LeftWingConspiracy.com

15 Comments

1. JamesF:

   I really am confused over the anger at this new law. When I get pulled over, I have to show a license, why should some be exempt from this just because they are brown?

   even if someone is pulled over to show their papers…is that really a bad thing? Only if they dont have them. When I leave this country, I always carry my passport and entry documents, so should people who are here legally.

   and finally, the Mexican government should shut the hell up. We shold be modelling our Southern border enforcement after Mexico’s southern border policy!

   23 April 2010, 3:19 pm

2. Lefty McLefterson:

   Do you have to carry your passport to prove that you’re an American citizen when you’re walking down the street?

   23 April 2010, 3:21 pm

3. JamesF:

   No, but I have to carry my State issued drivers license to prove I am here legally if I break a law…The point is this is a law that will only hurt people that are not here legally, so what is the big deal?

   In case you didnt read the law… here is a link

   http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_04-19-10_astransmittedtogovernor.doc.htm

   For those that don’t want to go to link, one of the provisions, clearly written within the law,is:

   “…Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution…”

   Basically shooting down the entire message of your “Brown” comment. This bill, in effect, does nothing more than reinforce the State of Arizona’s commitment to uphold current Federal law.

   From my standpoint, it kinda sucks – because all of the illegals that were in Mexico will now go to the bordering states that still have not made a similar commitment to enforce federal law, so my current state will most likely be flooded!

   26 April 2010, 6:11 pm

4. Lefty McLefterson:

   I think that it’s kind of quaint that you live in this fantasy world where this law won’t be used to harass anybody who looks like they might be an immigrant.

   Have YOU actually read the law? What about this little ditty “determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact”? You don’t’ have to do a goddamn thing wrong. A cop can stop you and detain you until you prove your immigration status?

   I suppose you trust that this new power of the cops to detain you for doing nothing won’t be abused as long as the cops are Republicans?

   I told you this in person the other day. If you want to solve the illegal immigration problem go after the people who hire illegal immigrants. If the jobs aren’t there the illegals won’t be.

   27 April 2010, 11:13 am

5. c:

   i don’t think it will work either way. you can’t go after the employers without revamping ID verification and, in effect, instituting a national ID card.

   “dude, how was i supposed to know Roger McMurphy isn’t a native Spanish speaker? he has a birth certificate and a SSN and a drivers license!”

   so if you do try to enforce the law that way, you’re basically screwed. and besides, how, pray tell, can you go after employers without some kind of racial profiling? Well, you might say you need probable cause. But then what exactly would your probable cause be if you want to search, say, a farm? or, say, a 7-11 store? or, say, a cambodian (i’m stereotyping, i know!) donut shop in LA? tax evasion? not sure that would work. my gut instinct is that, right or wrong, you’d be back to square one and looking for businesses operating with large numbers of non-white or non-english-speaking workers.

   in california here, there’s no shortage of places to start looking–donut shops, 7-11, farms, restaurants, landscaping, Home Depot’s parking lot, etc. but it does beg the question if it would be fair or legal to do so. a priori, immigration does involve racial and ethnic issues. it’s unavoidable, but i’d be happy to hear any counter-arguments to that simple statement. therefore if you’re enforcing any immigration laws, you will inevitably run into a wall of accusations of racial and ethnic discrimination.

   either way, you’re both naive to think racial profiling or accusations thereof won’t occur if you go after either the individuals or the employers. unfortunately, the flip side is that it’s naive to think there won’t be a backlash against illegal immigrants if this problem isn’t addressed relatively quickly. you’re just seeing the beginning of it, i think. teabaggers and all.

   27 April 2010, 3:35 pm

6. JamesF:

   Just because a “bad cop” may incorrectly apply a law, does not mean that the law is necessarily bad.

   I agree that employers should also be held responsible, which should begin with removing the wall at the SSA that prevents notification that someone else is using your SSN or that the name of the job applicant does not match the SSN. And when this is reported, ICE should be notified immediately – before the job applicant.

