Arizona or Obama Administration?

[thongd4me 69]

Arizona is correct, and its law is constitutional as it only reiterates existing US immigration law. 0bama is entirely wrong to sue Arizona for the skyving of his own (and other post-1986) administration!

Yes.

If you're not from Arizona, try to put yourself (I am from New York) in their shoes for a minute.

US immigration law exists (in this case) to prevent people from abusing their stay in the US,

but what in effect does that mean?

The law applies to all 50 states, but it is in the largest port-of-entry states and the states bordering

Mexico where this abuse has a disproportionately negative impact on the host state because those

here illegally are benefiting from programs (health, education & welfare) that only citizens have a right

to. In health care, for example, compassion has dictated that this be made available to illegals,

but it is not a right. It greatly reduces the quality of care available to US citizens.

That to me is the main reason that Arizona sought to take this action, not because they are racist

or not politically correct or worse, both. Should such a law be enacted in every state? Not every

state may need it but they should have the option to do so. Before this law came into prominence

I never imagined a special law would be needed for police to check on immigration status, but

evidently that's the way the government thinks.

[mike101 8]

I think the law is unconstitutional because it specifically targets Hispanic people. So what does an illegal immigrant look like? Well to the Arizona legislators who wrote that law an illegal immigrant only speaks Spanish or little English and has brown skin.

I guarantee you this law wasnt written to target illegal immigrants from Canada or Western European countries.

Yes we do need to stop illegal immigration but a law to justify racial profiling is not the answer.

I say that we need to make ALL people who are here illegally work for their citizenship. There is a lot of work that needs to be done in this country and it would be a good opportunity to get it done.

[thongd4me 69]

I think the law is unconstitutional because it specifically targets Hispanic people...

Please quote where it says that, got to be big news.

[ssrrcc 0]

Please quote where it says that, got to be big news.

Please note 3 areas of the United States Constitution, those being the supremacy clause, preemption, and the commerce clause. ( the commerce clause refers to the alien in this situation ) This should provide your answer as to why it is unconstitutional.

Also note the differences between SB 1070 and the United States Immigration Law"

"United States immigration law has already required that legal residents carry identifying documents since 1940. While this may be true, federal law also states that failure to do so is considered a misdemeanor and penalties shall not surpass $100 and/or 30 days of imprisonment. Furthermore federal law stipulates that immigration records would only be available to agencies designated by the Attorney General. This means that if the Arizona police encounter a legal resident alien who does not have these documents, he or she may be arrested and imprisoned before their identity is secured by ICE. Immigrants usually do not usually carry these documents when traveling domestically.

One could ask why it is that legal immigrants do not usually carry their documents as outlined in federal law. The answer is best illustrated through an analogy. Most legal immigrants consider carrying one’s papers on their person akin to keeping one’s vehicle registration form in their car: if the car is stolen, the thief has the very record of ownership that could could be used to recover it, the victim is more or less at a loss. Similarly, if a legal immigrant’s wallet and green card is stolen (something at least as likely as a car-jacking) then they have no easy defense against identity theft or proof that they belong in the country. If their green card is safely at home, on the other hand, they can have a family member or a friend help them out of the situation, much like people who carry only a copy of their pink slip in their car. The cost-benefit calculation should be clear."

While it's important to deter illegal immigration, there has to be a better way. Let us remember that President Bush tried to pass the "Dream act" as well and failed to do so. Why is President Obama being vilified for the same view points that Bush had?? Or Dare i ask??

[Nikita2Charles 32]

Good luck with that, when we start to change this country to UNITED CORPORATION OF AMERICA

I've read both side of the story, people should look at both side instead of being fanatical, that's why we are in this deep DOO DOO!

Conservative activism?

That's not what they said.... go read and understand the ruling before making such absurd comments and why the decision was made...

Corporations can be regulated, it was the fact the law restricted individuals as well...

This is why our country is in political turmoil... Stop listening to Rachel Madcow or PMSNBC and actually look on your own.

