Mayor Bloomberg's Travel Alert for Arizona

[jillian]

If these "poor people" are Starving, then it's the fault of the Mexican Cartel for a Government. IT IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE UNTIED STATES CITIZENS.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

interestingly the only ones who look unhinged on this thread are rightwingnut loons.

so please stop projecting your illness on others.

 

[Stephanie]

If these "poor people" are Starving, then it's the fault of the Mexican Cartel for a Government. IT IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE UNTIED STATES CITIZENS.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

That doesn't change the fact that they are starving and trying to make a better life for themselves.

Then they need to do it LEAGLLY like the rest of the people do, or expect to be KICKED OUT of our country. They are INVADERS not poor people. Mexico wouldn't let 20 million Americans invade their country.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That doesn't change the fact that they are starving and trying to make a better life for themselves.

And that doesn't change the fact that they are breaking the law when they run across the border and are creating a nuisance, particularly in the southwest.

 

[Yurt]

ICE are the only officers allowed to do so under federal law.

and az is not impressed with their perfomance and have passed a law givng the state the right to do what the fed isn't....

if the az law is racist and unconstitutional then so is the fed law so we may as well just open the border and let people come and go as they please....

no. the federal law doesn't allow anyone to be stopped and have their papers demanded if they look hispanic. the laws we have should be properly enforced. this one is xenophobic, discriminatory and simply overkill.

i have to say i find it really odd that all the 'small government' types think this is ok. i know for a fact no one will ever mistake you for hispanic. me? maybe they could... should i get stopped and have to show my passport if i'm walking around phoenix?

neither does the AZ law, to claim such is a blatent lie

 

[Stephanie]

If these "poor people" are Starving, then it's the fault of the Mexican Cartel for a Government. IT IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE UNTIED STATES CITIZENS.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

interestingly the only ones who look unhinged on this thread are rightwingnut loons.

so please stop projecting your illness on others.

yeah we know, it's only you bleeding heart liberals who give a shit more for an illegal invader then you do the American citizen, cause then it can make you all look like "the most caring" ones. well I call Bullshit.
and I call bullshit on your post also.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

interestingly the only ones who look unhinged on this thread are rightwingnut loons.

so please stop projecting your illness on others.

I don't think anybody on either side of this issue looks unhinged.

I share your concerns over the civil rights abuses that could be created with this law. That is my main concern. However, I have also heard that it may not be able to be used as loosely as it sounds. What I've been hearing today in the news is that the police won't be permitted to pull somebody over simply because they suspect they may be illegal. They will just be allowed to check legal status when they do stop someone for a violation or arrest them in some other crime. It that is truly the way it will be enforced then I don't have much issue with that, however the potential for abuse still exists, of course. You always need to be mindful of the amount of latitude given to government authority figures. Additionally, I read today that the law was written in a way to withstand any possible Constitutional challenges as they anticipated the reaction they were going to get. Whether or not that is the case remains to be seen.

The bottom line is that the Federal government is to blame for this. Not Obama so much, but the last five presidents before him who failed to address this problem properly on multiple occasions. Their failure is what caused Arizona to act in the way it did.

 

[jillian]

I don't think anybody on either side of this issue looks unhinged.

I share your concerns over the civil rights abuses that could be created with this law. That is my main concern. However, I have also heard that it may not be able to be used as loosely as it sounds. What I've been hearing today in the news is that the police won't be permitted to pull somebody over simply because they suspect they may be illegal. They will just be allowed to check legal status when they do stop someone for a violation or arrest them in some other crime. It that is truly the way it will be enforced then I don't have much issue with that, however the potential for abuse still exists, of course. You always need to be mindful of the amount of latitude given to government authority figures. Additionally, I read today that the law was written in a way to withstand any possible Constitutional challenges as they anticipated the reaction they were going to get. Whether or not that is the case remains to be seen.

