Arizona's Immigration Law

[Hooker]

A snippet from an article summarzing part of what is going on:


The resolution claims that Arizona's new law encourages racial profiling and is unconstitutional. The law, set to take effect July 29, requires police enforcing another law to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the United States illegally and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

Several lawsuits seeking to block its implementation are pending in federal court.

Some polls have shown strong popular support for the Arizona law, and critics are concerned that other states may follow up with their own versions.

Several cities have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including California cities such as Oakland and San Diego. A nonbinding resolution approved Tuesday by San Francisco city supervisors urges a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asks sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the boycotts are unfortunate and misguided, primarily because the law mirrors a federal requirement that legal immigrants carry immigration papers.

"It's already the law in the United States, and I have a responsibility to stand up and protect the people of Arizona and we will do that," Brewer said Tuesday.

Charges that the law will lead to racial profiling are "just pure rhetoric," Brewer said.

"I find it really interesting that we have people out there that are attempting a boycott in favor of illegal actions in Arizona. That to me is just unbelievable."Is this new law only enforcing what is already on the books? If so, why not just enforce what is already there? And, if it is a law that immigrants are required to carry their papers, then why the uproar? If illegal immigration is an issue in Arizona, can we blame them for trying to be diligent about this? Or is Arizona only trying to apply a band-aid to a gaping wound?

[Christy]

As I thought I understood, it is now a state law as well as federal, and state police can carry out the law whereas federal officials only had the right to before...? Did I get it wrong?

[erika]

As I thought I understood, it is now a state law as well as federal, and state police can carry out the law whereas federal officials only had the right to before...? Did I get it wrong?



No. I think you're right. (State and local police, I think)

It's more or less the same thing Sheriff Arpaio does with the sweeps, and those are every bit as controversial.

[Garyhoov]

A bit off the main topic, but something that's been bugging me the past few days:

I'm not thrilled with the law, but I think the boycotts various districts are imposing are counter-productive. As long as the law is ruled constitutional by the US Supreme court (and we have yet to see it pass that test) it's perfectly within State's rights to pass legislation . . . even though that legislation might not be popular in other parts of the country.

What if South Carolina decides to "boycott" Massachusets because they allow gay marriage? What if one state decides to boycott another because they don't like their gun policy? etc. etc. etc.

The idea of states and regions boycotting other states and regions because they don't like their policies is a dangerous precedent that could destabalize commerce, limit state's rights to self-government and threaten the stability of our union. If individuals within a region choose to boycott another region, that's fine, but systematic, government sponsored boycotts seem very dangerous.

Considering the federal government's role of regulating commerce between states, they could be forced to step in if things get out of hand.

[figmentmom]

Maybe it's the mom in me, but boycotts smack too much of temper tantrums to me, and are generally just about as effective. :goofy

[Hooker]

And people are boycotting simply because Arizona is trying to enforce a law already on the books? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[erika]

:rotfl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6qEQ-KnitQ&feature=player_embedded

[Hooker]

Gotta love HSA secretary Janet Napolitano comment the other day after criticizing the new law....."No I have not read it yet." Really? So why not read it first and make an informed opinion rather than saying that you think it's wrong. Hmmm, it's only 10 pages long. And yet she claims to have read the entire healthcare reform bill - all 1000 (or is it 2000) pages of it.

Eric Holder, the Attorney General, had not read it either last week.

[Christy]

:rotfl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6qEQ-KnitQ&feature=player_embedded

Had to put that one on facebook :rotfl Might lose a few "friends" :lookaroun

[erika]

hell, even I'VE read the law :rotfl

[Hooker]

Maybe that is who I meant. :blush In the break room at work, they have a TV with 1 channel. CNN Headline news. :rollseyes I generally ignore it, but sometimes there are several in there and there is usually commentary in the room.

I think I heard that Janet Neapolitan :lookaroun had not read it either.

[Hooker]

hell, even I'VE read the law :rotfl

Erika for Attorney General!

[erika]

:no These stories are always sad, but it's so much worse when there are kids involved.

-----


Sixteen suspected illegal immigrants who had been held by armed men were discovered Wednesday at a drophouse in Phoenix, including a 15-year-old boy, a Department Public Service official said.

A coalition of agencies called IIMPACT, which includes the DPS, Phoenix police and federal immigration officials, began investigating the home following a tip of a possible drophouse near 79th Avenue and Camelback Road, said Bart Graves, a media relations coordinator for the Department of Public Safety.

Authorities served a search warrant at the home about 1 p.m. Wednesday. When authorities arrived, five men and a woman who were believed to have held the immigrants scattered, Graves said.

It took authorities about 20 minutes to find all the suspects and clear the area, but they were all eventually located and arrested on suspicion of human smuggling.

The victims – two women, 11 men and three male juveniles ranging from elementary-school age to the 15-year-old boy who apparently traveled alone – appeared to be in relatively good condition. The victims were from El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico, Graves said.

In addition, the victims said they had been at another house where they suffered from violent acts. Authorities were still trying to locate that house. It is not uncommon to find more drophouses after the initial one, according to DPS.

All the suspects and victims were taken to IIMPACT headquarters to be questioned and processed. The illegal immigrants will be processed, then deported by federal authorities.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/06/02/20100602west-phoenix-drophouse-abrk.html#ixzz0pntbG1YQ

[BeeJay]

Sounds like some places in Arizona are taking a financial hit...not from boycotts, but from illegal immigrants moving out.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/06/14/pm-hispanics-leave-arizona-over-immigrant-law/

[erika]

Sounds like some places in Arizona are taking a financial hit...not from boycotts, but from illegal immigrants moving out.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/06/14/pm-hispanics-leave-arizona-over-immigrant-law/

I don't doubt that there is a new wave of people leaving because of the law, and I know that a lot of businesses are suffering, but it's an ongoing trend since the economy tanked. There have been more people going back to wherever they came from (California, back East, etc) and less trying to come in from Mexico. This is really compounding an existing problem.

