As someone with a media background, I have to say the (I believe it was MSNBC) headline that said Law Makes it a crime to be Illegal Immigrant may be one of my all-time favorite examples of media idiocy.

And that's saying something.

Writerbuckeye wrote: As someone with a media background, I have to say the (I believe it was MSNBC) headline that said Law Makes it a crime to be Illegal Immigrant may be one of my all-time favorite examples of media idiocy.

And that's saying something.

The reason for the headline is because before this law it was never "illegal" to be here "illegally", it was a civil matter. As far is I know it still is, unless you're in Arizona.

Personal attacks and name calling removed- LJ

girevik wrote:The reason for the headline is because before this law it was never "illegal" to be here "illegally", it was a civil matter. As far is I know it still is, unless you're in Arizona.

It's never a very good idea to open your mouth and start talking about how stupid something is if you have no idea what you're talking about. In the end you provided us with a shining example of media idiocy, except it wasn't the one you thought you were providing.

Sooooooo.....because I'm a dumb-ass sexist, homophobic, racist conservative...enlighten me. Illegal immigration (IE: Entering into the United States illegally) is NOT illegal? It's a "civil matter"?

What -then - is the point of the Border Patrol? Why bother having ports of entry? What's the point of sovereign borders? Why not declare the United States an open country and allow anyone to enter at their will, live & work here without documentation, vote, and - of course - take full advantage of our generous health care & welfare systems? What's the documentation accomplish if it's not a legal matter?

Let's solve the problem by declaring anyone who crosses the border an automatic citizen. Just issue them a SSN, voter registration card, and drivers license and shazzam....they're legal.

After all it's just a civil matter.

Civil matter? WTF???

There's this new thing called google:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4RNWO_enUS315US315&q=illegal+immigration+civil+matter

Pick a link and start reading, or just continue to not let facts get in the way of your narrow world view and opinions.

^^^Thanks for enlightening me on Google. I am now a firm backer of the fact that entering the United States illegally is not illegal. Civilly speaking.

I figured you already knew. Looking around the forum I see a lot of law experts, it's amazing how little they actually know about the law, being experts in it and all that.....

^^^Well I suppose if we don't have law degrees we should just keep our mouths shut. That's what I love about free speech in the United Socialist States of Amerika.

Personal attacks and name calling removed- LJ

Not at all. I'm glad you pointed out that entering this country illegally is not illegal. Socialists always have an all-inclusive way of looking at the world....unless, of course, you happen to have conservative ideals.

"Illegal" immigration was also a federal civil matter under flaming socialist radicals like Bush 2, Bush 1, Reagan, and Nixon.

^^^And it's more acute under flaming communists like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton & Barrack Hussein Obama...si?

Yeah.

Not unlike taxes and government spending, it's only relevant now that a you-know-what is in the white house. LOL

Whatever.

The fact is that the federal government cannot take care of the problems that Arizona has been dealing with. So, Arizona is finally taking a stand. They have the power to do so.

The race baiting adds nothing to the discussion.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Whatever.

The fact is that the federal government cannot take care of the problems that Arizona has been dealing with. So, Arizona is finally taking a stand. They have the power to do so.

The race baiting adds nothing to the discussion.

Thank you.

$100.00 says this law gets shot down by the supreme court on the grounds that it's unconstitutional.

Anyone want to bet and find out who is on the side of the racists?

girevik wrote: $100.00 says this law gets shot down by the supreme court on the grounds that it's unconstitutional.

Anyone want to bet and find out who is on the side of the racists?

I'm sure SCOTUS will fall back on the all-encompassing "commerce clause" to usurp states-rights again so this wouldn't be a fair bet....race notwithstanding. It's a shame too since Arizona is simply stepping up to the plate where the cowards in DC refuse to tread.

Prescott wrote:

It depends on the phrase "lawful contact". What is the definition of lawful contact? I would define "lawful contact" observing an individual violating state law. If it is contact based on violation of any Arizona state law, I would find no problem with this law. Just like someone stopped for speeding could be reasonably charged with a secondary offense of DUI, drug possession or have a warrant for arrest.

What is the problem if this is the law??? Cops ask for passenger ID all of the time during traffic stops.