The bottom line is that the Federal government is to blame for this. Not Obama so much, but the last five presidents before him who failed to address this problem properly on multiple occasions. Their failure is what caused Arizona to act in the way it did.

first, thank you for your civility.

i think it's unhinged for someone to claim that someone is mentally ill solely because they don't share their particular world view.

these issues, like many others, don't get resolved because people use them as wedge issues. the rhetoric then gets amped up and, instead of existing laws being enforced, people inflame their 'base'. but, let's face it, there is a huge racially motivated aspect to this. if these immigrants were dutch or german or swedish, there wouldn't be such an intense anti-immigrant fervor.

i don't blame president obama at all for this one. he's kind of had his hands full with more immediate issues since he was sworn in. I suspect that the repubs could have fixed it for eight years but didn't do so because these people represent cheap labor. when certain people tried to address it, it had too many touches of amnesty to satisfy the right (understandably) and not enough to satisfy others. fwiw, it also could have been addressed during bill clinton's presidency, but the right prioritized spending 70 million dollars investigating a failed land deal.

pure partisan silliness... over and over and over again.

Arizona acted because there is a 2010 election coming up and they wanted to move the issue to the front burner. there wasn't any reason for it to act unilaterally. there certainly wasn't any reason to enact something that clearly violates constitutional protections.

I'm not unaware that this problem needs to be addressed. but it doesn't need to be addressed with draconian measures. we all come from someplace else unless we're native americans. i am a granddaughter of immigrants and this country welcomed my grandparents. certainly you can understand why desperate people would come here to find work. and the vast majority of these people are here to do that and raise their families. So what are the answers? well, for a start, i think there has to be a path to citizenship simply because it's too expensive for this country to deport all of the illegals. we have more important ways to spend our money.

we also need to stop the 'war on drugs'. it hasn't stopped drugs and only created a criminal marketplace like prohibition did. i also think we need to help mexico raise its standard of living so there isn't the same impetus for people to come here. at the same time, corporations employing illegals need to be punished so that their incentive to encourage cheap labor ends. (of course, the cost of our fruits and vegetables and nannies and lawn work will go up dramatically, which is going to make a lot of people unhappy).

how's that?

 

[WillowTree]

Okay...I watched the one about the armed invaders in the Arizona driveway...how can you know that the ones doing the invasion were illegals?

you are so fuckingly lame and pathetic.. it's hysterical.

 

[Ravi]

If these "poor people" are Starving, then it's the fault of the Mexican Cartel for a Government. IT IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE UNTIED STATES CITIZENS.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

That doesn't change the fact that they are starving and trying to make a better life for themselves.

Then they need to do it LEAGLLY like the rest of the people do, or expect to be KICKED OUT of our country. They are INVADERS not poor people. Mexico wouldn't let 20 million Americans invade their country.

All this blather doesn't make a difference to my point. People that are hungry migrate to a place where they can expect to do better. It's human nature and been going on since men and women crawled out of the muck. Matter of fact...it's just nature, all creatures have the basic instinct to survive.

 

[Ravi]

Okay...I watched the one about the armed invaders in the Arizona driveway...how can you know that the ones doing the invasion were illegals?

you are so fuckingly lame and pathetic.. it's hysterical.

You watched it, too? Enlighten me Willow, how can you tell the invaders were illegal immigrants?

 

[Vel]

nope... because new york doesn't have a law that permits you to get arrested for DWL

hate to tell you but ICE can.....

ICE are the only officers allowed to do so under federal law.

The constitution says that it is the job of the federal government to establish immigration policy. Where does it say that the federal government is the only one to enforce the established policy?

 

[Navy1960]

nope... because new york doesn't have a law that permits you to get arrested for DWL

Neither does Arizona. Read the bill. I just posted it.

Rick

hi rick... define 'lawful purpose' for the purposes of the statute. it is probably the same as for any other limited stop. that means if i look hispanic i need to carry my passport.

