Filipinos Against Arizona Immigration Law SB1070

[Tahoma 2,292]

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?

Hey...aren't you the guy who called the NAACP racist? I'll bet you feel pretty foolish now that the truth has come out. I hope you finally learned your lesson on the difference between news and infotainment.

As for "legal residence," don't you mean "legal residents?"

Oops, you conveniently forgot about those pesky American citizens who either don't have ID or who are not carrying it with them. Do you see the difference now?

Of course, I completely understand if you don't want to discuss racial profiling either. It's such a messy little subject for the conservanut echo chamber to deal with. They simply can't find (pardon the pun) the right talking point to make the issue go away.

[evli1966 88]

Hey...aren't you the guy who called the NAACP racist? I'll bet you feel pretty foolish now that the truth has come out. I hope you finally learned your lesson on the difference between news and infotainment.

Actually they have racial tendencies whether their charter syas they are against it; any organization that wants to port rights and benefits above any other race has those tendencies whether they believe it is all in equalitly. It is like a religeon where terroists are supported but the other side of the face of that religeon states oh it is only the exptremist yet none will denounce these extremist.

But Way to try and skirt the issue because you have no arguement and seem to be in the minority of both legal residents and CITIZENS who support such legislation not only in AZ but through out the country. PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC IF YOU ARE ABLE TO DO SO.

As for "legal residence," don't you mean "legal residents?" Yes Residents thank you for clarifying; again way to skirt an issue pathetic attempts to to move off topic are not appreciated.

Oops, you conveniently forgot about those pesky American citizens who either don't have ID or who are not carrying it with them. Do you see the difference now?

And to use hyperbole staements or news that US ADULT CITIZENS do not have picture ID is also unrealistic. Is it possible yes but only people of shadey character or with shadey agendas would not have such ID. Picture ID is required for almost every transaction made in the USA not counting cash transactions for purchases or paying someone under the table(oh wait could be an ILLEGAL ALIEN), excluding payments to company with an account number which more than likely you had ID to set that account up. If a citizen or legal resident doesn't have ID on them and they are stopped by police during a lawful stop they can be detained and will be depending on the reaon for hte stop. Do you truly not know and understand the existing laws at least at the normal citizens level.

Of course, I completely understand if you don't want to discuss racial profiling either. It's such a messy little subject for the conservanut echo chamber to deal with. They simply can't find (pardon the pun) the right talking point to make the issue go away. Actually there is no talking point the challenges are not for racial profiling the Supreme court as already ruled in previous laws that because due to the large amount of latino Illegals entering the country that some profiling will used.

Good try but your behind the times.

With respect please stay on topic picking on grammatical errors, spelling errors, and taking shots from other topics only cheapen your credability as a poster.

[TOM&Riz 4]

HAHA Tahoma you have issues to deal with, The Arizona law is already in existence by Homeland Security, the Arizona law is only ratifying who can enforce it, you really need to read before you comment, your embarrassing yourself

[Darnell 8,478]

2 more days, right? I'm still gonna wait for a 'month of Data' - prolly available late August..

[Tahoma 2,292]

With respect please stay on topic picking on grammatical errors, spelling errors, and taking shots from other topics only cheapen your credability as a poster.

What is "credability" anyway? Does it have something to do with FICO credit scores? Maybe you mean "credibility." Using your rationale, posters who can't spell, are too lazy to spellcheck, make grade-school grammatical mistakes, can't put together a coherent sentence, and can't put sentences together to form an idea have lots of credibility.

I see that, in your world, forgetfulness adds credibility too. You called the NAACP racist in this very thread, then you forgot that you did so, and now you are chastising me for going off-topic when I respond to what you brought up in the first place. Unbelievable!

Now you can't seem to make up your mind. You went from calling the NAACP a "racist organization" to saying they have "racial tendencies." Is there a difference? Are you backing off of your claim that they are a racist organization, or are you simply attempting to find another way to say the same thing? I noticed that you have shown no proof, nor have you supplied any link that supports your nutty claims.

