Filipinos Against Arizona Immigration Law SB1070

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Just adding a reference

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf

And here's why I wouldn't trust that reference:

The vast majority of those 7% are from groups that are statistically inclined to either be easily confused (senior citizens) or less educated and thus more easily confused (low income minorities). Add to that the leading nature of the questions, using examples like Divers License (many seniors no longer drive and many low income don't own cars) and military ID (issued by DOD of Federal Gov't, not many senior citizens or "low income" persons active in the armed forces) could be interpreted to not include State issued ID Cards. I know from experience (thanks Mom) that Low income persons need to have State Issued ID to receive means tested benefits.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No, I am not in the discussion...hehe

Just adding a reference

http://www.brennance..._file_39242.pdf

Interesting report.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

have a link or two? I would like to see how it's unconstitutional for the police to require ID if they make contact based on reasonable suspicion of something. How can they clear you if they don't know who you are?

The police have to have a reasonable suspicion, before making a stop, not just selecting a group of people (profiling).

Vagrancy laws have come under constitutional attack, since being poor is not a crime under the Constitution. The statutory language was often held to be vague and overbroad, in violation of the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A vagrancy law might be declared too vague if the definition of a vagrant is not detailed enough. Police had too much discretion to arrest people based upon appearance and suspicious characteristics. The fear was that the laws would be misused to make arbitrary arrests to harass unpopular groups or silence opposing political views. U.S. vagrancy laws generally punish the status of being poor and unemployed and not some overt act. In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as too vague a loitering statute which punished people for failure to show credible identification upon police request.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/v/vagrancy/

This was further narrowed under Hiibel:

Stop and identify statutes often combine elements of traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior in the course of investigatory stops. The statutes vary from State to State, but all permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity. A few States model their statutes on the Uniform Arrest Act, a model code that permits an officer to stop a person reasonably suspected of committing a crime and “demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

The police have to have a reasonable suspicion, before making a stop, not just selecting a group of people (profiling).

Vagrancy laws have come under constitutional attack, since being poor is not a crime under the Constitution. The statutory language was often held to be vague and overbroad, in violation of the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A vagrancy law might be declared too vague if the definition of a vagrant is not detailed enough. Police had too much discretion to arrest people based upon appearance and suspicious characteristics. The fear was that the laws would be misused to make arbitrary arrests to harass unpopular groups or silence opposing political views. U.S. vagrancy laws generally punish the status of being poor and unemployed and not some overt act. In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as too vague a loitering statute which punished people for failure to show credible identification upon police request.

vagrancy[/Quote]

This was further narrowed under Hiibel:

Stop and identify statutes often combine elements of traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior in the course of investigatory stops. The statutes vary from State to State, but all permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity. A few States model their statutes on the Uniform Arrest Act, a model code that permits an officer to stop a person reasonably suspected of committing a crime and “demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going.”

SCOTUS: Hiibel[/Quote]

[/Quote]

Neither of these applies to situations where the cops have reasonable suspicion to stop, question and possibly detain someone.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Neither of these applies to situations where the cops have reasonable suspicion to stop, question and possibly detain someone.

That wasn't the issue, was it.

Actually in some states it is a misdemeanor and you can be detained until they are able to make a positive ID.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

That wasn't the issue, was it.

I guess I should have been more specific, I've always connected the required to provide ID to the cops having reasonable suspicion that the John/Jane Doe may be involved in an illegal activity.

For me that is the protection against unreasonable harassment from the police.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Food for thought: it is estimated that more than 20 million American citizens do not have government-issued photo ID.

Where does this come from?

It comes from the link that Atencio provided. However, google is your friend, and you can find other studies which point to millions of American citizens who have no photo ID and aren't looking for handouts.

Tahoma post a link to your reference.

Read Atencio's link and weep.

His rectal cavity. Unless he means 11 million that don't have the ID because of not having a legal presence, and assorted minors that are not old enough to require photo id yet.

What part of "voting-age citizens" don't you understand?

