A Practical Question About the AZ Law

[jillian]

That's the question.

No. It really isn't. The QUESTION is what happens when AZ rounds up SUSPECTED "illegals" who don't have their papers and the feds tell them to pound salt?

Not to mention, we're talking about someone who might be here legally, running out without his "papers" to buy milk at night, getting pulled over and detained and held for who knows how long.

i'm sure that doesn't concern you, though.

 

[Liability]

That's the question.

No. It really isn't. The QUESTION is what happens when AZ rounds up SUSPECTED "illegals" who don't have their papers and the feds tell them to pound salt?

Not to mention, we're talking about someone who might be here legally, running out without his "papers" to buy milk at night, getting pulled over and detained and held for who knows how long.

i'm sure that doesn't concern you, though.

Round up?

Where does that "round up" thing come from?

 

[Navy1960]

Put them in tent cities. Won't cost very much at all.

Peach , Maricopa County taxpayers have paid out over 41 Million dollars alone in lawsuits, and here is something else for you to consider..

Local police and courts around the state could face a torrent of new misdemeanor cases. If they do, it will push up county jail populations. The law carries up to a 20-day jail sentence and $100 fine.

County authorities estimate that 19 percent, or 24,700, of the 130,000 inmates booked into the jail annually are illegal immigrants, Rex said. The cost to house each inmate for 20 days is about $1,600.

If the number of illegal immigrants booked into the jail rises 10 percent and each inmate serves 20 days, it would cost taxpayers an extra $3.8 million annually

Arizona immigration law costs and savings

I would rather keep that money and use it to put more Officers on the Streets and hire more teachers and Firefighters and then have the Federal Govt. do it's job rather than passing a bill like SB-1070 which in the end does nothing but cost this state.

Well be careful what you wish for. The road to hell is paved with the notion that if the problem is difficult or politically incorrect to deal with, we just won't deal with it.

I never said the problem was an easy one to solve, however I have said that SB1070 solves nothing other than to cost money and the states overall economic health will suffer as a result. If those who wish to solve the immigration problem really wanted to solve it then they would advocate for putting at least as much money into the Border Patrol as we do say the Department of Energy which we do 4 times more by the way, or perhaps make the Border Patrol a seperate Agency with a much larger budget than we spend on congressional trips. We can also do such things as implement a decent guest worker program as some have mentioned, and streamline the immigration process so that those who want to come here legally . Just a few things we can do rather than the Arizona legislature spending its time and energy spending Arizona taxpayers dollars on something they know wont work.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's the question.

No. It really isn't. The QUESTION is what happens when AZ rounds up SUSPECTED "illegals" who don't have their papers and the feds tell them to pound salt?

Not to mention, we're talking about someone who might be here legally, running out without his "papers" to buy milk at night, getting pulled over and detained and held for who knows how long.

i'm sure that doesn't concern you, though.

In all due respect dear Jilian, you don't know jack about what concerns me.

Are you aware that the Arizona law is very carefully targeted at those who are clearly breaking the law, not just suspected of something? If you are illegal and break the law and do not have identification with you, then yes, you could be detained until your identify/status was checked out. I believe that has been the case in every state in the union for my entire life. All the Arizona law adds is that the police can inquire about your citizenship status and if you are detained, you might have to prove it. That is something ALL law abiding citizens can generally do.

 

[jillian]

At the very least, the AZ law would HIGHLIGHT and underscore what the Administration is refusing to do.

given that you actually understand the question. and given that you actually know how to read a statute, how would you square that with the FACT that this administration is doing a far better job at deporting criminals than the last?

also, i'm far more interested in the actual logistics of effectuating the laws than i am in having another dialogue about immigrants.

It appears (assuming the stats aren't cooked) that this Administration is doing a better job (at least in terms of numbers) of deporting aliens convicted of crimes than prior Administrations. I assume (without knowing) that a political decision was made to the effect that "if we are going to have any credibility on the efforts to pass a Dream Act and maybe pass an Amnesty and possibly loosen up Immigration quotas, etc., then we had BEST get on with the job of kicking out aliens who have committed crimes while here."

Immigration "Courts," are really not "courts as we think of Courts. Art III Courts. They are really just extensions of the Executive Branch. The point is, when the Executive Branch head (or designee) "speaks" the administrative judges do as directed.

