gray Peterson wrote:

GWbiker wrote:

Arizona gun owners on this subforum face a pesky little problem which surfaces every few months which concerns outsiders who are so frustrated with their inability to correct second Amendment injustices within their own states.

Therefore, they TROLL on this subforum to question us about Arizona Immigration/Check Point issues, none of which should really interest them.

But here they come, with questions - never any answers....

Sooooooo......

Click to expand...

I'm an Arizonan by birth. I live in a state which borders Canada. Arizona is still part of the United States and must follow all parts of the United States constitution. If it was simple as "calling forth the state militia and shooting anyone who crosses the border", why wasn't that done rather than forcing everyone to give up their 4th amendment rights?

TOF wrote:

We already have more people here than necessary so just stay where you are and you will have no problem with Arizona law.

Click to expand...

When any state violates the United States Constitution, the people involved in it, from the Legislators who voted for this crap, to the Governor, to the enforcers on the ground, become criminal thugs and turning against their own citizens in order to weed out illegals effects everyone everywhere in this country. We as a nation put a stop to civil rights abuses in the southeastern United States in the 1950's and 1960's because people from outside of the south saw the abuses going on and said "NO MORE!!!".

Click to expand...

So what are you doing now that our President and his minions have decided to trash our constitution.

Arizona is attempting to protect our state, country and constitution, against enemies both foreign and domestic. Which group do you fall into?

Click to expand...

I have not read this whole thread yet, but I will. I just want to chime in here. I support this bill from what I have read so far, FYI. However, I am originally from WA state (before moving to AZ last March) and I still am active in the WA Subforum and Gray has been very helpful regarding gun law clarification, he's joined in lawsuits to remove gun restrictions from the books, and if I recall he's either defended members on this board charged with crimes or referred them to people who have.

Even if you disagree with him on this issue, Gray has been an essential part of advocating for Gun Rights in WA State, and elsewhere so please be respectful, he is on our side.