Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']this website is blocked at my work, can you post a story to a real news website[/QUOTE]
That's asking for trouble, saying Guanabee isn't a "real news website." :applause:

Anyway,

An anonymously created list of 1300 people accused of being illegal aliens arrived by U.S. mail Monday at Utah media outlets, law enforcement agencies, and the state House and Senate. The list, comprised almost solely of Hispanic names, contained Social Security numbers, birth dates and contact information for each person along with their workplaces, their children's names and even the due dates of pregnant women. The list was accompanied by an unsigned letter, dated April 4, from a group calling itself "Concerned Citizens Of The United States". It stated tha the group “strongly believe” people on the list are undocumented immigrants who should be deported. The names were compiled, it said, by observing the individuals. “We then spend the time and effort needed to gather information along with legal Mexican nationals who infiltrate their social networks and help us obtain the necessary information we need to add them to our list,” the letter explains. "DO YOUR JOB AND STOP MAKING EXCUSES! WE DEMAND ACTION."
Most of the names reveal people of Hispanic or Latino descent and, though the accuracy of the list is highly questionable–one lady contacted by local TV station KSL said she was nationalized 15 years ago– the names are out there for every crazy racist to see.

[video]

 The list has shocked Utah prompting governor Gary Herbert to go on the hunt for any state employees who may have helped disseminate private state information. If evidence of such activity is found, he says he will turn the case over to the Attorney General's office for prosecution. The dissemination of private records from the state is a misdemeanor in Utah.
Even State Representative Steven Sandstrom, R-Orem, who is writing Utah's own version of Arizona SB 1070, says the approach is misguided and unlawful ."I think it's a wrong approach," Sandstrom told the Salt Lake Tribune. "It sends the wrong message, and it doesn't follow the rule of law with the bill that I'm writing." Ron Mortensen, of the Utah Coalition On Illegal Immigration, a group that has historically been very vocal against illegal immigrants, also denied any involvement in creating the list, calling it, "an inappropriate action. It's never right to release government documents, if that's what this is."
With the evidence we have:

  • Intimate details of the accused like due dates for pregnant women
  • Home addresses, places of employment
  • Children's names
It would be logical to assume the person dissmenating this information had access to medical files. It would also make sense to assume that whoever did this knew they were breaking the law hence their reliance on U.S. mail rather than any form of electronic media which could have been easily traced. This person either has the ability to hack computer records, or had an inside into the files of Utah's public medical facilities. Another theory is that the person had access to Department of Workforce Services, which handles eligibility and distribution for things like food stamps and Medicaid. Either way, if they are an employee with the state, they are probably in a low ranking position because no one high up would risk their job for something so clearly doomed to fail.


Source: Salt Lake Tribune, KSL
 
[quote name='Strell']I forgot where I said "let's change the whole topic." It was probably around the time you started thinking I was posting that directly at you.

But hey - with how bad your analogies are, I'm surprised you were able to differentiate two totally different states. That's impressive, Mr. Magoo.

Besides, it has been proclaimed - on a number of occasions - in this very thread that simply by being an illegal, they are somehow godless heathen terrorists shitbags hellbent on ruining our perfect Christian country. So what I bring to the table is entirely related, and far more juicy than whatever bullshit you're shopping around.[/QUOTE]

Haha, sometimes you hurt yourself with your mindless attacks. We were discussing the federal immigration law, and you come out with a story about someone leaking information about illegal immigrants, and then Unclebob talks about information security and you go:

you changed the topic! you topic changer! stop changing the topic! man what a jerk of a topic changer!
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Well, we got an answer.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/justice-sanctuary-cities-are-no-arizona/

Apparently, Arizona's law is bad because letting state officials enforce the Federal law interferes with the Federal Enforcement (lol) of the law. But, Sanctuary Cities are okay because their refusal to cooperate with Federal LEO's does not interfere with Federal Enforcement of the law.[/QUOTE]
I would have never thought the Democrats and Obama would actually support nullification.
 
You know, I'm almost starting to think that amnesty might not be that bad of an idea. If they already "took our yawbs", why the hell not make them start paying taxes on the less than minimum wage that most make? Granted, the $500 or so that they would put in is nothing, but if this 20 million illegals number as any veracity, then that's ten billion that can go to fund DC excess to a certain degree...
 