Again, I suspect this is the reason the Obama Administration is doing better in that department.

But that does not address why they are so hostile to attending to illegal aliens who have not committed other crimes while here. BEING here without authorization is a crime enough.

I would suggest that JUST AS the Administration can "influence" the Immigration Courts to remove aliens convicted of crimes while her in a more efficient fashion (i.e., in greater numbers), SO TOO it should be JUST as able to effectuate kicking out those found to be here illegally -- regardless of whether they have committed any additional crimes while here.

It's a choice.

Well, yes...... and no.

There is a philosophical and moral reason to oppose this law. I set forth a bit in my post above about possible abuses. Also, having come from the background that I do, the thought of being required to carry "papers" for any american is abhorent and the images it conjures for me make my skin crawl. Remember, it isn't only illegals who will be stopped. Say you're a first generation, spanish speaking man. You were born here, you're a citizen. You don't believe you need to carry "papers" and, in fact, why would you? You don't. I don't. Why should that person? Because they look hispanic? Because they may have an accent? I have a moral problem with that. I do.

And if the moral issue doesn't rock you. The fiscal issue might... There are limited resources. They need to be spent as efficiently and as beneficially as possible. I suspect THAT is the reason that the administration is doing a better job on getting rid of illegals who have committed crimes... they are targeting their resources. I'd disagree that it has anything to do with the Dream Act. I think it's more that they want to show that they're not hostile to hispanics, only to criminals.... which makes sense to me, politically.

 

[jillian]

That's the question.

No. It really isn't. The QUESTION is what happens when AZ rounds up SUSPECTED "illegals" who don't have their papers and the feds tell them to pound salt?

Not to mention, we're talking about someone who might be here legally, running out without his "papers" to buy milk at night, getting pulled over and detained and held for who knows how long.

i'm sure that doesn't concern you, though.

In all due respect dear Jilian, you don't know jack about what concerns me.

Are you aware that the Arizona law is very carefully targeted at those who are clearly breaking the law, not just suspected of something? If you are illegal and break the law and do not have identification with you, then yes, you could be detained until your identify/status was checked out. I believe that has been the case in every state in the union for my entire life. All the Arizona law adds is that the police can inquire about your citizenship status and if you are detained, you might have to prove it. That is something ALL law abiding citizens can generally do.

I think what concerns you is pretty clear from your words. Feel free to prove me wrong, dear Foxy.

I'm very aware of the contents of the AZ statute and it isn't "targeted" to anything but people who look/sound like immigrants.

Perhaps you should have to prove your citizenship every time you go out to buy groceries. You might feel differently.

What's that you say? You don't look or sound hispanic so why should you?

I rest my case.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some of the judicial inquiry before the Supreme Court yesterday focused on the question of what happens once a State stops and detains someone under the "papers, please" provisions of the AZ law. Since, ostensibly, the law is supposed to effectuate Federal Law, what obligation does the Federal Government have to respond to the State and deal with the people in custody?

I don't think a State can compel the Feds to do anything.... which gives rise to teh question,

ok... you have the law... then what?

I truly don't know the answer to this. I don't think Justice Breyer had an answer for it either. But it's the right question to ask

I have a practical answer that you won't like. The simple fact that the federal government has a law against, as an example, bank robbery, does not mean states cannot also pass laws against bank robbery and require local police to enforce those laws. The simple fact is that federal law allows states to cooperate in enforcement of immigration law, and it actively encourages it in some cases. The feds were quite happy with Arpaio rounding up people, until they weren't. The Obama administration even encouraged it, and happily gathered up the illegal immigrants he caught, until Arizona decided to extend the way he does things to the entire state.

Maybe, just maybe, the feds should get their heads out of their asses, the absurdity of their position was made completely clear yesterday when they couldn't articulate a single argument that supported it.

 

[Liability]

given that you actually understand the question. and given that you actually know how to read a statute, how would you square that with the FACT that this administration is doing a far better job at deporting criminals than the last?

also, i'm far more interested in the actual logistics of effectuating the laws than i am in having another dialogue about immigrants.

It appears (assuming the stats aren't cooked) that this Administration is doing a better job (at least in terms of numbers) of deporting aliens convicted of crimes than prior Administrations. I assume (without knowing) that a political decision was made to the effect that "if we are going to have any credibility on the efforts to pass a Dream Act and maybe pass an Amnesty and possibly loosen up Immigration quotas, etc., then we had BEST get on with the job of kicking out aliens who have committed crimes while here."