United States v. Di Re, "No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall." 332 U.S. 581, 591 (1948).

Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, they may initiate an arrest on the basis of probable cause to think that an individual has committed a federal crime

The card must be in the possession of the U.S. permanent resident at all times. This means that the permanent resident must have a currently valid card on the person at all times and be able to show it to a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services officer, if requested. Though aliens with permanent resident status are required to carry these identification cards, American citizens are not required to carry any citizenship identification (because no crime is being committed if you do not carry identification). Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, while status was checked when the permanent resident returned from foreign travel, the requirement to carry the green card was almost never enforced when residents traveled domestically. After that, officials from the United States Department of State began occasionally asking people if they were U.S. citizens or not, and in the latter case began enforcing the legal requirement that the person be able to immediately present their Permanent Resident Card or other proof of legal status.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;


jillian, it's not a matter of racial profiling no matter how much people want it to be, the facts are Arizona is no a border state with Canada , it is a border state with Mexico and if the sitution were reversed it would not matter who was coming into the country they are still breaking Federal Law regardless of race, gender, etc.. In fact, SB1070 specifically says that the civil rights of the individual must be enforced consistant with Federal Law. All of this talk of DWL is nonsense, and does nothing to actually solve the real issues here and thats the slavery of these poor people that have to hide and be abused because people want to use them as political tools or keep them as slave labor.

 

[jillian]

Neither does Arizona. Read the bill. I just posted it.

Rick

hi rick... define 'lawful purpose' for the purposes of the statute. it is probably the same as for any other limited stop. that means if i look hispanic i need to carry my passport.

United States v. Di Re, "No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall." 332 U.S. 581, 591 (1948).

Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, they may initiate an arrest on the basis of probable cause to think that an individual has committed a federal crime

The card must be in the possession of the U.S. permanent resident at all times. This means that the permanent resident must have a currently valid card on the person at all times and be able to show it to a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services officer, if requested. Though aliens with permanent resident status are required to carry these identification cards, American citizens are not required to carry any citizenship identification (because no crime is being committed if you do not carry identification). Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, while status was checked when the permanent resident returned from foreign travel, the requirement to carry the green card was almost never enforced when residents traveled domestically. After that, officials from the United States Department of State began occasionally asking people if they were U.S. citizens or not, and in the latter case began enforcing the legal requirement that the person be able to immediately present their Permanent Resident Card or other proof of legal status.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;


jillian, it's not a matter of racial profiling no matter how much people want it to be, the facts are Arizona is no a border state with Canada , it is a border state with Mexico and if the sitution were reversed it would not matter who was coming into the country they are still breaking Federal Law regardless of race, gender, etc.. In fact, SB1070 specifically says that the civil rights of the individual must be enforced consistant with Federal Law. All of this talk of DWL is nonsense, and does nothing to actually solve the real issues here and thats the slavery of these poor people that have to hide and be abused because people want to use them as political tools or keep them as slave labor.

Hi Navy. First, it's always interesting to read your responses. I appreciate your input.

Here's the problem as I see it. Officers in AZ can stop anyone and demand proof of citizenship if, upon 'lawful contact', they believe there is reason to suspect the person may be an illegal alien.

the requirements for a stop are vastly diffferent from the requirements for an arrest. if someone is stopped in a lawful traffic stop of any kind (whether because of infraction or because of some lawfully set up screening process). if the person looks/sounds hispanic (and that would be the only basis for a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal) the officer may demand proof of citizenship. assume for a moment i am a puerto rican born citizen of the U.S. visiting AZ from NY (i'm not, this is only for purpose of discussion). I would have to carry my birth certificate or passport with me at all times simply to respond or risk being carted off to jail or deported.

remember, someone who is not here legally has not technically 'entered' this country as defined by the Immigration and Naturalization Laws and has only limited administrative procedures available for any type of proceeding.

mostly, no one should have to carry their 'papers' in this country. and the more i hear the conservatives i respect agree with me about this, the more comfortable i feel in my assessment that the law is unconstitutional.