[erika]

A backlog of cases allows one couple to stay in country - for now

by Richard Ruelas - Jun. 13, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

For a brief, agonizing time, car-wash workers Sandra and Carlos Figueroa were put through a wringer, powerless to steer their lives as all sorts of abrasive elements closed in on them.

While the Figueroas were on the job, sheriff's deputies swooped in and arrested them, along with several others, on suspicion of using false documents.

But when the Figueroas emerged, the stain of being undocumented had been scrubbed away. The two were given legal permission to live freely in the United States.

"It was something difficult that brought a great benefit," Carlos said.

The Figueroas, both 35, were among the primary targets of the bust of the Lindstrom Family Auto Wash in east Phoenix one year ago today.

While Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio conducted a news conference in front of the car wash, deputies booked the Figueroas on suspicion of working under false documents and led them away in handcuffs.

Their then-9-year-old daughter, Katherine, watched her parents' arrests live on the morning news, dropping to her knees in her aunt's home and sobbing.

In jail, the Figueroas imagined nightmare scenarios: They would be dumped at the border that evening with no money. They would never see each other again. They would never see their daughter again.

But neither envisioned the eventual outcome: legal passes to stay in the U.S. for at least a few years.

Bureaucracy backlog

Sandra and Carlos took plea deals that reduced identity-theft charges to a low-grade felony of criminal impersonation. Each served three months in jail and then was shipped to immigration authorities. They asked to see an immigration judge.

But the immigration system has a backlog that has grown to more than 4,000 cases since 2007. That was the year Arpaio entered a federal program, known as 287g, that allowed deputies and detention officers to enforce immigration law.

Sandra is scheduled to see a judge in July 2013. Carlos is scheduled for May 2012.

"Thanks to Sheriff Joe," Carlos said in Spanish, switching to English. "That's true. Sometimes he's helping us."

The Figueroas have permission to remain in the country while they await their court dates. Carlos also asked for and received permission to work. He got his job back at the Lindstrom car wash.

The irony is not lost on the couple.

"They didn't take us out like (Arpaio) wanted to," Sandra said in Spanish. "We're starting our lives over, but we're here. . . .

"In the end, (the raid) doesn't work. We're still here."

The couple reside in an immigration purgatory of sorts. Carlos and Sandra are not technically illegal immigrants. Even though they admit to crossing the border illegally, a court has yet to rule on their status. And for the time being, they are legally here.

Nor are they undocumented immigrants in the literal sense. They carry papers proving they have permission to be in the U.S.

Their situation is uncommon, but the couple are not alone. Of the 13 people charged in the car-wash bust, six remain in the United States while awaiting their day in immigration court.

Before they found this safe haven amid the byzantine labyrinth of immigration bureaucracy, Carlos and Sandra Figueroa lived what they saw as the typical life of an illegal-immigrant family.

The couple had met and married in Mexico City, but thought that was no place to raise a child. Not enough good-paying jobs and too much crime. In 1997, they jumped a border fence, Carlos said, and after a short walk through the desert, met with the coyote who delivered them to the Valley. Their daughter was born three years later.

Planning a life

In January 2003, Carlos found a job at the family-run car wash. He doesn't remember what documents, if any, he showed to get the job. Authorities would later accuse Carlos of filling out a false federal W-4 tax withholding form.

Carlos worked his way up to manager, in charge of the mostly Spanish-speaking employees, which included his wife. When the owner was traveling, he would leave the business in Carlos' hands, knowing the operation would run smoothly.

But for the past three years, Carlos and Sandra have wondered if Arizona is the place for them. They read about tough new laws and Arpaio's sweeps in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods. Carlos bought land outside Mexico City and hired workers to build a house. The two would save money and find some way to start a business in Mexico once their home was finished.

Carlos had no idea his family's fates would soon be in the hands of others.

In July 2008, Michael Heinlein, a former general manager of Lindstrom, e-mailed the Maricopa County Attorney's Office saying that most of the car-wash employees were hired with false documents. According to court documents, Heinlein, who left the car wash in October 2007, specifically mentioned Carlos and Sandra. He said he knew they were in the country illegally because Carlos mentioned his plan to someday return to Mexico.

Heinlein, in a phone interview, said he bore no grudge against the car wash or its employees. "I felt I saw some injustice and let the proper authorities know," he said.

Heinlein came in for a follow-up interview with sheriff's deputies a few months later. He expanded on his allegations, saying he was sure the owner, Michael Martin, knew some employees were hired illegally.

The owners of the car wash declined comment. They have yet to face any accusations of violating the state's laws on hiring practices.

The arrest and jail time

The sheriff's office's investigation of the car wash spanned 11 months. Deputies pulled employee-payroll records from a state database, sent a query to the federal Social Security office and put the car wash under surveillance, recording license-plate numbers of employees. It found the names on the vehicles didn't match the names on the employee paperwork. Other names didn't match with Social Security numbers. Among the employees with discrepancies were Carlos and Sandra Figueroa.

On June 13, a Saturday, some 50 Maricopa County deputies and posse members descended on the car wash.

Sandra Figueroa was vacuuming a car. Her husband ran to her to tell her police were surrounding the place.

"We couldn't run. We couldn't do anything," he said.

The two ducked into the store of the car wash, Carlos holding his wife tightly.