By the way, what are "racial tendencies?" What does it mean to "port rights and benefits?"

You also have a basic misconception about laws simply being a popularity contest. If a law is popular, it must be righteous? Apparently you disagree with our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he advocated for a system of checks and balances that would protect citizens from a "tyranny of the majority." If it weren't for the United States Supreme Court, Blacks in the south would have suffered under Jim Crow laws longer than they did.

Are you dismissing the Brennan Center study regarding ID that I provided a link for? You must have a link to conflicting information. If so, please provide the link which supports your statement "And to use hyperbole statements (sic) or news that US ADULT CITIZENS (sic) do not have picture ID is also unrealistic." You don't have one? I thought not.

Please provide a link to back up your assertion that "only people of shady character or with shady agendas would not have such ID." You don't have one? I thought not. Just more unsupported blather.

Oh yeah...and while you are at it...would you please provide your link that shows the United States Supreme Court ruling that allows profiling based only on race.

Why Arizona's show-me-your-papers law must be stopped.

[TOM&Riz 4]

Stand With Arizona (and Against Illegal Immigration) One of the seldom mentioned but major issues related to the illegal alien invasion is the unchecked flow of communicable diseases that are routinely assessed in those entering legally. Dr. Manny reviews the disease threats, and another article below assesses the impact of cost of this yet another disaster related to the Feds' failure to secure the border and enforce immigration laws: http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_diseases.html

[Tahoma 2,292]

HAHA Tahoma you have issues to deal with, The Arizona law is already in existence by Homeland Security, the Arizona law is only ratifying who can enforce it, you really need to read before you comment, your embarrassing yourself

Yeah...I get it. Constitutional scholars are wrong...and you and Rush are right. Even though the law didn't exist before, it's still not a new law.

Another Orwellian consevanut talking point bites the dust. Next!

[Tahoma 2,292]

Stand With Arizona (and Against Illegal Immigration) One of the seldom mentioned but major issues related to the illegal alien invasion is the unchecked flow of communicable diseases that are routinely assessed in those entering legally. Dr. Manny reviews the disease threats, and another article below assesses the impact of cost of this yet another disaster related to the Feds' failure to secure the border and enforce immigration laws: http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_diseases.html

Ahhh Tommy...how many of those communicable diseases did St. Lukes check Riza for?

How about you? How many communicable diseases were you checked for when you returned from the Philippines?

How about all of the other U.S. citizens who travel overseas? Do you suppose they were checked for any diseases?

By the way, your link, and the links in your link, did not give any evidence whatsoever that illegal aliens spreading communicable diseases is a "major issue" or is "yet another disaster."

So much for reading comprehension, critical thinking, and logic.

Next!

[dluke77 9]

Tahoma's post from the ACLU post states: "People who are afraid that they will be questioned and forced to show papers because of the way they look will be much less likely to report crimes or serve as witnesses."

People who are afraid to show papers--normally don't have any. If you are a legal immigrant than you do have papers or a green card and are required to carry them on your person. If you in your front yard or close enough to the papers or idendification then the police would of course let you retrieve them or assist you in retrieving them. If your at the mall 5 miles from you house without your documentation then your 'in the wrong' to begin with.

The Arizona law does in fact exist--its on the federal level already--this is just the state requiring its officers to support enforcement of the federal laws of the nation. The federal government needs the assistance of states to enforce the federal law--shouldn't be an issue. Minutemen groups patrolling the border is 'constitutional' so why can't the state do the same.

Short of that why doesn't someone offer a better solution for eliminating illegal immigrants in the US? Those that came here illegally should not be allowed to stay by virtue of passing some law giving them amnesty--which is what will eventually happen if the federal government losses its lawsuit against Arizona. And Obama is spiteful that way and can get laws through without a popular poll or vote from the House, Senate, or 'The People' he did it with health care!!!!