 

[Navy1960]

hi rick... define 'lawful purpose' for the purposes of the statute. it is probably the same as for any other limited stop. that means if i look hispanic i need to carry my passport.

United States v. Di Re, "No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall." 332 U.S. 581, 591 (1948).

Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, they may initiate an arrest on the basis of probable cause to think that an individual has committed a federal crime

The card must be in the possession of the U.S. permanent resident at all times. This means that the permanent resident must have a currently valid card on the person at all times and be able to show it to a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services officer, if requested. Though aliens with permanent resident status are required to carry these identification cards, American citizens are not required to carry any citizenship identification (because no crime is being committed if you do not carry identification). Before the September 11, 2001 attacks, while status was checked when the permanent resident returned from foreign travel, the requirement to carry the green card was almost never enforced when residents traveled domestically. After that, officials from the United States Department of State began occasionally asking people if they were U.S. citizens or not, and in the latter case began enforcing the legal requirement that the person be able to immediately present their Permanent Resident Card or other proof of legal status.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or

Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;


jillian, it's not a matter of racial profiling no matter how much people want it to be, the facts are Arizona is no a border state with Canada , it is a border state with Mexico and if the sitution were reversed it would not matter who was coming into the country they are still breaking Federal Law regardless of race, gender, etc.. In fact, SB1070 specifically says that the civil rights of the individual must be enforced consistant with Federal Law. All of this talk of DWL is nonsense, and does nothing to actually solve the real issues here and thats the slavery of these poor people that have to hide and be abused because people want to use them as political tools or keep them as slave labor.

Hi Navy. First, it's always interesting to read your responses. I appreciate your input.

Here's the problem as I see it. Officers in AZ can stop anyone and demand proof of citizenship if, upon 'lawful contact', they believe there is reason to suspect the person may be an illegal alien.

the requirements for a stop are vastly diffferent from the requirements for an arrest. if someone is stopped in a lawful traffic stop of any kind (whether because of infraction or because of some lawfully set up screening process). if the person looks/sounds hispanic (and that would be the only basis for a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal) the officer may demand proof of citizenship. assume for a moment i am a puerto rican born citizen of the U.S. visiting AZ from NY (i'm not, this is only for purpose of discussion). I would have to carry my birth certificate or passport with me at all times simply to respond or risk being carted off to jail or deported.

remember, someone who is not here legally has not technically 'entered' this country as defined by the Immigration and Naturalization Laws and has only limited administrative procedures available for any type of proceeding.

mostly, no one should have to carry their 'papers' in this country. and the more i hear the conservatives i respect agree with me about this, the more comfortable i feel in my assessment that the law is unconstitutional.

Hello jillian,

"state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ‘to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.’" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295).

I posted that in another thread, however I'm going to say this as an American citizen you are NOT required to carry your papers nor should you be , and I would never support that. However as a resident alien you ARE! and also in the course of any investigation by law enforcement based on reasonable suspicion it can be determined the person is here lllegally then as such there is abundent case law to support that as well. In fact I see no place in SB 1070 where it requires anyone to carry papers other than existing Federal Law.

On the consitutional merits of this issue, case law is not on your side on this issue, there are many many cases thay support the reasonable suspicion standard as there are many cases that support local enforement in immigration matters. SB 1070 jillian even points to existing Federal civil rights code and its enfocement. So any 14th Amendment issues become mute , unless you are saying that existing Federal law is in conflict with the constitution. You see jillian IMHO this issue of the new Arizona law has little if anything to do with racial issue(s) other than from those fringe elements who want it to be or from those who want to keep the existing slavey going. I for one am NOT in favor of the status-quo, and look forward to the day when we can actually make a long lasting solution so these good people that are used and often abused do not have to hide in the shadows and be used as politcial pawns in some game. So will have to respecftfully disagree with you on this one, even though I respect your opinion.