The SCOTUS will uphold AZ's law because there's nothing wrong with it... It's not the first law of its type and won't be the last. It's political grandstanding by the administration. There's already a precedent set that state's can assist in enforcing immigration laws. As the laws written do nothing to interfere with Federal authorities/federal ability to write laws....

[GabiandVi 34]

I take a broader view than that of "states' rights vs. federal control."

In most countries it would be normal for police at any level to check if

a foreigner was in the country legally and they wouldn't have to go through

a gauntlet of "just cause" to justify their doing so. I look at it as just good

police work (knowing the status of the person they are dealing with,

irrespective of whether they are a citizen or not). Our government has

bumbled along with "one hand not knowing what the other is doing"

for too long. Japanese police have a system of knowing the whereabouts

of all citizens in their juristiction, not just foreigners and I don't hear

any outrage about that. Given, Japan is not the US, but I think this

Arizona thing is being drawn way out of proportion.

I don't get the outrage, either. I have to show ID all the time - at the doctor's office, writing a check, to view an apartment, to lease an apartment, to get a job, to buy alcohol, to buy a car, to get my car inspected, to rent a car, to open a bank account, to fly, to register for a class, to take my daughter out of the hospital, etc. Years ago I was pulled over for speeding. I had to show my driver's license. It took forever because the police had to call in my details and wait to find there were no bench warrants out for my arrest.

I'm amazed anyone can get anything done in this country without proper ID, and I hope to G*d that the police are verifying IDs of everyone they stop for any reason. It's due to laxness with regard to that that serial murderers and child molestors slip through the hands of the police. On the other hand, how many times do we hear of a violent criminal being caught due to a traffic violation? Should we say everyone should be inspected except those we suspect might be here illegally? Or should we say that if we find they are here illegally, we should ignore that law completely? What's the problem?

In China, I had to show my passport with my visa to sleep anywhere but in my apartment. When I had visitors spending the night in my apartment, the apartment managers/landlord, had to photocopy their passports and register their stay with the foreign police. My husband carries his passport with him everywhere here because he expects he'll be asked for it at every turn. In his country, he had to carry his national ID with him at all times, and here his passport is the equivalent until he gets his GC.

Greeks also had to carry their national IDs everywhere they went, and I was supposed to carry my passport and GC. I didn't always carry them because I didn't want them to be stolen, but I was VERY WELL AWARE that if I got into any trouble it was going to be double because I didn't have my IDs. I knew I'd eventually be bailed out because I was there legally and could prove it after the fact, but of course I knew I'd be asked to prove it if I ever got into any other trouble. You'd have to be an idiot not to know that. Again, what's the problem?

[thongd4me 69]

I don't get the outrage, either. I have to show ID all the time - at the doctor's office, writing a check, to view an apartment, to lease an apartment, to get a job, to buy alcohol, to buy a car, to get my car inspected, to rent a car, to open a bank account, to fly, to register for a class, to take my daughter out of the hospital, etc. Years ago I was pulled over for speeding. I had to show my driver's license. It took forever because the police had to call in my details and wait to find there were no bench warrants out for my arrest.

I'm amazed anyone can get anything done in this country without proper ID, and I hope to G*d that the police are verifying IDs of everyone they stop for any reason. It's due to laxness with regard to that that serial murderers and child molestors slip through the hands of the police. On the other hand, how many times do we hear of a violent criminal being caught due to a traffic violation? Should we say everyone should be inspected except those we suspect might be here illegally? Or should we say that if we find they are here illegally, we should ignore that law completely? What's the problem?

In China, I had to show my passport with my visa to sleep anywhere but in my apartment. When I had visitors spending the night in my apartment, the apartment managers/landlord, had to photocopy their passports and register their stay with the foreign police. My husband carries his passport with him everywhere here because he expects he'll be asked for it at every turn. In his country, he had to carry his national ID with him at all times, and here his passport is the equivalent until he gets his GC.

Greeks also had to carry their national IDs everywhere they went, and I was supposed to carry my passport and GC. I didn't always carry them because I didn't want them to be stolen, but I was VERY WELL AWARE that if I got into any trouble it was going to be double because I didn't have my IDs. I knew I'd eventually be bailed out because I was there legally and could prove it after the fact, but of course I knew I'd be asked to prove it if I ever got into any other trouble. You'd have to be an idiot not to know that. Again, what's the problem?