Immigration "Courts," are really not "courts as we think of Courts. Art III Courts. They are really just extensions of the Executive Branch. The point is, when the Executive Branch head (or designee) "speaks" the administrative judges do as directed.

Again, I suspect this is the reason the Obama Administration is doing better in that department.

But that does not address why they are so hostile to attending to illegal aliens who have not committed other crimes while here. BEING here without authorization is a crime enough.

I would suggest that JUST AS the Administration can "influence" the Immigration Courts to remove aliens convicted of crimes while her in a more efficient fashion (i.e., in greater numbers), SO TOO it should be JUST as able to effectuate kicking out those found to be here illegally -- regardless of whether they have committed any additional crimes while here.

It's a choice.

Well, yes...... and no.

There is a philosophical and moral reason to oppose this law. I set forth a bit in my post above about possible abuses. Also, having come from the background that I do, the thought of being required to carry "papers" for any american is abhorent and the images it conjures for me make my skin crawl. Remember, it isn't only illegals who will be stopped. Say you're a first generation, spanish speaking man. You were born here, you're a citizen. You don't believe you need to carry "papers" and, in fact, why would you? You don't. I don't. Why should that person? Because they look hispanic? Because they may have an accent? I have a moral problem with that. I do.

And if the moral issue doesn't rock you. The fiscal issue might... There are limited resources. They need to be spent as efficiently and as beneficially as possible. I suspect THAT is the reason that the administration is doing a better job on getting rid of illegals who have committed crimes... they are targeting their resources. I'd disagree that it has anything to do with the Dream Act. I think it's more that they want to show that they're not hostile to hispanics, only to criminals.... which makes sense to me, politically.

If we wish to make sure that our national sovereign right to control our own borders and control who is and who is not authorized to BE here as our guests is preserved, then we have to concede some method for doing those things.

The emotionally-charged "papers please" argument is not going to change that.

The fiscal argument is even less persuasive. We do have fiscal problems. But only the most vapid of "limited government" proponents would argue that spending money on the LEGITIMATE purposes for the existence of a government is a violation of that precept.

Does it make SOME sense to place a higher value on targeting illegal aliens who have committed additional crimes while here? Yep.

Does that mean that we should not ALSO go about the business of removing other trespassers, too? Nope.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. It really isn't. The QUESTION is what happens when AZ rounds up SUSPECTED "illegals" who don't have their papers and the feds tell them to pound salt?

Not to mention, we're talking about someone who might be here legally, running out without his "papers" to buy milk at night, getting pulled over and detained and held for who knows how long.

i'm sure that doesn't concern you, though.

In all due respect dear Jilian, you don't know jack about what concerns me.

Are you aware that the Arizona law is very carefully targeted at those who are clearly breaking the law, not just suspected of something? If you are illegal and break the law and do not have identification with you, then yes, you could be detained until your identify/status was checked out. I believe that has been the case in every state in the union for my entire life. All the Arizona law adds is that the police can inquire about your citizenship status and if you are detained, you might have to prove it. That is something ALL law abiding citizens can generally do.

I think what concerns you is pretty clear from your words. Feel free to prove me wrong, dear Foxy.

I'm very aware of the contents of the AZ statute and it isn't "targeted" to anything but people who look/sound like immigrants.

Perhaps you should have to prove your citizenship every time you go out to buy groceries. You might feel differently.

What's that you say? You don't look or sound hispanic so why should you?

I rest my case.

I have a LOT of Hispanics in my family including naturalized citizens who were born in Mexico and others here on green cards. And for various reason I probably have a hell of a lot more experience with this than you do. So again, you don't know jack about what I care about.

What I have written here underscores a concern that people are requiring you, me, and other citizens to support them, provide services for them, and do it with impunity and people like you, apparently, don't want law enforcement to have any ability to do anything about it.

If you can show me a single case--just ONE incident--in which a person was apprehended and required to show ID, much less citizenship, for no other reason than he or she were going to buy groceries, then you might have a valid point. Otherwise, you would have more credibility as a debater if you would not mischaracterize and.or misrepresent what others say or mean.