Deputies questioned them. Sandra asked for a lawyer immediately.

"They asked us about our bosses, like they wanted us to slip up and say something," she said. "So I tried to say the least possible."

Their wrists zip-tied together, they were led into a waiting sheriff's van along with the other employees arrested that day. Sandra saw the television cameras. She figured the arrest would be on the evening news. She didn't know it was being broadcast live.

Their daughter, Katherine, was at her aunt's house, playing with her cousin, when she heard the man on the TV say there was a bust at a car wash. She ran to the living room in time to see her mother and father in custody. She started sobbing uncontrollably, thinking she would never see them again.

An immigrant-rights advocate visited Katherine at her aunt's house. Video camera in hand, he recorded a tearful plea from her. The video, in which she begged President Barack Obama to change immigration laws, was viewed thousands of times on YouTube.

Arpaio said the girl was being used to get sympathy.

Katherine stayed with her aunt. The two went to the Figueroa house and started packing, should the family have to move quickly to Mexico. Katherine boxed up all of her toys, including her prized "High School Musical" and Jonas Brothers collections. She saved four Barbie dolls to play with.

Jail was expectedly unpleasant. Carlos said the food was as bad as he had heard. There were frequent fights where guards would not intervene. Sandra said she was frequently strip-searched.

The two said they were told the charges would disappear if they could testify that Lindstrom managers knowingly violated the law.

"I could maybe have lied and told them I could give them information," Carlos said. "But if the information I gave them didn't help them, they'd still keep me in the cell."

Carlos saw one fellow employee go free. He didn't know why.

Unexpected gift of time

Prosecutors offered a plea deal, dropping the charges to the lowest-type felony and requiring a 90-day stay in jail. Carlos and Sandra hesitated, fearing the deal might jeopardize chances of remaining in the U.S. with their daughter. They eventually hired an immigration lawyer.

...more below...

[erika]

The Phoenix attorney, Kevin Gibbons, advised the couple to take the plea deal, a recommendation they followed. After they served their jail time, they were sent to immigration authorities. There, they asked to see a judge, saying they had a U.S. citizen daughter.

"Everybody has the chance to have their day in court," Gibbons said. "Even though they are immigrants, they are afforded constitutional rights."

Immigrants who have committed serious felonies, or who have "good moral character" concerns, as statutes put it, do not get their day in court. But Gibbons said that applies only to about 1 percent of detainees.

Gibbons said he expected delays in immigration court to continue as more immigrants are placed in the pipeline. The backlog would grow, he said, as immigrants realized they could delay deportation by asking to see a judge.

Sandra left the Phoenix immigration office in September with orders to return in December to receive a court date.

On the day of her release, Sandra's first stop was her sister's house. Katherine, peering through the letters her mom had written in jail, looked up in shock. The two embraced, stumbling together through the home and outside.

In her letters, Sandra promised her daughter they would be together again, even though sometimes she doubted it herself. "On some days, it seemed like it was just a dream," she said. "Then, when it became reality, I thought I was dreaming."

Carlos was released from the immigration facility in Eloy a few days later, with orders to return in March. He was still unsure why he was behind bars for so long.

"We made a mistake in crossing," Carlos said, "but we didn't cross to do anything destructive. . . . People who rob, people who sell drugs, doing all those bad things, where are they? They're free. And those of us that are working, we're taking up the spot that should belong to these serious criminals."

The couple unpacked some of their belongings, but their status remained uncertain. Court dates were months away, and there was no guarantee a judge wouldn't order them out of the country quickly, especially since both had a recent felony conviction.

Before Sandra left for her hearing in December, she prayed to the Virgin of Guadalupe and to Jesus Christ, leaving it in their hands. She also took some money in case she was deported to Mexico that afternoon.

She wasn't. The judge scheduled her hearing for July 2013. "It made me very happy," she said. "I didn't expect that much time."

Carlos went in March and found out his date: May 2012.

Resuming their lives

Their attorney said chances are slim a judge will grant them permission to stay permanently. Hardship dismissals are rare, and the government only allows so many. Still, the delayed hearings bought them some time.

Carlos' request to work was granted. He has a plastic authorization card in his wallet to prove it. The car-wash owner gladly took him back, at his old job and old salary. He also told him that customers were leaving donations for the family.

The employees Carlos supervises are no longer all Latino or Spanish-speaking. Carlos said some "Americanos" have started working there, although some have quit after a few days. "They don't want to work," he said. "They just want a check."

Sandra can apply for permission to work, as well. But she's seven months pregnant and will wait awhile to do so.

In the two years they have, they will prepare to be deported back to Mexico, the most likely outcome. But they will also hope Congress changes the immigration laws, allowing them to stay.

Carlos has made plans to finish the house in Mexico. If the couple stay in the U.S., he wants to make it a vacation home, allowing Katherine to visit Mexico, a country she's curious about.

Katherine, who has finished fifth grade, now wants to be a lawyer.

"I can help people who are in jail for no reason and the people who are innocent and didn't do a crime," she said.

Katherine has become an advocate over the past year, appearing on television and giving speeches at rallies. On Thursday, she testified before Congress about the raid that briefly left her an orphan.

Sandra's sister had recorded various news accounts of the arrests and interviews with Katherine, but Sandra has not had the stomach to view them yet. She doesn't want to see her part in what she saw as an Arpaio-orchestrated television show.

"He wants to use us to put fear in the community and to let everybody think he's working," she said. "It's the only reason he does this."

'Great bang for your buck'

At a recent news conference, Arpaio said his busts would still be worthwhile, even if they don't result in every arrested immigrant leaving the country.