You're absolutely right, it's not just an immigration issue. I went to see my dentist this morning and the building he's

in sits right above Grand Central Station. I have to swipe my driver's license in every time I go there and I don't feel

my rights are being violated. I'm a little curious as to what kind of security check they do when they data does into

their computer, but I have nothing to hide. Also I have to do the same thing to enter a 2nd floor public post office

in a building near where I work. It's funny they don't accept my office ID but only my driver's license. The building

also has even higher security, as it is a building totally occupied by diamond dealers.

I think the lack of a requirement for a national ID (for people who don't drive who never had a passport) is still

something of a security risk in this country. Other countries that haven't experienced 9-11 type events have

national IDs as a normal and expected part of life for their citizens. I don't see the attractiveness of that hole

in security; the infrastructure (for drivers' licenses, for example) already exists - the DMV could easily take on

this additional role at minimum cost.

[thongd4me 69]

Please note 3 areas of the United States Constitution, those being the supremacy clause, preemption, and the commerce clause. ( the commerce clause refers to the alien in this situation ) This should provide your answer as to why it is unconstitutional.

Also note the differences between SB 1070 and the United States Immigration Law"

"United States immigration law has already required that legal residents carry identifying documents since 1940. While this may be true, federal law also states that failure to do so is considered a misdemeanor and penalties shall not surpass $100 and/or 30 days of imprisonment. Furthermore federal law stipulates that immigration records would only be available to agencies designated by the Attorney General. This means that if the Arizona police encounter a legal resident alien who does not have these documents, he or she may be arrested and imprisoned before their identity is secured by ICE. Immigrants usually do not usually carry these documents when traveling domestically.

One could ask why it is that legal immigrants do not usually carry their documents as outlined in federal law. The answer is best illustrated through an analogy. Most legal immigrants consider carrying one's papers on their person akin to keeping one's vehicle registration form in their car: if the car is stolen, the thief has the very record of ownership that could could be used to recover it, the victim is more or less at a loss. Similarly, if a legal immigrant's wallet and green card is stolen (something at least as likely as a car-jacking) then they have no easy defense against identity theft or proof that they belong in the country. If their green card is safely at home, on the other hand, they can have a family member or a friend help them out of the situation, much like people who carry only a copy of their pink slip in their car. The cost-benefit calculation should be clear."

While it's important to deter illegal immigration, there has to be a better way. Let us remember that President Bush tried to pass the "Dream act" as well and failed to do so. Why is President Obama being vilified for the same view points that Bush had?? Or Dare i ask??

Feel free to talk around my question - everything you have said is correct, but it has nothing to do with targeting Hispanic people

which you failed to give any proof or evidence of it doing.

Your "analogy" doesn't do any better. Making excuses for why legal immigrants don't carry their green cards is neither here

nor there because they can carry a photocoy of the green card which they can keep in a Wells Fargo bank vault if it makes them

feel any better. If the authorities have any doubts they can run an online check or make them produce the green card if they

really think they are a risk. Most countries have a requirement that both citizens and foreigners have proper ID. NO excuses, period.

It's an ID issue, not just an immigration issue and it's there for the protection of both citizens and legal aliens.

Those of us who have worked hard and spent loads of cash to get family members here legally should appreciate that.

[ssrrcc 0]

First of all , i'm not interested in getting into a heated debate with regards to this; a debate yes but not one that is heated.

I am strictlly pointing out how racial profiling can occur in this situation. I am too spending a lot of money to bring my fiance here and have worked juszt

as hard as anyone else in doing so.

I don't believe anyone should have a free ride when it comes to immigration but i do believe there should be a path to immigration.

Let's find out who they are, if they have a criminal background, get rid of them. If they don't , let them begin the process to

naturalization.

No one has been able to answer this simple question and that is " what does an illegal immigrant look like"? How will local police

determine who is illegal? This law will impact perfectly legal citizens of a certain racial background. No one has taken into consideration

how law enforcement has operated for generations. The fact remains there is no way to enforce a law that targets people of latino heritage

without profiling all latinos.