Another one bites the dust!

And, by the way, keep your eyes on your own flabby white backside!

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf

Bingo!

And here's why I wouldn't trust that reference:

The vast majority of those 7% are from groups that are statistically inclined to either be easily confused (senior citizens) or less educated and thus more easily confused (low income minorities). Add to that the leading nature of the questions, using examples like Divers License (many seniors no longer drive and many low income don't own cars) and military ID (issued by DOD of Federal Gov't, not many senior citizens or "low income" persons active in the armed forces) could be interpreted to not include State issued ID Cards. I know from experience (thanks Mom) that Low income persons need to have State Issued ID to receive means tested benefits.

Even if your conjectures were fact, are you going to write off the millions of others?

Interesting report.

I thought so too.

[dluke77 9]

The law hasn't gone into affect yet so if their were hispanics being questioned then there is probably another reason/dispute the police were asking them for identification.

As far 'kano' well it's slang for American or Amerikano... So is it ok if I refer to you as a 'flip' didn't think so. If one is here illegally then they should be rounded up and sent back -- if they violate the law a second time then they should be making big rocks into little rocks or smelting my new personalized license plate... for life-that way there is no chance they'll immigrate illegally a 3rd time--that goes for all illegal immigrants regardless of what country they are from. Make room for them in our prison system by releasing all of our lifers on the Mexican border or any other country with large #'s of illegals here--give them each $200,000 and tell them run to Mexico and never come back ($200,000 is alot less than it cost to keep them for life). Hey Mexico encourages its citizens to come here illegally--we can do the same.

As far as the NaFFAA and El... why don't they try to get their country of origin to change its laws too--which Philippines is alot more restrictive. I can't retire on a visa there unless I invest $50,000 into a third world volatile economy. If I marry a filipina I can't work there because the unemployment rate is so high and I will be taking a job away from a filipino citizen--which I understand completely. Bringing more folks into the US with an unemployment rate of 14% only adds more to unemployment and more people as public charges. NaFFAA members I am sure left the Philippines for a better life -- as my ancestors did. But mine stood up with their lives on the line to break free of British rule. Why doesnt the NaFFAA members stand up to the Philippine government and change things for the good of all the people there--instead of trying to mold this country into what they envision because they don't have the cahones to do it in the Philippines.

I love the Philippines and the filipino people and wish I could be more supportive on this issue you brought up but can't because your position is trying to justify or turn a blind eye to illegal activities. Isn't that part of the problem in the Philippines--too many politicians and police always turning a blind eye because the money is good or they are simply too weak and disorganized to stand up to do the right thing?

[JoBri 548]

Yes I believe in open borders, I think everyone should be able to come here. Its far too expensive to come here the legal route thats why we have these problems. They should make immigration cheaper/easier, or just drop the laws.

Other countries offer paths to be legal so why not?

The USA offers paths too... LEGAL paths! This is a nation of laws, not anarchy.

My wife said she would be happy to show her ID if arrested for something in Arizona. She said it wouldnt bother her at all, and she would be pleased.

I am proud to be an American, and I support the governor of Arizona for her small part in trying to resolve the immigration problem in her own state by enforcing existing federal law. I pray other states follow her leadership as well. I am pleased Michigan threw their support to Arizona as well, as 8 additional states followed suit.

Brian in Tennessee

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

It comes from the link that Atencio provided. However, google is your friend, and you can find other studies which point to millions of American citizens who have no photo ID and aren't looking for handouts.

If you look hard enough you can find [inaccurate] studies to support any "fact". BTW, the bolded part of this quote makes no sense:

Without Gov't Issued ID they:

1) Can't get the entitlement programs so of course they wouldn't even be counted as looking for them.

2) Can't work legally.

So you tell me how are they getting by? Looks like they fall into that all elusive group of people who choose to live outside of what we consider polite society. Until her passing last year my Mom was one of the exceptions in that group, she maintained Gov't Photo ID until her last day and even had a PO Box until just a few years ago. She preferred to not be a part of our society but did just enough to get us to support her lifestyle. Then there's guys like Ted Kaczynski who are out there also.