 

[jillian]

It appears (assuming the stats aren't cooked) that this Administration is doing a better job (at least in terms of numbers) of deporting aliens convicted of crimes than prior Administrations. I assume (without knowing) that a political decision was made to the effect that "if we are going to have any credibility on the efforts to pass a Dream Act and maybe pass an Amnesty and possibly loosen up Immigration quotas, etc., then we had BEST get on with the job of kicking out aliens who have committed crimes while here."

Immigration "Courts," are really not "courts as we think of Courts. Art III Courts. They are really just extensions of the Executive Branch. The point is, when the Executive Branch head (or designee) "speaks" the administrative judges do as directed.

Again, I suspect this is the reason the Obama Administration is doing better in that department.

But that does not address why they are so hostile to attending to illegal aliens who have not committed other crimes while here. BEING here without authorization is a crime enough.

I would suggest that JUST AS the Administration can "influence" the Immigration Courts to remove aliens convicted of crimes while her in a more efficient fashion (i.e., in greater numbers), SO TOO it should be JUST as able to effectuate kicking out those found to be here illegally -- regardless of whether they have committed any additional crimes while here.

It's a choice.

Well, yes...... and no.

There is a philosophical and moral reason to oppose this law. I set forth a bit in my post above about possible abuses. Also, having come from the background that I do, the thought of being required to carry "papers" for any american is abhorent and the images it conjures for me make my skin crawl. Remember, it isn't only illegals who will be stopped. Say you're a first generation, spanish speaking man. You were born here, you're a citizen. You don't believe you need to carry "papers" and, in fact, why would you? You don't. I don't. Why should that person? Because they look hispanic? Because they may have an accent? I have a moral problem with that. I do.

And if the moral issue doesn't rock you. The fiscal issue might... There are limited resources. They need to be spent as efficiently and as beneficially as possible. I suspect THAT is the reason that the administration is doing a better job on getting rid of illegals who have committed crimes... they are targeting their resources. I'd disagree that it has anything to do with the Dream Act. I think it's more that they want to show that they're not hostile to hispanics, only to criminals.... which makes sense to me, politically.

If we wish to make sure that our national sovereign right to control our own borders and control who is and who is not authorized to BE here as our guests is preserved, then we have to concede some method for doing those things.

The emotionally-charged "papers please" argument is not going to change that.

The fiscal argument is even less persuasive. We do have fiscal problems. But only the most vapid of "limited government" proponents would argue that spending money on the LEGITIMATE purposes for the existence of a government is a violation of that precept.

Does it make SOME sense to place a higher value on targeting illegal aliens who have committed additional crimes while here? Yep.

Does that mean that we should not ALSO go about the business of removing other trespassers, too? Nope.

I don't believe we ever have to conced the right way of doing things for expediency. I think if we're no more moral than groups we despise, then there isn't anything to protect.

That said, and to get back to my initial area of interest... what happens to these people when the Fed tells them to get lost? You have 50 states. If each passes similar laws, and each is constantly whining to the feds... then what? What can a state compel the federal government to do? I don't think they can compel the Feds to do anything to enforce a State law. I'm pretty sure this particular court won't see it that way and there will be years of litigation on the subject.

As for money.... i think we have more important things to spend money on than removing peaceful people who haven't committed any crimes... like pay for infrastructure.... like pay for education... etc.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks for that, Valerie. I appreciate the synthesis of the argument.

My question though may be more practical than legalistic. I want to know, in terms of cost, in terms of response requirements, what the US Govt is supposed to do every time AZ picks up an allegegd illegal?

AZ can't have deporation hearings.

AZ can't deport.

So then what?

Don't you think it's the duty of the Federal authorities to enforce Federal law and thus to deport illegal alliens?

I don't think it's the place of any state to tell the Federal Government what to do.

The Constitution agrees.

I'll direct your attention to the supremacy clause.

The Constitution does not agree. All the Supremacy clause says is that, in a conflict between federal and state law, federal law made in pursuance of the Constitution wins. If the federal government passes a law that requires states to shoot people who engage in sodomy, and California chose to ignore that law because it argued that their constitution makes that illegal, California wins.

That is why you should never argue about law with someone who can think of absurdities, you will always loose.

As a lawyer, you should know better.

 

[Ernie S.]

According to FBI statistics, violent crimes reported in Arizona dropped by nearly 1,500 reported incidents between 2005 and 2008. Reported property crimes also fell, from about 287,000 reported incidents to 279,000 in the same period. These decreases are accentuated by the fact that Arizona's population grew by 600,000 between 2005 and 2008.