"All my enforcement actions are worth it," Arpaio said. "I'm the cop. I don't run the courts. . . . If they want to let 'em out, that's OK."

Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas said the high-profile raids provide a much-needed deterrent effect. "You get a great bang for your buck," said Thomas, who resigned in April to run for state Attorney General, "by sending the message to the illegal-immigrant population that we mean business."

Heinlein, the man who sent in the initial tip that resulted in the raid, said he was driving along Indian School Road the other day and saw Carlos back at Lindstrom working. He didn't get angry or call authorities, he said.

"As a matter of fact," he said, "I saw a little bit of humor in it."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/06/13/20100613car-wash-immigration-deportation.html#ixzz0qtDeTZSN

[erika]

:rotfl:rotfl:rotfl

The funny part is right in the beginning, so you only need a minute to watch. OMG!

http://ktar.com/?sid=1308895&nid=825

[Doug11]

I have ATT internet at home and it is just awful for streaming video (and FB chat :lookaroun ) :( I will have to watch it at work.

[pinkrose]

:rotfl:rotfl:rotfl

The funny part is right in the beginning, so you only need a minute to watch. OMG!

http://ktar.com/?sid=1308895&nid=825 :rotfl :rotfl :rotfl

[pinkrose]

I have ATT internet at home and it is just awful for streaming video (and FB chat :lookaroun ) :( I will have to watch it at work. Is AT&T U-Verse available in your area? If so, it's awesome! My parents have it. I'm waiting for it to become available in my neighborhood ( people up the road have had it for a while now).

[Doug11]

sadly, it is not. Emily has it in Tuscaloosa and I agree with you. :)

[Christy]

:rotfl:rotfl:rotfl

The funny part is right in the beginning, so you only need a minute to watch. OMG!

http://ktar.com/?sid=1308895&nid=825

OMG... More equal parts sad and hilarious.... and throw in some scary :blink :rotfl

[Doug11]

:rotfl:rotfl:rotfl

The funny part is right in the beginning, so you only need a minute to watch. OMG!

http://ktar.com/?sid=1308895&nid=825

Well, it is a ways removed from Texas' border at least. Good grief, what was she thinking?

I had lunch with my daughter today and we were talking about the whole Arizona law and what it is trying to achieve. She'd never heard the term "coyote." She should read more Sapphire Metropolis! :D

[erika]

Our local paper is running a series called Leaving Arizona -- here is a story from earlier this week. Honestly I can't past the 2 year old lying across the front seat. I hate to see that. There are few things that piss me off more than seeing a small child, who should be in a car seat, unrestrained in a car.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/27/20100627arizona-immigration-law-leaving-state.html

It's not that I don't feel bad for this family, I do, but they knew they were breaking the law and that there was a chance they would be caught. As of now, the kids are the biggest losers in the story, for now... but being American citizens, I guess in the end, they'll have the opportunities their parents wanted for them.

[Christy]

I do not understand why they don't "qualify" for citizenship? :dunno

Does anybody else read Real Simple magazine? There are a group of women from different countries telling why they came to America, and became citizens, and why they are glad they did. It was really nice to read. And the few who did say how long it took said it was a good 5 years or so process to naturalization (is this different from citizenship? )

[erika]

I do not understand why they don't "qualify" for citizenship? :dunno

Does anybody else read Real Simple magazine? There are a group of women from different countries telling why they came to America, and became citizens, and why they are glad they did. It was really nice to read. And the few who did say how long it took said it was a good 5 years or so process to naturalization (is this different from citizenship? )

The problem is the huge backlog. And with the increasing violence down below, it's probably going to get a lot worse. On one hand, you hate to see people stuck in that situation and if it were my kids and my family, I think I'd do anything I could to get the hell out of there; on the other hand, the bleed over of the cartels into the US are a big part of the reason people are wanting the border closed in the first place. If the cartels weren't so strong you'd have a lot less people needing to leave Mexico as well as less people really giving a crap about who's here illegally. When my friends' families were worried about things going on in their neighborhoods in Mexico and the local police kept shrugging their shoulders-- now you've got the Pinal County sheriff just South of Phoenix saying his guys are now outgunned and outmanned and have lost control over parts of their county, and that starts to make people nervous.

So I guess it all really does go back to "Just say NO to drugs" :goofy

I read that article too. Good magazine :)

[erika]

Aaaaaaaand the ACLU has now issued a travel warning.

[Doug11]

Aaaaaaaand the ACLU has now issued a travel warning.

"Warning, when traveling to Arizona you are more likely to be in the presence of United States citizens due to its proactive State Laws."

Sounds good to me.

Screw the ACLU and the horse it rode in on. :mad

[BeeJay]

I know that's a very poignant story, but all I can wonder reading it is: Did the Republic send that reporter to follow them all the way to Pennsylvania? :huh

[Christy]

The problem is the huge backlog. And with the increasing violence down below, it's probably going to get a lot worse. On one hand, you hate to see people stuck in that situation and if it were my kids and my family, I think I'd do anything I could to get the hell out of there; on the other hand, the bleed over of the cartels into the US are a big part of the reason people are wanting the border closed in the first place. If the cartels weren't so strong you'd have a lot less people needing to leave Mexico as well as less people really giving a crap about who's here illegally. When my friends' families were worried about things going on in their neighborhoods in Mexico and the local police kept shrugging their shoulders-- now you've got the Pinal County sheriff just South of Phoenix saying his guys are now outgunned and outmanned and have lost control over parts of their county, and that starts to make people nervous.