The Department of public safety's data on the number of traffic stops and vehicle searches in arizona shows that being Hispanic carries more than

two times the greater risk of being searched during a traffic stop.

http://www.azdps.gov/About/Reports/docs/Traffic_Stop_Data_Report_2009.pdf

As for the national ID card, while i agree with you to a certain extent , there is also The Constitution of the United States of America to consider. The fourth amendment states the following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,

and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment protects the people against sweeping searches, requiring that warrants be issued only upon probable cause and "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This makes it illegal, for instance, for the police to stop a citizen on the street and demand identification-- exactly what a mandatory national ID would allow.

How do you determine a legal citizen from an illegal citizen?

I could go into much more detail about this, but i think you see my point......Federal law stumps state law....

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No one has been able to answer this simple question and that is " what does an illegal immigrant look like"? How will local police

determine who is illegal? This law will impact perfectly legal citizens of a certain racial background. No one has taken into consideration

how law enforcement has operated for generations. The fact remains there is no way to enforce a law that targets people of latino heritage

without profiling all latinos.

The Department of public safety's data on the number of traffic stops and vehicle searches in arizona shows that being Hispanic carries more than

two times the greater risk of being searched during a traffic stop.

http://www.azdps.gov/About/Reports/docs/Traffic_Stop_Data_Report_2009.pdf

When 1 in 5 of a group is illegal, it's hard not to stereotype.

There is and always has been racial profiling or profiling anyone based on the way they look. If you saw a white guy walking about, dirty shirt, torn jeans, messy hair.. what would you assume?

This law doesn't encourage any of that. If you're hispanic, if you're white, if you're black, it you're blue, what the AZ law does is allow local police to work in accordance with Federal authorities to determine if someone who cannot identify themselves during a lawful/legal "stop" is an illegal alien. -- It's simple: No DL/ID - you give your name/address and the police can you look you up instantly. If you cannot provide that, or you're not in the system, then chances are you will be investigated at that point because there's no record of you. It's not as simple as "oh you look hispanic, so you must be illegal." There's a legel procedure to go through. - Almost every other state does this already though, minus possibly checking immigration status. Get pulled over in your home state, don't have your DL on you, and then give a false name/address that you made up. Watch and see how quickly you get arrested... Whether they check your immigration status after that point is up to the particular city/state. Some check, some don't. - Arizona's law is already on the books in other states, just AZ is more vocal about it.

[GabiandVi 34]

No one has been able to answer this simple question and that is " what does an illegal immigrant look like"? How will local police

determine who is illegal? This law will impact perfectly legal citizens of a certain racial background. No one has taken into consideration

how law enforcement has operated for generations. The fact remains there is no way to enforce a law that targets people of latino heritage

without profiling all latinos.

I look Greek though I have no Greek heritage. Walking around in Greece, no one ever suspected me of wrong-doing, but if I were held by police for some sort of disturbance in Greece, or a traffic violation, or shoplifting, etc., I would have had to prove who I was. At that point, any ID I held would indicate my residency status. What's wrong with that? I knew people who lived in Greece illegally, and they were very careful not to break any laws or get themselves in any situations where they would be asked for ID by officials. It seems like common sense to me. Do illegals in the US actually expect to be able to be ticketed for speeding without their illegal presence being discovered? That's a sad commentary on how inefficient and ineffective our law enforcement is if that's the case.

In China, I was obviously a foreigner. If I hit another bike-rider with my bike and could not produce evidence of residency, I would have been deported after paying a hefty fine, paying off my victim, or serving time in Chinese prison. (My friend, a legal resident of China, was stopped at the airport from traveling abroad during holidays because he was embroiled in such a scenario.) What's wrong with that?

The AZ law specifically states that if the police apprehend someone for another reason, and they suspect that the person is not a legal resident, they are duty bound to pursue details of that person's residency status and detain any who cannot prove legal residency. I don't see anything wrong with that EXCEPT that it should include everyone, not just suspected illegals. EVERYONE who is EVER stopped by the police should have their details checked out. I'm shocked to learn this isn't common practice.