Crime stats test rationale behind Arizona immigration law - CNN

FBI Uniform Crime Reports and statistics provided by police agencies, in fact, show that the crime rates in Nogales, Douglas, Yuma and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade, even as drug-related violence has spiraled out of control on the other side of the international line. Statewide, rates of violent crime also are down.

Violence is not up on Arizona border despite Mexican drug war

The number of reported crimes in Phoenix and the overall crime rate continued to plummet in the first half of 2010 as the city reached 20-year lows in some categories, according to police statistics released this week.

Phoenix police also said that homicide detectives are clearing nearly 80 percent of the city's homicide investigations, the highest rate in 17 years.
Phoenix crime continues to drop in first half of 2010

The speculation we are being overrun with illegal alien crime the statistics don't match the claim. Further to understand the nature of illegal immigration here in Arizona one need understand the nature of the labor market here. First Arizona's Agriculture business has long needed and used illegal alien labor as well as the home building industry here, along with many other industries too numerous to name. While it might get one votes or gin up the base to say you don't like illegal immigration the fact remains that most of the low cost labor that Arizona has been used to for a long long time now has been immigrants coming across the border. As of 2010 there was an est 460000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and that number is dropping due to the current economic climate here.

As for SB1070 itself the law does not really matter much in terms of what it will or won't do because in the end it won't do much other than hurt the taxpayers here in the state of Arizona.

How many murders, rapes armed robberies and child molestations committed by illegals will it take before you would support doing something about it?

Point is this Law doesnt do anything about it! not one thing, and if we really wanted to do something about it we would put the same resrouces into the border we put into say building schools and roads into the Afghanistan rather than cutting border security or ignoring it like we have been for the last 25 years. To use crime statistics as means to justify passing a law which will not only cost Arizona a lot of money in terms of its economic health and solve nothing in terms of illegal alien activity when clearly crime has gone down across the board here in Arizona a bit off the mark. Personally I don't care if the crime is committed by an illegal alien, or citizen if we don't have the enforcement resources to take them off the streets because we are too busy fighting these needless laws in the courts we all suffer.

The desired result, provided ICE actually deports a few thousand illegals handed over to them under this law, would be for illegals to "self deport"
Granted, as many would likely just pick up and move to California or New Mexico.
Where they go is of little concern to Arizona, but a sudden influx of illegals into New Mexico, might just be the impetus needed for a similar law there.

 

[Ravi]

In all due respect dear Jilian, you don't know jack about what concerns me.

Are you aware that the Arizona law is very carefully targeted at those who are clearly breaking the law, not just suspected of something? If you are illegal and break the law and do not have identification with you, then yes, you could be detained until your identify/status was checked out. I believe that has been the case in every state in the union for my entire life. All the Arizona law adds is that the police can inquire about your citizenship status and if you are detained, you might have to prove it. That is something ALL law abiding citizens can generally do.

I think what concerns you is pretty clear from your words. Feel free to prove me wrong, dear Foxy.

I'm very aware of the contents of the AZ statute and it isn't "targeted" to anything but people who look/sound like immigrants.

Perhaps you should have to prove your citizenship every time you go out to buy groceries. You might feel differently.

What's that you say? You don't look or sound hispanic so why should you?

I rest my case.

I have a LOT of Hispanics in my family including naturalized citizens who were born in Mexico and others here on green cards. And for various reason I probably have a hell of a lot more experience with this than you do. So again, you don't know jack about what I care about.

What I have written here underscores a concern that people are requiring you, me, and other citizens to support them, provide services for them, and do it with impunity and people like you, apparently, don't want law enforcement to have any ability to do anything about it.

If you can show me a single case--just ONE incident--in which a person was apprehended and required to show ID, much less citizenship, for no other reason than he or she were going to buy groceries, then you might have a valid point. Otherwise, you would have more credibility as a debater if you would not mischaracterize and.or misrepresent what others say or mean.

News surfaced this week that police in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, recently pulled over a man because of a problem with a tag on his rental car. The man, who was German, didn’t have handy what the state considers proper identification, so he was arrested under a provision of Alabama’s immigration law, which is considered the strictest in the land.