[dluke77 9]

Every group that has come to the US has suffered some sort of civil rights violation. The Irish use to sleep in sewers in NYC and Boston when they first arrived because they were not allowed to have homes rented to them is one example. Blacks actually had a home albiet small but lived better than the Irish for years. The Swedes couldn't work in the quarries because the Finns wouldn't hire them. Its a sad fact but it is just something that naturally occurs when mixing cultures and people.

Racial profiling to prevent illegal immigration? Is it that wrong? Your required to carry your ID by law if you don't have it go get it. A few accidental deportations and people will start carrying what they are suppose to.

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

By the way, your link, and the links in your link, did not give any evidence whatsoever that illegal aliens spreading communicable diseases is a "major issue" or is "yet another disaster."

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf

eta: link in case the paste above is truncated: link

bottom left of page 8, paragraph labeled 'contagious diseases"

link is to an edition of the journal of american physicians and surgeons, dated spring 2005

Edited July 27, 2010 by charles!

[TOM&Riz 4]

Ahhh Tommy...how many of those communicable diseases did St. Lukes check Riza for?

How about you? How many communicable diseases were you checked for when you returned from the Philippines?

How about all of the other U.S. citizens who travel overseas? Do you suppose they were checked for any diseases?

By the way, your link, and the links in your link, did not give any evidence whatsoever that illegal aliens spreading communicable diseases is a "major issue" or is "yet another disaster."

So much for reading comprehension, critical thinking, and logic.

Next!

Tahoma you may want to ask your wife how many she was checked for, as for our experience my wife was checked for all of them.

Me on the other hand was immunized against these diseases when i was a child as I suspect you were

Most US citizens were immunized when they were children or they couldn't enroll in kindergarten

You really are defensive in your replies, Tahoma, we all have different mindsets, that's what sets us apart, there is no need to slander or try to degrade anyone for having different opinions

My whole point is, why do I have to go through this lengthy expensive process to live with my wife and the guy up the street whom I have to help pay his medical bills and the costs to deport his relatives, it's quite obvious the federal government is failing at enforcing the laws of our country, this bill only is an attempt to enhance this process.

[evli1966 88]

I wonder if he supports his liberal non racist Blank Panthers supported by the liberal non racist NAACP.

I agree Jason and Rose never mentioned race the only person here mentioning it is NON.

Not trying o bash you non but calling the race card wore out 2 months ago or more; besides the Liberal Administration isn't even challenging the AZ SB1070 law on grounds that the law is racist because it is not.

Steve uses phrases like "Personal impressions are merely anecdotal and prove nothing." because he refuses to use the common sense that GOD has provided every man.

He literally refutes anything anyone posts and only acknowledges anything he posts as facts. But when those same facts are turned on him he disaapears.

In one post in OT he ported numbers which intermingeled Illegal Aliens with legal immigrants by calling them all immigrants. This post showed the type of blue collar jobs they worked and alot of those jobs had moderate earning potential; let alone the fact that any legal US immigrant or citizen could work. The fatc that they didn't differentiate between illegal and legal immigrants showed that Illegals were taking those types of jobs.

Steve tends trys to hide behind a false sense of protection for the illegals under the constitution but there is no protection there for them; I truly do not know his agenda.

I highly doubt his ability to support another family or willingness to pay out of his pocket 60% of his income to allow the masses to be provided for.

Steve with all due respect stop lieing to yourself.

BTW

You say SB1070 is sponsered by white supremis groups? I have seen nor read any factual evidence to this.

But are you a supporter of the NAACP who supports the Black Panther Organization whose memebers belong to NAACP? Now there is a racsim at it's highest degree which challenges SB1070.

Or are you going to show facts that those organizations are not racist?

Actually Illegal Alien is just that any undocumented immigrant which is an illegal status. Undocumented immigrant = Illegal Immigrant = Illegal Alien

Illegal Alien is the preferred term of those who oppose any amnesty program because to many open border activists or pro amnesty(no matter what political spectrum they are from) try to twist words by calling them immigrants.

Leegal Alien can be Canadian, Pakastani, Indian, Scottish, Irish, British, Mexican, Ecudoran, Brazilian......the list goes on.