So I guess it all really does go back to "Just say NO to drugs" :goofy

I read that article too. Good magazine :)

Off topic, but did you read the story about the woman's experience losing her mother to alzheimers? Good God :faint :sadbye With the picture the put on the first page... :cry

And was it last month, the one where she wrote about her hair? I literally gasped and started bawling then for the rest of the story after she said her daughter died.

[BeeJay]

"A federal judge has stopped key parts of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law from taking effect, including the section that would authorize police in the state to ask about immigration status of individuals they stop for other reasons."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128824648&sc=fb&cc=fp

[Christy]

*doh*

Somebody drop her into the middle of this and tell her to handle it then. I love it. People with lots of cushy soft spots for people's "rights" and not a shred of sense or grasp on reality, oblivious to the big picture of what is happening.

[erika]

If you're super bored today, have fun reading the comments before they get pulled

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/07/28/20100728arizona-immigration-law-court-ruling-brk28-ON.html

[Christy]

If you're super bored today, have fun reading the comments before they get pulled

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/07/28/20100728arizona-immigration-law-court-ruling-brk28-ON.html

I wish I hadn't :rotfl

however, someone (correctly or not :lookaroun ) said that parts of the law are being put on hold (not necessarily done away with or stopped... yet) because they are the same as the already on the books federal laws, which, oh yeah, don't get enforced. So politics as usual. "Look, we HAVE these laws already! Oh, I mean, we don't intend to use them or anything, but they're there! We've done our job! *pat on back for self*"

[Christy]

Erika, no worries, Time magazine says we're all cool :thumbs

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007474,00.html

I'm sorry, what? :lol

[erika]

Erika, no worries, Time magazine says we're all cool :thumbs

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007474,00.html

I'm sorry, what? :lol

:lol Oh good, then

[BeeJay]

You believe Time?

That post carried the strong whiff of sarcasm. :D

[Garyhoov]

I've been running some of the legal details of all of this through my mind and -while I agree with the general idea that the Federal government should be setting immigration policy and if states start creating their own policies, it could lead to problems - there should be options for Arizona that fall short of setting immigration policy.

For example: I would think that if Arizona made it illegal for non-citizens to own or rent property in Arizona, the Federal government couldn't prevent them from doing that. That wouldn't be setting immigration policy, it would only be restricting what non-citizens can do (with "citizen" still being defined by the Federal government).

I guess the Federal government could argue it from a discrimination point of view then, but that would raise an interesting point. Is it possible, from a constitutional point of view, to discriminate against non-citizens? Isn't the point of the constitution to protect the rights of citizens?

With some creative legislation on Arizona's part, it seems like they could structure their legislation in a way that they would put the federal government into a position of basically forcing them to harbor non-citizens, and I think then Arizona would have a strong argument against them. Would the federal government go so far as to create a 'diplomatic immunity' for illegals. . . basically saying they don't have to follow state's laws? For example, states can pass laws that say pedophiles can't buy or rent property within certain distances of schools. Shouldn't they also be able to say that illegals can't buy or rent property . . . period?

Their biggest problem right now may be that they're trying to work with Federal government rather than igonoring them and setting their own policy.

From a practical point of view, it could be difficult for Arizona to throw everyone in jail, but hefty fines could be an option, couldn't they?

[Christy]

I've been running some of the legal details of all of this through my mind and -while I agree with the general idea that the Federal government should be setting immigration policy and if states start creating their own policies, it could lead to problems - there should be options for Arizona that fall short of setting immigration policy.

For example: I would think that if Arizona made it illegal for non-citizens to own or rent property in Arizona, the Federal government couldn't prevent them from doing that. That wouldn't be setting immigration policy, it would only be restricting what non-citizens can do (with "citizen" still being defined by the Federal government).

I guess the Federal government could argue it from a discrimination point of view then, but that would raise an interesting point. Is it possible, from a constitutional point of view, to discriminate against non-citizens? Isn't the point of the constitution to protect the rights of citizens?

With some creative legislation on Arizona's part, it seems like they could structure their legislation in a way that they would put the federal government into a position of basically forcing them to harbor non-citizens, and I think then Arizona would have a strong argument against them. Would the federal government go so far as to create a 'diplomatic immunity' for illegals. . . basically saying they don't have to follow state's laws? For example, states can pass laws that say pedophiles can't buy or rent property within certain distances of schools. Shouldn't they also be able to say that illegals can't buy or rent property . . . period?

Their biggest problem right now may be that they're trying to work with Federal government rather than igonoring them and setting their own policy.

From a practical point of view, it could be difficult for Arizona to throw everyone in jail, but hefty fines could be an option, couldn't they?

Well, they're saying they don't have to follow FEDERAL law, so I would suppose... yeah :lol

I find it so odd how the "illegal" part of "immigrants" keeps getting lost in this. By odd I mean infuriating as hell.

[erika]

I've been running some of the legal details of all of this through my mind and -while I agree with the general idea that the Federal government should be setting immigration policy and if states start creating their own policies, it could lead to problems - there should be options for Arizona that fall short of setting immigration policy.

For example: I would think that if Arizona made it illegal for non-citizens to own or rent property in Arizona, the Federal government couldn't prevent them from doing that. That wouldn't be setting immigration policy, it would only be restricting what non-citizens can do (with "citizen" still being defined by the Federal government).

I guess the Federal government could argue it from a discrimination point of view then, but that would raise an interesting point. Is it possible, from a constitutional point of view, to discriminate against non-citizens? Isn't the point of the constitution to protect the rights of citizens?

With some creative legislation on Arizona's part, it seems like they could force the federal government into basically forcing them to harbor non-citizens, and I think then Arizona would have a strong argument against them. Would the federal government go so far as to create a 'diplomatic immunity' for illegals. . . basically saying they don't have to follow state's laws?