Turns out, the man was Detlev Hager, a 46-year-old Mercedes-Benz executive traveling on business. About 10,000 people in the region rely on the company for their livelihood, according to Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, which happens to be the state’s largest exporter.

After exec's arrest, St. Louis paper slams Alabama on immigration, courts Mercedes – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From what I understand, the fed has been enforcing immigration laws all along. So I'm not really sure what AZ is trying to accomplish.

This could go two ways. One, the fed will start being at the beck and call of Arizona, channeling limited resources away from other states.

Or two, AZ will end up with quite a few Gitmos of its own and they will have to foot the bill for imprisoning those that have violated immigration policy.

A more serious approach would be to raise taxes to hire more ICE agents....

You think the feds have been enforcing immigration law all along? What gives you that impression? Has some news article made that argument at some point? Are you aware that that argument is so facially absurd that the administration didn't even try to argue it yesterday before the Supreme Court? In fact, they essentially argued that the fact that the federal government is not enforcing the law precludes the states from doing so, which is what set Sotomayor off.

Seriously, deal with the real world, not the imaginary one in your head.

 

[jillian]

Don't you think it's the duty of the Federal authorities to enforce Federal law and thus to deport illegal alliens?

I don't think it's the place of any state to tell the Federal Government what to do.

The Constitution agrees.

I'll direct your attention to the supremacy clause.

The Constitution does not agree. All the Supremacy clause says is that, in a conflict between federal and state law, federal law made in pursuance of the Constitution wins. If the federal government passes a law that requires states to shoot people who engage in sodomy, and California chose to ignore that law because it argued that their constitution makes that illegal, California wins.

That is why you should never argue about law with someone who can think of absurdities, you will always loose.

As a lawyer, you should know better.

Actually, you're totally wrong. A state cannot unilaterally decide a Federal law is unconstitutional. Only the Federal Courts can do that.

If you knew law, you might know better.

No offense, of course.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From what I understand, the fed has been enforcing immigration laws all along. So I'm not really sure what AZ is trying to accomplish.

This could go two ways. One, the fed will start being at the beck and call of Arizona, channeling limited resources away from other states.

Or two, AZ will end up with quite a few Gitmos of its own and they will have to foot the bill for imprisoning those that have violated immigration policy.

A more serious approach would be to raise taxes to hire more ICE agents....

They have been enforcing immigration laws all along. This is just a way to harass people who "look like immigrants" and that's really how the Court should have looked at it. But I don't expect much from this particular Court anymore.

I think the latter will be the result.

At which point there will be lawsuts against AZ for unlawfully detaining people.

Really? Your position is that the federal government has been enforcing immigration law all along? What fracking planet do you live on? Did you pay any attention to the arguments made in court yesterday?

 

[Ravi]

From what I understand, the fed has been enforcing immigration laws all along. So I'm not really sure what AZ is trying to accomplish.

This could go two ways. One, the fed will start being at the beck and call of Arizona, channeling limited resources away from other states.

Or two, AZ will end up with quite a few Gitmos of its own and they will have to foot the bill for imprisoning those that have violated immigration policy.

A more serious approach would be to raise taxes to hire more ICE agents....

You think the feds have been enforcing immigration law all along? What gives you that impression? Has some news article made that argument at some point? Are you aware that that argument is so facially absurd that the administration didn't even try to argue it yesterday before the Supreme Court? In fact, they essentially argued that the fact that the federal government is not enforcing the law precludes the states from doing so, which is what set Sotomayor off.

Seriously, deal with the real world, not the imaginary one in your head.

Why don't you do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth you opinionated buffoon?

 

[Ernie S.]

Peach , Maricopa County taxpayers have paid out over 41 Million dollars alone in lawsuits, and here is something else for you to consider..

Local police and courts around the state could face a torrent of new misdemeanor cases. If they do, it will push up county jail populations. The law carries up to a 20-day jail sentence and $100 fine.

County authorities estimate that 19 percent, or 24,700, of the 130,000 inmates booked into the jail annually are illegal immigrants, Rex said. The cost to house each inmate for 20 days is about $1,600.

If the number of illegal immigrants booked into the jail rises 10 percent and each inmate serves 20 days, it would cost taxpayers an extra $3.8 million annually

Arizona immigration law costs and savings

I would rather keep that money and use it to put more Officers on the Streets and hire more teachers and Firefighters and then have the Federal Govt. do it's job rather than passing a bill like SB-1070 which in the end does nothing but cost this state.