[quote name='nasum']You know, I'm almost starting to think that amnesty might not be that bad of an idea. If they already "took our yawbs", why the hell not make them start paying taxes on the less than minimum wage that most make? Granted, the $500 or so that they would put in is nothing, but if this 20 million illegals number as any veracity, then that's ten billion that can go to fund DC excess to a certain degree...[/QUOTE]

Because the steps havent been taken to ensure this doesnt happen again in the next 10 years. We could give them all amnesty sure, but once their friends and family hear about it illegal immigration will flourish again. The federal government needs to stop being so indecisive about illegals and either kick them out and secure the border, or give them amnesty and secure the border. See the common word there? we need to secure the border.
 
Just saw that. I think this will drag on for years. The saddest part about that is that the millions that will be spent on the legal fight could have been used for real border fixing.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Just saw that. I think this will drag on for years. The saddest part about that is that the millions that will be spent on the legal fight could have been used for real border fixing.[/QUOTE]

And the state law is an exact match of the federal law, right?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Just saw that. I think this will drag on for years. The saddest part about that is that the millions that will be spent on the legal fight could have been used for real border fixing.[/QUOTE]

Or research on policies that are better thought out than "hey, darkie, c'mere!"
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']And the state law is an exact match of the federal law, right?[/QUOTE]
As far as I know, yes. The issue the fed has brought to court is that it does their job for them and they don't like that.

[quote name='mykevermin']Or research on policies that are better thought out than "hey, darkie, c'mere!"[/QUOTE]

If you'd read the law, you'd know it specifically prohibits that.

Unless, you feel, we should apply "what if people are assholes though?" line of logic to every line every bill ever passed, we'd have no laws now would we?

Fear of the abuse of a law is a poor reason to not have law.
 
Fox News rules

fn1.jpg


fn2yv.jpg
 
Fed'l Gov't: It's the fed'l gov't's job to address immigration.

Arizona: We have a right to protect our citizens.

Wow, that's some legal argument guys.

Note that these summaries are the ones I hear the most about each side of the lawsuit.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Fed'l Gov't: It's the fed'l gov't's job to address immigration.

Arizona: We have a right to protect our citizens.

Wow, that's some legal argument guys.

Note that these summaries are the ones I hear the most about each side of the lawsuit.[/QUOTE]
And how do sanctuary cities have a legal argument for disregarding federal law?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']And how do sanctuary cities have a legal argument for disregarding federal law?[/QUOTE]

There isn't one, but is the federal government providing money to enforce it?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']And how do sanctuary cities have a legal argument for disregarding federal law?[/QUOTE]

Tell me.

[quote name='KingBroly'] We all know there's no use bitching about it until the Supreme Court rules on it.[/QUOTE]

Probably right.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']There isn't one, but is the federal government providing money to enforce it?[/QUOTE]
No they aren't, but I do believe nullification of federal law is something that is frowned upon, and that it usually ends up with federal troops in the area that tries it. I almost wonder why that isn't happening now.
[quote name='IRHari']Tell me.
[/QUOTE]
There isn't.

I find it rather hypocritical that it seems to be:
"They're setting up check points in Arizona to get those poor brown people, that's horrible and racist!"
and yet
http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/dui-en.html
The CHP maintains these checkpoints (sobriety check points) to reduce the number of drunk drivers on our highways and diminish the amount of pain, suffering and death that result from drunk driving.
Click to expand...
"That's all fine and dandy."
 
One of the dumbass republican candidates running for governor here wants to make it law that everyone (yeah, right) stopped by the police will have to prove citizenship.

So look out you whiter than white folks, you better have proof you're a citizen.
 
[quote name='Clak']One of the dumbass republican candidates running for governor here wants to make it law that everyone (yeah, right) stopped by the police will have to prove citizenship.

So look out you whiter than white folks, you better have proof you're a citizen.[/QUOTE]
See, now that's patently unconstitutional. But so is having warrantless checkpoints. And yet no one seems to be complaining about that phenomena.
 
I guess I dont understand this whole thing. Someone is trying to keep ILLEGAL immigrants out, call me crazy but isnt illegal here the key word? If they want the benefits of the country then why dont they become legal?

Personally they should check for citizenship when they do stops and all that other stuff.

Im all for people coming to america for a better life and so on, but fucking do it the right way. Dont cross the border and pop out a kid so you can become a 2nd hand citizen. Learn how to speak english, pay your taxes, learn how america works and I wont care.

Were gonna pussify ourselves into obsoletion with all this kind of crap, I dont mean just the immigration thing but I mean all this politically correct, feel good, everyone needs to poke their nose into everyones else business and trying to make everyone happy horseshit. Thank god we didnt have people like this back when our country was new, we would have all died from starvation because we would have been to busy bitching about stupid and being to much of a united states of pansies to do anything.