Their biggest problem right now may be that they're trying to work with Federal government rather than igonoring them and setting their own policy.

From a practical point of view, it could be difficult for Arizona to throw everyone in jail, but hefty fines could be an option, couldn't they?

The problem with that is that many illegal immigrants have citizen children, and those children have rights.

[erika]

More cartel victims

------------------------------------
Drug smugglers' horses entered in rehab
by Carmen Duarte - Aug. 3, 2010 12:00 AM
Arizona Daily Star

TUCSON - The rehabilitation of drug smugglers can be a monumental task, especially when the offenders are biting, kicking, four-legged beasts.

But volunteers are undeterred.

They take on the horses that once carried multimillion-dollar loads of illicit drugs through rugged canyons on down to parched desert.

These horses were at the mercy of drug runners, enslaved and worked nearly to death before being captured and taken to animal-rescue organizations.

Rudy Acevedo, an Arizona Department of Agriculture livestock officer, is among those saving these horses throughout southern Arizona.

"These smugglers are using the horses over and over and over again until their backs, legs and bellies have open sores," Acevedo said. "The drug smugglers are damn cruel to these animals. They run them into the ground and then just abandon them."

About 75 horses each year are found abandoned in southern Arizona and then turned over to the state Department of Agriculture, Acevedo said.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/08/03/20100803drug-smugglers-horses-entered-rehab.html#ixzz0vYPyUxK4

[Christy]

The problem with that is that many illegal immigrants have citizen children, and those children have rights.

As much rights as any child has, which is what? What are a child's rights, I wonder. :lol I mean, if your parents don't have rights, but you do, as a minor, so what does that mean.

[erika]

As much rights as any child has, which is what? What are a child's rights, I wonder. :lol I mean, if your parents don't have rights, but you do, as a minor, so what does that mean.

Shelter? :shrug Good question.

[Christy]

Shelter? :shrug Good question.

All children should have shelter, yes, but they can't walk in and sign for a lease for an apartment or a loan for a house, so if their parents who aren't legal can't either, maybe their parents will be more inclined to push through the process to become legal.

Or not. Thinking out loud :lookaroun

[erika]

All children should have shelter, yes, but they can't walk in and sign for a lease for an apartment or a loan for a house, so if their parents who aren't legal can't either, maybe their parents will be more inclined to push through the process to become legal.

Or not. Thinking out loud :lookaroun

Or find more loopholes, like my friend's sister who collects benefits for her kids. I would imagine that we might trade one problem for another in that case.


The 14th Amendment was enacted in order to allow the freed slaves and their offspring to become citizens. No more, no less.

The 14th Amendment is NOT about having a Mexican woman who is 39.9 weeks pregnant to cross the border into the United States and have her baby in the USA, so as the liberals will feel bad for the ILLEGAL parents and allow them to "become" US citizens.

And some will use the same logic and make the argument that the 2nd amendment was enacted in order to allow for the formation of militia vs simple gun owndership. The outcome is the same: in the end, it doesn't matter why it was enacted, or what it meant at the time it was passed. The law cares about wording, black and white. So no matter how much it pisses you off, until that amendment is revisited/reworded/repealed, those kids are citizens. Anyway, if they do change it, I doubt they'll revoke any existing citizenships. I guess in the mean time you can keep an eye on Lindsey Graham :shrug:

[erika]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's logical to me.

Plus the recent Supreme Court decision McDonald v. Chicago has determined that.





Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

:shrug

I'm not here to debate you, just making the point that the reason given behind the addition of an amendment does not necessarily dictate the way it is put into practice. Things change and nobody can predict how laws will apply in the future. The 14th amendment came with a few years of the Homestead Act. People living then could probably not even imagine a time when the country would be as "crowded" as it is today.

[Garyhoov]

Silly people. You're discussing the fine points of laws.

Isn't this whole thing based on the idea that our laws regarding immigration are pretty much meaningless?:lookaroun

Bit by bit, year by year, selfish, foolish, short-sighted people are eroding the constitution to the point it will soon have little meaning.

We seem to be heading toward an unchecked federal government that pretty much does whatever it wants with little regard to that disused document called "The Constitution".:lookaroun

[Computer Magic]

Silly people. You're discussing the fine points of laws.

Isn't this whole thing based on the idea that our laws regarding immigration are pretty much meaningless?:lookaroun

Bit by bit, year by year, selfish, foolish, short-sighted people are eroding the constitution to the point it will soon have little meaning.

We seem to be heading toward an unchecked federal government that pretty much does whatever it wants with little regard to that disused document called "The Constitution".:lookaroun

Won't the Tea Party save us and the Constitution.

[erika]

Silly people. You're discussing the fine points of laws.

Isn't this whole thing based on the idea that our laws regarding immigration are pretty much meaningless?:lookaroun

Bit by bit, year by year, selfish, foolish, short-sighted people are eroding the constitution to the point it will soon have little meaning.

We seem to be heading toward an unchecked federal government that pretty much does whatever it wants with little regard to that disused document called "The Constitution".:lookaroun

:rotfl :clap

I'm to the point where I don't even know which party pisses me off more these days :blush

[Christy]

After I read any article about anything, I simply can't help myself, I have to read the comments... I don't know, I feel so much smarter most of the time :blush Anyway, one of them actually had a point... "Time to drain the swamp"... the politicians.

I agree, lets just say they're all fired, and start fresh. :lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

After I read any article about anything, I simply can't help myself, I have to read the comments... I don't know, I feel so much smarter most of the time :blush Anyway, one of them actually had a point... "Time to drain the swamp"... the politicians.