And, by the way, keep your eyes on your own flabby white backside!

Okay, his comment was out of line but let's stay above that. We've been having a decent conversation/debate here so please everyone no name-calling.

Even if your conjectures were fact, are you going to write off the millions of others?

Are you implying that I misstated something?

I am in fact comfortable with "writing off" anyone who feels no need to maintain minimal ID in this day & age. That act makes it clear that they don't care to participate in mainstream society so I have no problem with letting them go on their way and have no pity for them when they can't access services and such because of their choices. Heck, it's not like they even care what I think. They can enjoy their freedom and I don't have to worry about them.

[chopstick 0]

Thanks for the mods for allowing this thread to continue as all posters supporting or disagreeing with the OP seem to me to have done so very respectfully. I hope this post will be taken with similar intent.

I'll direct it in part to Jordan, since he indicated he's of Mexican descent, although I mean the response much more broadly to those who are taking advantage of this valid issue to drive wedges between Americans and make this about race.

How dare anyone accuse those of us who support this law and in general the enforcement of American immigration law of being racist? This is not about race. It's about enforcement of our laws. The immigration law is intended to protect the American people. What role of our government is more important than protecting Americans? That's one of the primary responsibilities of the government of each country...isn't it?

I have nothing against Mexicans. Some of my very best friends are of Mexican descent. In fact, I'm a great admirer of one particular couple and their children, especially because of the way they've raised their children and the values they espouse. I hope when Machie and I have children that Martin and Guadalupe will very much be a part of their lives. They are immigrants from Mexico, but they came here legally and are now US citizens. I've been to Mexico for work many times, as well for a gringo, I speak decent Spanish. I sympathize with the plight of poorer Mexicans, including those who would do almost anything to find work to support themselves and their families. I sympathize with people from all around the world who struggle with poverty. But America can not be the answer to all of these problems.

That said, those who cross the border illegally are not only good people who seek work. The mix includes brutal criminals, murders, rapists, gang members, drug runners. As much as I sympathize with those who just want to work and create a better life, I do expect my government to protect our border and prevent anyone who is not properly documented from entry. And for those here today who've entered illegally, there should be severe consequences.

Most other countries restrict those who are permitted entry don't they? More importantly, don't most countries carefully restrict who is permitted to work in that country? Since this is the Philippines forum, I'll point out that as an American while I can enter the Philippines easily it would be almost impossible for me to work legally there. The local laws severely restrict "foreigners" from employment. While that's disappointing for me personally, I certainly understand it from the perspective of Filipinos. Why allow foreigners to work in the Philippines when there aren't enough jobs there for Filipinos? Why wouldn't the US have the right to make the same restriction for the protection of Americans?

I do sympathize people that trying to find a better job to help their families too, but you're right, most of the people who cross the border are criminals, they're smuggling drugs, rapist, etc. It's okay to enter other countries but they should do it in a proper way. It hurts me to think I waited a year to process my visa just to get here in the USA even if I am already a wife of American citizen.. Now they're gonna make those Mexicans legals? Most of them have bad intentions. The worse thing also is when you go to Mexico and you're not legal, they put you in jail. I agree in protecting the country...,always. It's not about races at all.., it's protecting the country. I agree on your 3rd paragraph.., love it.

[TOM&Riz 4]

Thought you would find this interesting and that our membership and other tea parties should know about this. Mary Jane Ayres is a State Representative and I have confirmed that the editorial opinion did run the Ozarks Sentinel.

Way to GO Missouri--show 'em how it's done!

So, tell me again, what’s wrong with the Arizona law?

Simple solutions to not-so-complex problems.

The "Show Me" state has once again showed us how it should be done. They need more exposure on this. Let's pass it around.

In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the Official language of Missouri. Nearly 90% voting in favor! English became the official language for ALL governmental proceeding in Missouri. It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language OTHER than English.