It is the proamnesty/open border activist who are insisting the term means only Mexican; no one has ever stated it only means mexican.

I agree.

Tahoma post a link to your reference.

Steve showing proper ID domestically for flights, hotels bank transactions etc. is not to prove your immigration status. It is to prove identity. Now if your flying internationally the US passport with proper Visas are required and you are required to have these documents on you.

Also trust me if you are anywhere near an ICE bust and your not carrying the required documents you are being detained and you could have been swept up in what ever happen innocently or just caught the eye of an ICE agent.

So stop lying to yourself and carry your proper ID and documents.

Please no officer is going to risk being sued because he does not like your skin color. geez.

Yes they can detain you for not allowing them to search your vehicle and you wont eve be arrested unless the dogs find something. This already happens to any US citizen.

If your so worried about police having power over you and your rights well your fighting the wrong battle. The police are being given the ability to enforce a law that Feds are failing to enforce by choice. the Battle you need to fight is to get Obama and his liberal/progressive buds out of office and shrink the government; bigger government more power less individual rights is what they stand for.

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?

With respect please stay on topic picking on grammatical errors, spelling errors, and taking shots from other topics only cheapen your credability as a poster.

Tahoma your anger and hatered is getting the better of you. I have quoted all my links here and no wear did I state the NAACP was racist but I did hint at their support of a another party in which one of its leaders was spewing hate and racism. The organization should be denounced by NAACP and seriously looked at in regards to how they support that organization.

But to help you relief some stress you are feeling please feel free to spell check and grammar check all my posts listed

What is "credability" anyway? Does it have something to do with FICO credit scores? Maybe you mean "credibility." Using your rationale, posters who can't spell, are too lazy to spellcheck, make grade-school grammatical mistakes, can't put together a coherent sentence, and can't put sentences together to form an idea have lots of credibility. Go ahead and make fun of my grammar if makes you feel superior in your enlightened state of liberal Elitism.

I see that, in your world, forgetfulness adds credibility too. You called the NAACP racist in this very thread, then you forgot that you did so, and now you are chastising me for going off-topic when I respond to what you brought up in the first place. Unbelievable! Un again see above I hated to point it out becasue it would burst your bubble and embarrass you for your ingornace in understanding what was said. No one will scold you and if they do I will ask them to stop.

Now you can't seem to make up your mind. You went from calling the NAACP a "racist organization" to saying they have "racial tendencies." Is there a difference? Are you backing off of your claim that they are a racist organization, or are you simply attempting to find another way to say the same thing? I noticed that you have shown no proof, nor have you supplied any link that supports your nutty claims. I never made such a claim as what can be read again a poor attempt in your blind rage to spew and twist facts as most Liberal Elitist do for that matter Right Wing nuttso do as as well.

By the way, what are "racial tendencies?" What does it mean to "port rights and benefits?" Racial tendecies of such organizations would be supporting the rights and bebenfits over another race no matter what organization it will have racial tendencies against other races; albeit with good intentions. I apologies for the typo I was a little tired from working and as usual didnt use spell check or grammar check. (you seem to have all kinds of time please do it for me) any how these organizations support rights and benefits of a specific ethnic group. You need posted links to their charters and maybe some common sense of your own?

You also have a basic misconception about laws simply being a popularity contest. If a law is popular, it must be righteous? Apparently you disagree with our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he advocated for a system of checks and balances that would protect citizens from a "tyranny of the majority." If it weren't for the United States Supreme Court, Blacks in the south would have suffered under Jim Crow laws longer than they did.

Tahoma I hate to really do this but please find a link that specifically states the quote or reference to the idea "Tyranny of the Majority" by Thomas Jefferson.

BUT allow me to give you some quotes that he did state and feel free to follow the link to discover more for yourself and possibly what your stating above. just so you know we were never taught that in History we wre taught the founding fathers knew a Democracy couldn't last so a Republic was formed.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127 "The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

"[We acknowledge] the principle that the majority must give the law." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788. ME 7:28

"This... [is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:85

"Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:120

"The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail." --Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809.