Once their details are checked and they are discovered to be illegal residents, are we supposed to ignore current federal law? I just don't get where the problem comes in.

Edited July 12, 2010 by GabiandVi

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I look Greek though I have no Greek heritage. Walking around in Greece, no one ever suspected me of wrong-doing, but if I were held by police for some sort of disturbance in Greece, or a traffic violation, or shoplifting, etc., I would have had to prove who I was. At that point, any ID I held would indicate my residency status. What's wrong with that? I knew people who lived in Greece illegally, and they were very careful not to break any laws or get themselves in any situations where they would be asked for ID by officials. It seems like common sense to me. Do illegals in the US actually expect to be able to be ticketed for speeding without their illegal presence being discovered? That's a sad commentary on how inefficient and ineffective our law enforcement is if that's the case.

In China, I was obviously a foreigner. If I hit another bike-rider with my bike and could not produce evidence of residency, I would have been deported after paying a hefty fine, paying off my victim, or serving time in Chinese prison. (My friend, a legal resident of China, was stopped at the airport from traveling abroad during holidays because he was embroiled in such a scenario.) What's wrong with that?

The AZ law specifically states that if the police apprehend someone for another reason, and they suspect that the person is not a legal resident, they are duty bound to pursue details of that person's residency status and detain any who cannot prove legal residency. I don't see anything wrong with that EXCEPT that it should include everyone, not just suspected illegals. EVERYONE who is EVER stopped by the police should have their details checked out. I'm shocked to learn this isn't common practice.

Once their details are checked and they are discovered to be illegal residents, are we supposed to ignore current federal law? I just don't get where the problem comes in.

In Greece can you be ID'd whilst walking down the street, having committed no crime? Many states including AZ allow this. I have been ID'd in such a manner twice in my life.

I also don't carry ID on a daily basis because I walk to work (I'm a USC).

[GabiandVi 34]

In Greece can you be ID'd whilst walking down the street, having committed no crime? Many states including AZ allow this. I have been ID'd in such a manner twice in my life.

I also don't carry ID on a daily basis because I walk to work (I'm a USC).

Not that I'm aware of. AND, according to the law in question, you can't in AZ. I don't know of any pre-existing laws in AZ that allow this, but this particular law explicitly disallows this. People who claim otherwise are lying or are ignorant of the law.

I was always told, in every country that I've lived in, that I must carry my visa with me everywhere, leading me to believe that I could be stopped at any time and asked for it. I did for the first few months in the CR until I lost my purse. After that, I never carried my passport or "greencard" with me again as long as I lived abroad. However, I carry my DL with me almost everywhere here in the US. And I've always wondered how police cite jaywalkers since there is no law stating we have to carry ID.

Edited July 15, 2010 by GabiandVi

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Not that I'm aware of. AND, according to the law in question, you can't in AZ. I don't know of any pre-existing laws in AZ that allow this, but this particular law explicitly disallows this. People who claim otherwise are lying or are ignorant of the law.

I was always told, in every country that I've lived in, that I must carry my visa with me everywhere, leading me to believe that I could be stopped at any time and asked for it. I did for the first few months in the CR until I lost my purse. After that, I never carried my passport or "greencard" with me again as long as I lived abroad. However, I carry my DL with me almost everywhere here in the US. And I've always wondered how police cite jaywalkers since there is no law stating we have to carry ID.

Its a pre-existing law. Obviously when writing new laws, the smart thing to do is think "How will this work with existing laws. Are there any consequences?"

Edited July 16, 2010 by Sousuke

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I should add that the requirement to ID is in and of itself fairly innocuous in that you can provide a name and location. But I keep hearing that not having ID or having a trace on the database creates reasonable suspicion of being illegal because of SB1070 287g etc.

Yet both have happened to me. The time I was stopped in the town where I went to University I had no ID (no car at the time, and I ate dorm food so no reason to have a wallet on me) and my name didn't show up because I recently moved into the dorms.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Sousuke