Yeah sometimes choices like this arent nice ones to make but sometimes you have to do things for the greater good. And Im sorry but all the probablly millions of illegal aliens in this country throw the whole system out of whack. They run up free healthcare which makes it harder on us citizens. For instance I worked security at a shipping center and we had alot of mexicans there, couple there I talked to dont bother paying for insurance through the company because they got everything free, were telling me they all did that there. And most of them spend a little money but send most of it back home so its not even like its going back into our system. And yes they take jobs, I know it sounds stupid but they do take alot of jobs because they work for nothing because the money when taken back home is worth alot more, I dont blame compnies for hiring them as they save alot of money because americans need more money because the cost of living here is 4 times that of mexico. And then the country has anti immigration stuff that is only for show and nothing is actually done about it, so all we do is waste tax payer money. Illegal aliens is a small problem but its still a problem and when you have to many little problems going on then its hard to get out from under them all unless you just take charge and handle it one way or another.



[quote name='Clak']One of the dumbass republican candidates running for governor here wants to make it law that everyone (yeah, right) stopped by the police will have to prove citizenship.

So look out you whiter than white folks, you better have proof you're a citizen.[/QUOTE]

Yeah they already check, its a drivers license and if you dont have one a public id can be obtained quite easily. There isnt a excuse for not being able to check for citizenship. I know the public id thing isnt technically anything, but with a minor change to the requirements of having one it wouldnt be a problem and they only cost a couple dollars.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']We all know there's no use bitching about it until the Supreme Court rules on it.[/QUOTE]

I understand that there needs to be due process and all that.

But sometimes, I almost wish there was a way to just move a case directly to the Supreme Court.

It doesn't much matter how any of this plays out in any of the lower courts. It's all going to end up there. Meanwhile, both Arizona state and the Federal government will be burning away wheel barrels of taxpayer dollars...

I think Arizona should take the Obama method of handling court decisions. If the court strikes you down, just make the same law over again. If they strike you down a second time, make the law again. Damn courts shouldn't stop our elected officials from doing what they decide is best for us.
 
[quote name='gargus']I guess I dont understand this whole thing. Someone is trying to keep ILLEGAL immigrants out, call me crazy but isnt illegal here the key word? If they want the benefits of the country then why dont they become legal?[/QUOTE]

Because it is incredibly difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to become a legal US citizen. And in a lot of cases, it is flat-out impossible.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/24/new-at-reason-mike-flynn-shikh
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']Because it is incredibly difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to become a legal US citizen. And in a lot of cases, it is flat-out impossible.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/24/new-at-reason-mike-flynn-shikh[/QUOTE]

flat out impossible and yet millions do it every year, and we still bring in more legal immigrants than any other country. Are you arguing for an open border? Or are you arguing for an increase in legal immigration? The latter would most likely still end up denying quite a few people, and we would still have illegal immigration. So it would be nice for some people, but it isn't a solution to the illegal immigration problem.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I think of the Lily Ledbetter case Bob, what else you got?[/QUOTE]

Lilly Ledbetter?
Not sure I get the reference you're making...
 
[quote name='Knoell']flat out impossible and yet millions do it every year, and we still bring in more legal immigrants than any other country. Are you arguing for an open border? Or are you arguing for an increase in legal immigration? The latter would most likely still end up denying quite a few people, and we would still have illegal immigration. So it would be nice for some people, but it isn't a solution to the illegal immigration problem.[/QUOTE]

Regardless of whether or not you think there's a practical way to make it easier for them to come legally, the reason why they come illegally is because they can't easily come legally.

So "why don't they just come legally?!!?!" is a stupid question. They would if it was really that easy, obviously. Not that you shouldn't basically just ignore everything that gargus says anyway, and anyone who ever uses the word "pussify."
 
[quote name='Knoell']flat out impossible and yet millions do it every year, and we still bring in more legal immigrants than any other country. Are you arguing for an open border? Or are you arguing for an increase in legal immigration? The latter would most likely still end up denying quite a few people, and we would still have illegal immigration. So it would be nice for some people, but it isn't a solution to the illegal immigration problem.[/QUOTE]

The border can't be secured for free. Nobody who wants to secure the border wants to pay for it.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']And how do sanctuary cities have a legal argument for disregarding federal law?[/QUOTE]
State and local enforcement is not required to ENFORCE federal law. It's one of those areas that is pretty fluid, but there is some precedent for both sides.
Even though Congress has never authorized state police officers to make arrest for federal offenses without an arrest warrant, such arrests occur routinely; and the Supreme Court has recognized that state law controls the validity of such an arrest. As the Court concluded in 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). The Court’s conclusion presupposes that state officers possess the inherent authority to make warrantless arrests for federal offenses. The same assumption guided the Court in 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. Id.
Click to expand...
So really the argument of whether entities other than federal can arrest on suspicion of violating federal law is pretty settled. What is also pretty settled though is that state and local governments are sovereign. Therefore, they also have the ability to choose not to.