And the passenger only has to provide their name. I thought we had this discussion pages ago? The Hiibel case has stated during a stop for probable cause, all someone has to provide is a name. Nothing more, they do not have to provide any form of physical ID. This law is in violation of that supreme court ruling. A cop can ask you to do jumping jacks, but that doesn't mean you legally have to do it, nor does it mean that they can legally MAKE you do it.

believer wrote:

girevik wrote: $100.00 says this law gets shot down by the supreme court on the grounds that it's unconstitutional.

Anyone want to bet and find out who is on the side of the racists?

I'm sure SCOTUS will fall back on the "commerce clause" to usurp states-rights again so this wouldn't be a fair bet....race notwithstanding.

If it went to the supreme court it would probably get shot down because it violates a previous ruling they had in the Hiibel case. The Supreme Court ruled that all you have to provide as ID is your name and the cops cannot require anything more. The dissenting opinions weren't even that you should have to show your ID, they were that they felt that being required to provide your name is a slippery slope.

LJ wrote:If it went to the supreme court it would probably get shot down because it violates a previous ruling they had in the Hiibel case. The Supreme Court ruled that all you have to provide as ID is your name and the cops cannot require anything more. The dissenting opinions weren't even that you should have to show your ID, they were that they felt that being required to provide your name is a slippery slope.

Perhaps but once again the Feds are treading on what should be a local matter in this particular case.

Now back to protecting national borders...THAT'S where the Feds SHOULD step-up to the plate and won't. Then states like Arizona attempt to correct the problem locally and get shot down by the Feds who won't do anything about the issue. Amazing.

believer wrote:

LJ wrote:If it went to the supreme court it would probably get shot down because it violates a previous ruling they had in the Hiibel case. The Supreme Court ruled that all you have to provide as ID is your name and the cops cannot require anything more. The dissenting opinions weren't even that you should have to show your ID, they were that they felt that being required to provide your name is a slippery slope.

Perhaps but once again the Feds are treading on what should be a local matter in this particular case.

Now back to protecting national borders...THAT'S where the Feds SHOULD step-up to the plate and won't. Then states like Arizona attempt to correct the problem locally and get shot down by the Feds who won't do anything about the issue. Amazing.

No, it would not have anything to do with treading on a local matter. Your 5th amendment rights are national and this law is what is doing the treading. The supreme court rules that being required to give your name is not a violation, but anything further is in essence.

I do agree with your 2nd point.

LJ wrote:No, it would not have anything to do with treading on a local matter. Your 5th amendment rights are national and this law is what is doing the treading. The supreme court rules that being required to give your name is not a violation, but anything further is in essence.

I grudgingly understand what you're saying, but at what point do we agree that the Feds abuse these issues at the detriment of local law enforcement?

I served on a Federal Grand Jury for a year which quite frankly was a major pain in the ass. Nearly every one of the cases should have been a local law enforcement issue IMHO.

When I'd ask the federal attorney why the Feds were even interested in what appeared to be a local issue, they'd always grin and say, "interstate commerce clause" and then expect us to rubber stamp the case for prosecution. They even got indignant when we'd question some of the "evidence."

I know a lot of the folks who served on that same jury had major issues with that.

believer wrote:

LJ wrote:No, it would not have anything to do with treading on a local matter. Your 5th amendment rights are national and this law is what is doing the treading. The supreme court rules that being required to give your name is not a violation, but anything further is in essence.

I grudgingly understand what you're saying, but at what point do we agree that the Feds abuse these issues at the detriment of local law enforcement?

I served on a Federal Grand Jury for a year which quite frankly was a major pain in the ass. Nearly every one of the cases should have been a local law enforcement issue IMHO. When I'd ask the federal attorney why the Feds were even interested in what appeared to be a local issue, they'd always grin and say, "interstate commerce clause" and then expect us to rubber stamp the case for prosecution. They even got indignant when we'd question some of the "evidence."

I know a lot of the folks who served on that same jury had major issues with that.