In 2008, a measure was passed that requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It allows Missouri law enforcement offices to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. The bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants will NOT have access to taxpayers' benefits such as food stamps and health-care through Missouri HealthNET.

In 2009, a measure was passed that ensures Missouri's public institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all post-secondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States.

So, while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem.

Missouri has sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in our state and they are certainly NOT welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of Missouri taxpayers!

Article in "The Ozarks Sentinel" Editorial Opinion - Nita Jane Ayres, May 13, 2010

[Tahoma 2,292]

If you look hard enough you can find [inaccurate] studies to support any "fact".

Of course you need to look at the source of any information. However, you failed to mention any reasons why you question the motives, the intentions, or the integrity of the Brennan Center for Justice. You simply make a blanket assertion that is designed to impugn my source.

I have a lot of respect for the Brennan Center and their work. To start you off with learning something about them, here is their mission statement:

Our Mission:

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law is a non-partisan public policy and law

institute that focuses on the fundamental issues of democracy and justice. Our work ranges from voting

rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to presidential power in the fight against

terrorism. A singular institution – part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group – the

Brennan Center combines scholarship, legislative and legal advocacy, and communications to win

meaningful, measurable change in the public sector.

BTW, the bolded part of this quote makes no sense:

Without Gov't Issued ID they:

1) Can't get the entitlement programs so of course they wouldn't even be counted as looking for them.

2) Can't work legally.

Who said anything about entitlement programs or working? How about the local food bank, or the local soup kitchen, or all of the other non-entitlement programs?

My brother volunteered for years at a large local 501c3 social services agency. I volunteered at the same place for a short time. The vast majority of people who used their services were our friends and neighbors, not illegals. Nobody was required to show government-issued photo ID nor proof of citizenship in order to receive services. It was the same way with their food bank. Ditto with their soup kitchen.

So you tell me how are they getting by? Looks like they fall into that all elusive group of people who choose to live outside of what we consider polite society. Until her passing last year my Mom was one of the exceptions in that group, she maintained Gov't Photo ID until her last day and even had a PO Box until just a few years ago. She preferred to not be a part of our society but did just enough to get us to support her lifestyle. Then there's guys like Ted Kaczynski who are out there also.

You really need to get out more. There are millions of American citizens who don't fit into your neatly-stereotyped categories of either being homeless or being a domestic terrorist.

Okay, his comment was out of line but let's stay above that. We've been having a decent conversation/debate here so please everyone no name-calling.

Note the emoticon on my reply. I was poking fun at Mr. Bill, who has a good sense of humor.

Are you implying that I misstated something?

I am in fact comfortable with "writing off" anyone who feels no need to maintain minimal ID in this day & age. That act makes it clear that they don't care to participate in mainstream society so I have no problem with letting them go on their way and have no pity for them when they can't access services and such because of their choices. Heck, it's not like they even care what I think. They can enjoy their freedom and I don't have to worry about them.

The issue isn't about accessing services. It's about this country moving in a direction that is un-American. It's about arresting and detaining American citizens who are guilty of nothing more than not having ID...or not having ID on them. It's about law enforcement profiling American citizens and legal permanent residents. It's about equal treatment under the law. It's also about the constitutionality of the Arizona law. It's a sad day when millions of Americans are written off.

[Tahoma 2,292]

So, tell me again, what’s wrong with the Arizona law?

Uhhh....it's unconstitutional for one.

In 2008, a measure was passed that requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally.

Note the bolded. In Arizona, simply having no ID is enough to get you thrown in jail. See the difference?

[evli1966 88]

So, tell me again, what’s wrong with the Arizona law?

Uhhh....it's unconstitutional for one.

No it isn't and I do not believe it willbe deemed unconstitutional but some parts of the bill may be rejected.

In 2008, a measure was passed that requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally.

Note the bolded. In Arizona, simply having no ID is enough to get you thrown in jail. See the difference?

I do see the difference and legal residence will now start carring their appropriate documents as required by federal law; this will help prove they are here legally and help show those here illegally. Do you see the difference now?