So yea. States and cities can pick and choose, though most federal crimes have a state equivalent (like bank robbery, etc.) so the state will go after them. Immigration is in that gray area because it is specifically reserved for the feds. Which is why many elements of the Arizona law are unconstitutional and will be repealed (unless the Supremes want to completely disregard 200 years of case law that say so).

What's fun is that now conservatives are 100% hoping for judicial activism on their behalf. Not that they ever particularly gave a shit about philosophical consistency, but one hopes that maybe another one or two decent American conservative souls will see this and realize that they're full of shit and adjust accordingly.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Regardless of whether or not you think there's a practical way to make it easier for them to come legally, the reason why they come illegally is because they can't easily come legally.

So "why don't they just come legally?!!?!" is a stupid question. They would if it was really that easy, obviously. Not that you shouldn't basically just ignore everything that gargus says anyway, and anyone who ever uses the word "pussify."[/QUOTE]

So you are arguing for no limit for legal immigration? If someone wants to come in let em in? It is not about the "why don't they come legally" question.

Obviously theres waits, and you may never get in, but that does not mean we should look the other way to people who do come in illegally. Either let everyone in, or raise the limits if it is unfair, why should the people on those waiting lists not be able to get in, while people who break the law are perfectly fine? If you raise the limits, people will still be denied entry, and come illegally so what happens then? Why not secure the border, give amnesty to most illegals, and then after determining our population status and its effects, raise or lower the legal immigration amounts.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The border can't be secured for free. Nobody who wants to secure the border wants to pay for it.[/QUOTE]

Why not put the military to work on the borders? It would be excellent training, and they can handle it.

Edit: I better say I realize the military still costs money, but I am sure we can figure out something, if we can figure out how to spend 4 trillion dollars in 2 years.
 
As someone who is in the middle of dealing with legal immigration on a personal level, I can attest that the entire system needs to be overhauled - it's beyond ridiculous. Much of the process is downright unethical and tyranical.

But you stop the leak in the boat before you build another boat. It all needs an overhaul; it needs to be scraped and rebuilt, but it's retarded to think we need to have a fix-all for every aspect of the immigration problem before we do anything - which is the Democrats standpoint.
 
[quote name='gargus']I guess I dont understand this whole thing. Someone is trying to keep ILLEGAL immigrants out, call me crazy but isnt illegal here the key word? If they want the benefits of the country then why dont they become legal?

Personally they should check for citizenship when they do stops and all that other stuff.

Im all for people coming to america for a better life and so on, but fucking do it the right way. Dont cross the border and pop out a kid so you can become a 2nd hand citizen. Learn how to speak english, pay your taxes, learn how america works and I wont care.

Were gonna pussify ourselves into obsoletion with all this kind of crap, I dont mean just the immigration thing but I mean all this politically correct, feel good, everyone needs to poke their nose into everyones else business and trying to make everyone happy horseshit. Thank god we didnt have people like this back when our country was new, we would have all died from starvation because we would have been to busy bitching about stupid and being to much of a united states of pansies to do anything.

Yeah sometimes choices like this arent nice ones to make but sometimes you have to do things for the greater good. And Im sorry but all the probablly millions of illegal aliens in this country throw the whole system out of whack. They run up free healthcare which makes it harder on us citizens. For instance I worked security at a shipping center and we had alot of mexicans there, couple there I talked to dont bother paying for insurance through the company because they got everything free, were telling me they all did that there. And most of them spend a little money but send most of it back home so its not even like its going back into our system. And yes they take jobs, I know it sounds stupid but they do take alot of jobs because they work for nothing because the money when taken back home is worth alot more, I dont blame compnies for hiring them as they save alot of money because americans need more money because the cost of living here is 4 times that of mexico. And then the country has anti immigration stuff that is only for show and nothing is actually done about it, so all we do is waste tax payer money. Illegal aliens is a small problem but its still a problem and when you have to many little problems going on then its hard to get out from under them all unless you just take charge and handle it one way or another.





Yeah they already check, its a drivers license and if you dont have one a public id can be obtained quite easily. There isnt a excuse for not being able to check for citizenship. I know the public id thing isnt technically anything, but with a minor change to the requirements of having one it wouldnt be a problem and they only cost a couple dollars.[/QUOTE]
Uh, you did read where i said everyone STOPPED, right? I never said stopped while driving only. You realize that this is akin to asking for your papers, right? Does that sound familiar to you at all?
 