Well, the Hiibel ruling was in a string of rulings about the 4th and 5th amendments starting with the Terry case which allowed "Stop and identify" in the first place. I agree on the Supreme Court seeing those. It gets to that level when the states refuse to follow federal law, which would be the case if this went to the US Supreme because they would be refusing to follow the Hiibel ruling.

Personally, it is my belief that people who are up in arms about this law on illegal immigration have no idea what they're talking about. UNLESS they have actually lived/spent enough time in one of the states that have huge problems with this issue.

Ohio has illegal immigrants, sure. But the comparative differences between Ohio and states like Arizona, Texas, California, ect are so vast that it is literally laughable.

Those states mentioned above have a Constitutional right to address these issues. The federal government also has a Constitutional right to address them also, but look where it's at.

What do you expect those border states (namely Arizona, who is the topic of discussion) to do in order to address the problem? This isn't a problem that complacency will fix. There is absolutely no way to handle this without somebody(s) being sent packing. Period.
How can the fix be improved? I think that is the better question, and so far, I haven't read anything on this topic that offers a profound betterment.

How can any sort of "profiling" be avoided altogether?
Can any sort of regulation be strictly politically correct?
Is there actually a way to address this problem where all political ideologies are gratified?
Does it matter if they are or not? ^^^
Since the laws of immigration were formed, what does America owe to the people who sneak into this country in front of countless others who are trying to become Americans according the current law?
How easy would it be if it were just about race?
How easy would it be if it were just about kindness?
What price is there to pay for getting rid of millions of people that allow for cheap labor? (keeping prices in certain areas down)

If somebody has the answers for all those questions and more, I'd love to hear them! I'm sure Arizona would also!

CenterBHSFan wrote: Personally, it is my belief that people who are up in arms about this law on illegal immigration have no idea what they're talking about. UNLESS they have actually lived/spent enough time in one of the states that have huge problems with this issue.

Ohio has illegal immigrants, sure. But the comparative differences between Ohio and states like Arizona, Texas, California, ect are so vast that it is literally laughable.

Those states mentioned above have a Constitutional right to address these issues. The federal government also has a Constitutional right to address them also, but look where it's at.

What do you expect those border states (namely Arizona, who is the topic of discussion) to do in order to address the problem? This isn't a problem that complacency will fix. There is absolutely no way to handle this without somebody(s) being sent packing. Period.
How can the fix be improved? I think that is the better question, and so far, I haven't read anything on this topic that offers a profound betterment.

How can any sort of "profiling" be avoided altogether?
Can any sort of regulation be strictly politically correct?
Is there actually a way to address this problem where all political ideologies are gratified?
Does it matter if they are or not? ^^^
Since the laws of immigration were formed, what does America owe to the people who sneak into this country in front of countless others who are trying to become Americans according the current law?
How easy would it be if it were just about race?
How easy would it be if it were just about kindness?
What price is there to pay for getting rid of millions of people that allow for cheap labor? (keeping prices in certain areas down)

If somebody has the answers for all those questions and more, I'd love to hear them! I'm sure Arizona would also!

All valid points.

It wouldn't be cheap labor if the undocumented workers were indeed documented and paid at prevailing minimum wage rates hence the dilemma for the Repubs. And it wouldn't be about race if it weren't for the fact that these illegal undocumented workers just happen to be from Mexico as opposed to - say - Canada hence the dumb-ass race card dilemma for the Dems.

The answer in my mind is to admit we need cheap labor for jobs Americans sucking off our generous welfare tit refuse to do. Just make it legal to pay less than minimum wage (minus a fair tax deduction) for documented wage earners who are not American citizens and then send the documented workers back to their country of origin (Mexico, Canada, East Bumfuck Egypt...I don't care) after living and working here for no longer than - say - two years.

Then if any of those DOCUMENTED workers who enter here legally want eventual American citizenship so they can elect Democrats to Congress then they should be required to serve this country in the military, AmeriCorps, whatever for at least a year and we'll grant them full citizenship rights including the right to pay taxes and face a fine for not purchasing health care insurance in 2014.

believer wrote: we'll grant them full citizenship rights including the right to pay taxes and face a fine for not purchasing health care insurance in 2014.

That right there will cure over 50% of the illegal immigration problem in one stroke of the pen!