I agree, lets just say they're all fired, and start fresh. :lookaroun

That's probably a very good analogy because if you drain a swamp, without making any structural changes, it will likely just fill right back in again.:lookaroun

[Garyhoov]

I think the problem is sort of like a twist on the old Groucho Marx line: "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member."

The only type of people who want political positions are ones who shouldn't be there.



*Edit - it's "Marx" not "Marks" . . . I thought it didn't look right but didn't take the time to think about it until just now.:goofy

[Christy]

I think the problem is sort of like a twist on the old Groucho Marks line: "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member."
The only type of people who want political positions are ones who shouldn't be there.

:rotfl

[Christy]

Not that citizens don't drive drunk and kill people every day, but how bad does it suck to be THIS guy?

http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/police-illegal-immigrant-carlos-martinelly-montano-kills-sister-denise-mosier-in-drunken-driving-crash/19580015?icid=main|main|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww .aolnews.com%2Fcrime%2Farticle%2Fpolice-illegal-immigrant-carlos-martinelly-montano-kills-sister-denise-mosier-in-drunken-driving-crash%2F19580015

Illegal immigrant, driving drunk, kills a freaking NUN! :blink Wow.

[Garyhoov]

Not that citizens don't drive drunk and kill people every day, but how bad does it suck to be THIS guy?

http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/police-illegal-immigrant-carlos-martinelly-montano-kills-sister-denise-mosier-in-drunken-driving-crash/19580015?icid=main|main|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww .aolnews.com%2Fcrime%2Farticle%2Fpolice-illegal-immigrant-carlos-martinelly-montano-kills-sister-denise-mosier-in-drunken-driving-crash%2F19580015

Illegal immigrant, driving drunk, kills a freaking NUN! :blink Wow.



:no

It may seem like a stretch, but this is getting at part of the thing that really bugs me about this whole thing.

I'm not a big fan of restrictive laws, but if the laws are there, they should be enforced.

Don't have a license or insurance? Who cares. Go driving anyway. There's not much they can do to you.

Don't have citizenship? Who cares. Live in the US anyway. There's not much they can do to you.

Our government needs to really take a stand. They need to either strictly enforce the laws we have or change the laws. It undermines the fabric of our republic to allow laws to stand but then not enforce them.

Who gets to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to? Theoretically, it's the responsibility of the exectutive branch, but if they are allowed to simply not enforce laws - without an outcry from the electorate - our system isn't working.

I'm sympathetic to the difficulties of dealing with immigration, but this is a constitutional issue. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution - not enforce only the laws he or she likes or the ones that are easy to enforce.

[Christy]

:no

It may seem like a stretch, but this is getting at part of the thing that really bugs me about this whole thing.

I'm not a big fan of restrictive laws, but if the laws are there, they should be enforced.

Don't have a license or insurance? Who cares. Go driving anyway. There's not much they can do to you.

Don't have citizenship? Who cares. Live in the US anyway. There's not much they can do to you.

Our government needs to really take a stand. They need to either strictly enforce the laws we have or change the laws. It undermines the fabric of our republic to allow laws to stand but then not enforce them.

Who gets to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to? Theoretically, it's the responsibility of the exectutive branch, but if they are allowed to simply not enforce laws - without an outcry from the electorate - our system isn't working.

I'm sympathetic to the difficulties of dealing with immigration, but this is a constitutional issue. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution - not enforce only the laws he or she likes or the ones that are easy to enforce.

:king Well said.

As for the rest of it, I think we need to go through, state by state, and nationally, law by law, and decide what we REALLLY need, and then make sure we DO enforce them. THis article BJ posted on facebook:

http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

pissed me off. :lol I remember saying once how aggrivated I get when white collar crimes get jail time, and I think it was Brad who asked what I'd want to happen if someone stole away all Andy's retirement and the years it took to get it. I'd want them to never see another penny of profit the rest of their life, that's for sure, make them a BENEFIT to the state somehow, not a burden. But when rapists and child molesters get slaps on the wrists because we don't have room for them :blink

[Christy]

I realize that is not realistic, by the way :lookaroun

[BeeJay]

This article (http://www.slate.com/id/2262791) argues the only way to solve the immigration problem is to invest in improvements to the Mexican economy and way of life. Until you do that, all the border enforcement and deportation raids are just playing Whack-a-Mole. Have to say the logic makes sense to me.

Granted that's easier said than done, but the cites the example of how EU expansion involved richer nations investing in poorer ones, with very specific ramifications for how the money was to be spent, to prevent massive influxes of immigrants overrunning the more well-off nations.

[Garyhoov]

This article (http://www.slate.com/id/2262791) argues the only way to solve the immigration problem is to invest in improvements to the Mexican economy and way of life. Until you do that, all the border enforcement and deportation raids are just playing Whack-a-Mole. Have to say the logic makes sense to me.

Granted that's easier said than done, but the cites the example of how EU expansion involved richer nations investing in poorer ones, with very specific ramifications for how the money was to be spent, to prevent massive influxes of immigrants overrunning the more well-off nations.


I think Whack-a-Mole is a good analogy. Tough if you're trying to do it by yourself, but what if you had 7 friends with mallets lending a hand?

It's all a matter of resources. If it was considered a national priority to seal the border, I have no doubt we could. Think about this: How many troops do we have in Iraq and Afghanistan now trying to make THEIR countries secure? I believe it's something in the ballpark of 200,000 troups.

The US Mexico border is (according to Wikipedia which is always right:lookaroun ) 1969 miles long. Station 1 person every 1/2 mile (with night vision equipment etc.) count on 3 shifts and you're talking about 11,814 troops . . . just a small fraction of the troops we're using to keep other countries secure.