[quote name='Clak']Uh, you did read where i said everyone STOPPED, right? I never said stopped while driving only. You realize that this is akin to asking for your papers, right? Does that sound familiar to you at all?[/QUOTE]

When involved with criminal activity, police can ask you for identification can't they? What's the difference? All you guys can come up with is that police might abuse it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']it's retarded to think we need to have a fix-all for every aspect of the immigration problem before we do anything - which is the Democrats standpoint.[/QUOTE]

1) Classy use of the word 'retarded.' Real classy.

2) Cool
starman.jpg
Bro.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Why not put the military to work on the borders? It would be excellent training, and they can handle it.

Edit: I better say I realize the military still costs money, but I am sure we can figure out something, if we can figure out how to spend 4 trillion dollars in 2 years.[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't that be a violation of Posse Comitatus?

Then again, the governor could declare the immigration problem a public emergency.
 
[quote name='Knoell']When involved with criminal activity, police can ask you for identification can't they? What's the difference? All you guys can come up with is that police might abuse it.[/QUOTE]
That's ID so they know who the fuck you are, not if you're legal. I can't believe you're fine with having your citizenship questioned whenever you're stopped by police.
 
At the very least, the government should give every American a tax refund. They take our $$ to secure the boarder and remove illegals but they aren't doing thier jobs. They would never do that, but the principle is there- If a private company was tasked with securing the borders, we would never put up with such incompetence. Furthermore, in contrast to knoell's idea of using the military, I suggest we contract out sections of the border to private companies. "put american's to work." Current border agents can still be used to monitor effectiveness, provide training, and ensure humanitarian rights are preserved. I cannot imagine any qualms about this idea.


p.S. Clak's comment is both misleading and ridiculous and shows he is unfamiliar with the law. wise up first and then post your 2 cents.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So you are arguing for no limit for legal immigration? If someone wants to come in let em in? It is not about the "why don't they come legally" question.

Obviously theres waits, and you may never get in, but that does not mean we should look the other way to people who do come in illegally. Either let everyone in, or raise the limits if it is unfair, why should the people on those waiting lists not be able to get in, while people who break the law are perfectly fine? If you raise the limits, people will still be denied entry, and come illegally so what happens then? Why not secure the border, give amnesty to most illegals, and then after determining our population status and its effects, raise or lower the legal immigration amounts.[/QUOTE]

I didn't actually argue anything, I was just pointing out that it's a stupid question, at least the way he was framing it. If it was easy for them to come legally obviously they would. They come illegally because it's easier, that's why. And seeing how "easier" involves the possibility of dying in the desert it implies a certain level of difficulty.

Also, tivo always delivers.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Lilly Ledbetter?
Not sure I get the reference you're making...[/QUOTE]

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was a response to the SCOTUS' decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

I was giving an example of Obama saying 'damn the courts I'm gonna do whats best for them'. That's the one example I can think of, and I don't have a problem with the Fair Pay Act.

Got more?
 
[quote name='tivo']At the very least, the government should give every American a tax refund. They take our $$ to secure the boarder and remove illegals but they aren't doing thier jobs. They would never do that, but the principle is there- If a private company was tasked with securing the borders, we would never put up with such incompetence. Furthermore, in contrast to knoell's idea of using the military, I suggest we contract out sections of the border to private companies. "put american's to work." Current border agents can still be used to monitor effectiveness, provide training, and ensure humanitarian rights are preserved. I cannot imagine any qualms about this idea.


p.S. Clak's comment is both misleading and ridiculous and shows he is unfamiliar with the law. wise up first and then post your 2 cents.[/QUOTE]
And which comment would that be? You say stupid shit like that, and somehow expect me to know which comment you're referring to?

Why don't you try rubbing your last two brain cells together and see if you can get a spark.
 
[quote name='IRHari']The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was a response to the SCOTUS' decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

I was giving an example of Obama saying 'damn the courts I'm gonna do whats best for them'. That's the one example I can think of, and I don't have a problem with the Fair Pay Act.

Got more?[/QUOTE]

Ah, it's Lilly. Naw, I don't as much have a problem with that. The court ruled on the law, so the law was changed.

I'm thinking of the halt on drilling. Obama says no, courts say yes, Obama says no again, courts say yes again, Obama says no again.
 
[quote name='IRHari']do we know what caused the oil rig explosion? do we know why the well is leaking?[/QUOTE]

You tell me. Obama made BP pay up $20 Billion, so Obama seems to know it had something to do with BP's methods. Thus, it seems silly to force all the other companies to stop when there's no evidence they use any of the same methods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top