Arizona Passes "Changes Bill" To New Immigration Law

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Absolutely ! Each legal immigrant is required to carry ID already, and if they can't 'remain in status', for whatever reason - sorry, it's time to go. I have NO MERCY for anyone 'out of status', regardless of visa type.

What about the K1 entrant who has filed for adjustment but hasn't received their greencard yet? Do they have a document to show a police officer that you think that officer would understand?

What about all the K1 entrants who don't bother filing to adjust for ages because the common wisdom on this forum is there's no rush to file?

[Darnell 8,478]

What about the K1 entrant who has filed for adjustment but hasn't received their greencard yet? Do they have a document to show a police officer that you think that officer would understand?

What about all the K1 entrants who don't bother filing to adjust for ages because the common wisdom on this forum is there's no rush to file?

The 2nd bit of yer words, should include that disclaimer (which many others already know) -

if you are 'out of status' - stay OUT of any enforcement area, as you run huge risk of being detained.

Now, I'm not trying to put words in yer mouth, but YOU DID OMIT that 2nd bit - either by mistake or on purpose.

Seriously - MANY OTHERS KNOW THIS - I'm hoping you did as well, and were just trying to play 'devils advocate' about it.

-----

A K-1 entrant who DOES HAVE the receipt notice is fine, won't be detained. Anyone else, sorry !!!!

Edited April 30, 2010 by Darnell

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I see. Good luck with that one.

So it's ok to break the law in your mind?

It's ok for Mary to ignore her immigration status, knowing very well what the law is and what the conditions that she agreed to be to here in the first place are? Knowing very well if she violated those conditions, she might be deported back to her home country?

It's not like those in the country temporarily or on certain status' don't understand the conditions on which they are allowed to be here.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

The 2nd bit of yer words, should include that disclaimer (which many others already know) -

if you are 'out of status' - stay OUT of any enforcement area, as you run huge risk of being detained.

Now, I'm not trying to put words in yer mouth, but YOU DID OMIT that 2nd bit - either by mistake or on purpose.

Seriously - MANY OTHERS KNOW THIS - I'm hoping you did as well, and were just trying to play 'devils advocate' about it.

-----

A K-1 entrant who DOES HAVE the receipt notice is fine, won't be detained. Anyone else, sorry !!!!

I was playing devil's advocate.

However, I also do not believe law enforcement will understand receipt notices, I797's, NOA's, or whatever we like to call them. I do not believe local law enforcement would understand the concept of an alien being "under color of law" in such situations. As such I believe the detention of these individuals would be persecutory.

And, I believe it's unacceptable that a legally present alien has to "stay out of enforcement areas" for fear of being apprehended. That's just wrong.

Edited April 30, 2010 by JohnnyQuest

[Peikko 1,575]

No Paul, it's not ok to break the law in my mind, or even to actually break the law. Mindful of that, I try not to break the law, including the 'silly' ones, like speeding or running red lights.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Darnell 8,478]

I was playing devil's advocate.

However, I also do not believe law enforcement will understand receipt notices, I797's, NOA's, or whatever we like to call them. I do not believe local law enforcement would understand the concept of an alien being "under color of law" in such situations. As such I believe the detention of these individuals would be persecutory.

And, I believe it's unacceptable that a legally present alien has to "stay out of enforcement areas" for fear of being apprehended. That's just wrong.

Alright then - we have dichotomy of opinion about it, you and me. No Worries, from me.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

A K-1 entrant who DOES HAVE the receipt notice is fine, won't be detained. Anyone else, sorry !!!!

noa1 for the aos

[Brad and Vika 129]

You like the idea of every citizen having to prove their legal status at any given moment?

Yes. I don't see any major inconvenience doing so either. Last time I left the house without ID I was in elementary school.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes. I don't see any major inconvenience doing so either. Last time I left the house without ID I was in elementary school.

Are you the Ukranian?

[Brad and Vika 129]

Are you the Ukranian?

Only on alternate Wednesdays.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

thread closed for review

After review this thread is re-opened with one personal attack removed.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Brewer signed the changes bill and it's now official and set to take effect in 90 days.

[Peikko 1,575]

So librul can be flung around willy nilly because it's not insulting, even while most people who use that term actually mean dirty commie ####### but calling someone a fascist when they clearly are one is called a personal attack?

Who knew?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I was playing devil's advocate.

However, I also do not believe law enforcement will understand receipt notices, I797's, NOA's, or whatever we like to call them. I do not believe local law enforcement would understand the concept of an alien being "under color of law" in such situations. As such I believe the detention of these individuals would be persecutory.

And, I believe it's unacceptable that a legally present alien has to "stay out of enforcement areas" for fear of being apprehended. That's just wrong.

They're not required to understand them, under the Arizona law. They're supposed to contact federal authorities to verify status. Presumably, if they've got an A# then they should be able to verify status reasonably quickly.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

So librul can be flung around willy nilly because it's not insulting, even while most people who use that term actually mean dirty commie ####### but calling someone a fascist when they clearly are one is called a personal attack?

Who knew?

The personal attack in the post that was removed had nothing to do with calling someone a fascist - or a 'librul'.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Kathryn41