Well be careful what you wish for. The road to hell is paved with the notion that if the problem is difficult or politically incorrect to deal with, we just won't deal with it.

I never said the problem was an easy one to solve, however I have said that SB1070 solves nothing other than to cost money and the states overall economic health will suffer as a result. If those who wish to solve the immigration problem really wanted to solve it then they would advocate for putting at least as much money into the Border Patrol as we do say the Department of Energy which we do 4 times more by the way, or perhaps make the Border Patrol a seperate Agency with a much larger budget than we spend on congressional trips. We can also do such things as implement a decent guest worker program as some have mentioned, and streamline the immigration process so that those who want to come here legally . Just a few things we can do rather than the Arizona legislature spending its time and energy spending Arizona taxpayers dollars on something they know wont work.

I would bet that if Arizona makes it very unpleasant to live there as an illegal alien, 4 times as many people will pack up and leave of their own accord than the number turned over to ICE under this law.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think what concerns you is pretty clear from your words. Feel free to prove me wrong, dear Foxy.

I'm very aware of the contents of the AZ statute and it isn't "targeted" to anything but people who look/sound like immigrants.

Perhaps you should have to prove your citizenship every time you go out to buy groceries. You might feel differently.

What's that you say? You don't look or sound hispanic so why should you?

I rest my case.

I have a LOT of Hispanics in my family including naturalized citizens who were born in Mexico and others here on green cards. And for various reason I probably have a hell of a lot more experience with this than you do. So again, you don't know jack about what I care about.

What I have written here underscores a concern that people are requiring you, me, and other citizens to support them, provide services for them, and do it with impunity and people like you, apparently, don't want law enforcement to have any ability to do anything about it.

If you can show me a single case--just ONE incident--in which a person was apprehended and required to show ID, much less citizenship, for no other reason than he or she were going to buy groceries, then you might have a valid point. Otherwise, you would have more credibility as a debater if you would not mischaracterize and.or misrepresent what others say or mean.

News surfaced this week that police in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, recently pulled over a man because of a problem with a tag on his rental car. The man, who was German, didn’t have handy what the state considers proper identification, so he was arrested under a provision of Alabama’s immigration law, which is considered the strictest in the land.

Turns out, the man was Detlev Hager, a 46-year-old Mercedes-Benz executive traveling on business. About 10,000 people in the region rely on the company for their livelihood, according to Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, which happens to be the state’s largest exporter.

After exec's arrest, St. Louis paper slams Alabama on immigration, courts Mercedes – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

As a guest of the USA and subject to U.S. law, the gentleman was required to have a valid passport as well as any required Visa on his person at all times. Why didn't he? If he did not, the police were perfectly within their right to detain him. And if he was German, the chances are he was also lily white. Should he have been left alone because of that?

 

[Ravi]

I have a LOT of Hispanics in my family including naturalized citizens who were born in Mexico and others here on green cards. And for various reason I probably have a hell of a lot more experience with this than you do. So again, you don't know jack about what I care about.

What I have written here underscores a concern that people are requiring you, me, and other citizens to support them, provide services for them, and do it with impunity and people like you, apparently, don't want law enforcement to have any ability to do anything about it.

If you can show me a single case--just ONE incident--in which a person was apprehended and required to show ID, much less citizenship, for no other reason than he or she were going to buy groceries, then you might have a valid point. Otherwise, you would have more credibility as a debater if you would not mischaracterize and.or misrepresent what others say or mean.

News surfaced this week that police in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, recently pulled over a man because of a problem with a tag on his rental car. The man, who was German, didn’t have handy what the state considers proper identification, so he was arrested under a provision of Alabama’s immigration law, which is considered the strictest in the land.

Turns out, the man was Detlev Hager, a 46-year-old Mercedes-Benz executive traveling on business. About 10,000 people in the region rely on the company for their livelihood, according to Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, which happens to be the state’s largest exporter.

After exec's arrest, St. Louis paper slams Alabama on immigration, courts Mercedes – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

As a guest of the USA and subject to U.S. law, the gentleman was required to have a valid passport as well as any required Visa on his person at all times. Why didn't he? If he did not, the police were perfectly within their right to detain him. And if he was German, the chances are he was also lily white. Should he have been left alone because of that?

Thank you for moving the goalpost as I expected.