   As for having to present papers, I find it amusing that so many of the people who rail against this requirement, but do not have a problem with having to ‘show your papers” to prove that you have bought a product/service that the federal government has decreed you must…

   Minor changes to AZ law as follows:
   “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person does not have health insurance in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the health insurance status of the person.”

   28 April 2010, 6:01 pm

7. JamesF:

   and to continue your “ditty” – “…where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”

   so there has to be reasonable suspicion ( and race cannot be the sole factor as laid out in the section I previously quoted)…

   28 April 2010, 6:08 pm

8. JamesF:

   Interesting how the federal lawsuit that was filed does not mention any racial profiling or civil rights violations. Simply usurping federal responsibilities.

   As a commenter on another site asked…when will the federal government sue to stop any state from trying to uphold the federal law against robbing a federal reserve bank??

   7 July 2010, 12:54 pm

9. Lefty McLefterson:

   That’s because the lawsuit is about the supremacy clause (how ironic) in the constitution.

   The state doesn’t get to enforce immigration.

   7 July 2010, 12:58 pm

10. JamesF:

    You may be unaware…but the 1996 immigration act explicitly gives the states the right to enforce immigration.
    http://www.americanpatrol.com/ENFORCEMENT/section133summary.html

    This lawsuit is purely politically motivated, which they no they will not win. When they could not change Arizona mind through lying about the racial content of the law (which included a massive media campaign as well), they are trying to save face with the illegal immigrant supporters that they had made promises to. Now at least they can claim that they did all they could.

    I find it so amusing(and frustrating) that the federal government would sue a state for trying to follow federal law, but they take no action against “sanctuary” cities that blatantly break the law.

    8 July 2010, 10:15 am

11. JamesF:

    Here is another link, with additional details:

    http://article.nationalreview.com/437656/defending-arizona/kris-w-kobach

    8 July 2010, 10:52 am

12. Lefty McLefterson:

    It’s pretty simple actually James.

    Arizona doesn’t get to create their own immigration policy. They can enforce the existing laws, but they don’t get to write their own “arrest ‘em if they’re brown” laws.

    The racial content of the law is pretty clear dude. I read it. You can pretend that we live in some kind of kindergarden world where cops won’t use racial profiling to determine who looks like they’re from around these here parts, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

    I can’t imagine that you’d give two shits about this lawsuit if it was the Bush administration suing Arizona.

    9 July 2010, 7:33 am

13. Lefty McLefterson:

    Do you support punishing the people who hire the illegal immigrants?

    How about a $1,000 fine for hiring a day laborer at Home Depot?

    How about $10,000 per employee, per day for businesses that hire illegals?

    That would certainly decrease the demand for illegal labor. Or is that too anti-business for you?

    9 July 2010, 7:35 am

14. JamesF:

    Yes, I support those actions IN ADDITION to those being taken already.

    I don’t know if you are aware, but AZ passed a law a couple of years ago to increase punishment for employers…the fed’s also tried to sue about that law and lost.

    9 July 2010, 10:40 am

15. JamesF:

    “The racial content of the law is pretty clear dude. I read it”

    You may have read it, but you must have willfully not understood it. It is patently clear to anyone that the law goes above and beyond the current federal law to prevent any civil issues. Sure there may be “bad cops” who use race as factor, but the same cop might use race as a factor for a speeding ticket, so should we not have speeding laws??? This argument that bad cops may not follow the law is a complete non-starter, as ruled on by the courts on many instances.

    As for Bush, you must not remember me complaining when McAmensty and Bush were teaming up trying to let all the illegals in. The reason that did not go through is because the public let Washington know that it was unacceptable by flooding capital hill with calls. So yes, if it were the Bush justice department trying to sue I would absolutely be complaining.

    Someone who is not consistent is our head of Homeland security. While she was Gov of AZ, she signed and fought for the employer law I mentioned above. She has now stated her opposition to this new law, while admitting she had not even read the law (something she holds in common with the AG).

    9 July 2010, 10:49 am

Leave a comment