I've always wondered why our "forts" are in the middle of the country. Why don't we set them up along the borders . . . you know, the way forts are supposed to be? (I sometimes wonder, if I was dictator of China and I wanted to take over the US . . . what . . . none of you ever do that? :lookaroun If I wanted to do that, I think I'd go into Mexico first, set up bases and then invade from there.)

Do we want to spend the money required? I don't know, but why don't we discuss that rather than throwing our hands up and saying it's too difficult? When's the last time you heard someone say: "You know, I really wish the Federal government wouldn't spend so much money on border security."?

If we had a secure border, I think most people would be very willing to discuss amnesty for the people who are already here. I think the thing that stands in the way of amnesty is people feel like we'll give amnesty now . . . then we'll give it to several million more . . . then we'll give it to several million more . . .

[erika]

Mexicans, U.S. question drug-legalization proposal

Aug. 9, 2010 05:14 PM
Associated Press

MEXICO CITY - A former Mexican president's proposal to legalize drugs as a way of breaking the economic power of drug cartels is stoking debate inside his country and bringing opposition in Washington.

One thing most experts agreed on is that the idea is unlikely to prosper without similar moves to legalize or regulate the sale of drugs in the United States, the main consumer of drugs from Mexico.

When former President Vicente Fox wrote in a blog Sunday that "we should consider legalizing the production, distribution and sale of drugs," it was the most far-reaching and high-ranking stand for legalization yet in Mexico, where more than 28,000 people have died during the current administration's war against drug cartels.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/08/09/20100809mexico-drug-war-legalizing.html#ixzz0wAIWxmXS

[erika]

Immigration and Customs Enforcement chief: President Obama not soft on illegal immigrants

by Daniel González - Aug. 13, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

The Obama administration is committed to tough enforcement of the nation's immigration laws and is not "pro-amnesty," the director of the nation's immigration-enforcement agency said Thursday.

The Obama administration removed a record 380,000 people during the past fiscal year and made a priority of deporting illegal immigrants who pose the greatest threat to public safety, said John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Morton was in Phoenix to announce that ICE agents had just completed a three-day sweep in Arizona tracking down illegal immigrants with criminal records. He also defended the agency's track record amid criticism that President Barack Obama's administration has been lax on immigration enforcement and hasn't done enough to secure the border.

Morton said this week's operation in Arizona was the largest ever conducted in the state. It resulted in the arrest of 63 illegal immigrants. At least 25 already have been deported.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/08/13/20100813immigration-enforcement-president-obama.html#ixzz0wU1zLdC6

[Christy]

Well, that is good that they have caught that many and gotten them out... but I wonder, in the past fiscal year, when a record number have been removed, how many have come in? :lol What's that record look like? :lookaroun

:lookaroun

That's right, Obama will never make me happy :rotfl

[erika]

Well, that is good that they have caught that many and gotten them out... but I wonder, in the past fiscal year, when a record number have been removed, how many have come in? :lol What's that record look like? :lookaroun

:lookaroun

That's right, Obama will never make me happy :rotfl

:lol

Most of what I have read says numbers are down, pretty much ever since the bubble burst.

[Doug11]

My friend the ICE agent is on his second week of what is only supposed to be a 60 day deployment. He says he could get held over longer, but expects to be home in late September or early October.

[erika]

My friend the ICE agent is on his second week of what is only supposed to be a 60 day deployment. He says he could get held over longer, but expects to be home in late September or early October.

:hugs

What does he think of things right now?

[Doug11]

:hugs

What does he think of things right now?

dangerous

[Christy]

dangerous

:no More prayers for him and his family.

[erika]

by Salvador Rodriguez - Aug. 24, 2010 01:31 PM
The Arizona Republic

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced Tuesday the arrest of more than 100 people in Phoenix and Yuma with ties to 19 street gangs.

The 102 arrests were part of an initiative by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, named Operation Community Shield, to dismantle streets gangs nationwide. The arrests were made from Aug. 15 to Saturday

Vincent Picard, ICE spokesman, said the surge was one of the largest Arizona has seen recently and was larger than any last year.

Sixty-four of the arrests occurred in the Valley, with 39 in Mesa, eight in Phoenix and Chandler each, and three each in Tempe, Apache Junction and Guadalupe.

Of the arrested, 26 are U.S. citizens while 76 are foreign nationals.

The U.S. citizens and three of the foreign nationals face prosecution on state criminal charges while the others are being processed for removal from the country.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/08/24/20100824phoenix-yuma-gang-arrests-ICE-abrk.html#ixzz0xYmzUK8k

[Doug11]

hmm . . . now you see why they called agents in from around the country. :uh

[erika]

Boy, 9, rescued from accused smuggler in Arizona

Sept. 20, 2010 04:21 PM
Associated Press

Federal authorities say a 9-year-old Ecuadorian boy has been rescued after allegedly being held hostage in Arizona by a human smuggler for more than four months.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said Monday that the boy became separated from his mother while they were illegally crossing the Arizona-Mexico on May 4. They say the smugglers demanded $4,000 for the child's release, which his parents were unable to pay.

Acting on a tip, federal authorities confirmed through surveillance that the boy was being held at an apartment. Agents moved in Friday and rescued the boy and arrested 25-year-old Mario Fernandez-Fernandez of Mexico.

Authorities say Fernandez-Fernandez made his initial appearance Monday in federal court in Phoenix and was formally charged with human smuggling.

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/09/20/20100920arizona-boy-rescued-from-smuggler.html#ixzz1088avt9H

[Christy]

Ugh, that is so sickening.