"The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, etc., where not otherwise expressly provided." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800. ME 2:420

"It is the multitude which possess force, and wisdom must yield to that." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:492

http://www.cronaca.c...ves/003038.html go ahead and read some more.

Are you dismissing the Brennan Center study regarding ID that I provided a link for? You must have a link to conflicting information. If so, please provide the link which supports your statement "And to use hyperbole statements (sic) or news that US ADULT CITIZENS (sic) do not have picture ID is also unrealistic." You don't have one? I thought not. Nope do not have one but I have common sense which I believe you do but would ignore to when an argument.

Please provide a link to back up your assertion that "only people of shady character or with shady agendas would not have such ID." You don't have one? I thought not. Just more unsupported blather. you call it blather I call it common sense

If you are hired you are required to have a photo ID per the I-9 - The employer is to verify before hiring wokring as an unverfied employee puts you at risk so why do it?

Operating a vehicle requires a driver License - driving without a licesne is a misdemeanor offense or worse especially if it was suspended

traveling outside the USA requires a Passport - why wouldnt you unless your agenda is to hide from the law

Do not worry the guys roaming in your yard when your not home have no ID but they have a great reason to be on your back porch looking in the windows. ( I know hyperbole)

This is a few reasons some one would have ID other wise why not what is their agenda?

Oh yeah...and while you are at it...would you please provide your link that shows the United States Supreme Court ruling that allows profiling based only on race. this one originally United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, then this one 24 years later limiting the first but not nullifying it(if that is the correct word) United States v. Montero-Camargo, in foot note 21 it states:

21 In Brignoni-Ponce, the Supreme Court also noted that "[t]he Govern-

ment also points out that trained officers can recognize the characteristic

appearance of persons who live in Mexico, relying on such factors as the

mode of dress and haircut." 422 U.S. at 885. Those factors, however, havebeen largely ignored by lower courts, in favor of a broader reading of

Mexican or Hispanic appearance. In reaching our holding, we do not reject

the use of factors such as dress or haircut when they are relevant. Nor do

we preclude the use of racial or ethnic appearance as one factor relevant

to reasonable suspicion or probable cause when a particular suspect has

been identified as having a specific racial or ethnic appearance, be it Cau-

casian, African-American, Hispanic or other. We note, however, that a

stop based solely on the fact that the racial or ethnic appearance of an indi-

vidual matches the racial or ethnic description of a specific suspect would

not be justified. See United States v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286, 1289 (9th

Cir. 1982).

Have a great evening.

Edited July 28, 2010 by evli1966

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

Arizona immigration law: Key parts struck down by judge

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton has issued a preliminary injunction preventing several sections of Arizona's new immigration law from becoming law, at least until the courts have a chance to hear the full case.

Key parts of Senate Bill 1070 that will not go into effect Thursday:

• The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

• The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry "alien-registration papers."

• The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. (This does not include the section on day laborers.)

• The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.

The ruling says that law enforcement still must enforce federal immigration laws to the fullest extent of the law when SB 1070 goes into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. Individuals will still be able to sue an agency if they adopt a policy that restricts such enforcement.

Bolton did not halt the part of the law that creates misdemeanors crimes for harboring and transporting illegal immigrants.

Bolton's ruling followed hearings on three of seven federal lawsuits challenging SB 1070. Plaintiffs include the U.S. Department of Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, Phoenix and Tucson police officers, municipalities, illegal immigrants and non-profit groups.

She denied legal requests by Gov. Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and several other defendants seeking to have the lawsuits dismissed because, they argued, the plaintiffs did not prove that they would be harmed by the law if it went into effect.

Next, hearings will be scheduled to begin hearing the full case in the seven lawsuits. All or some of the suits could be consolidated. A full court hearing is likely to involve appeals, possibly as far as the U.S. Supreme Court, and could take several years.

Read more: http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz0v04SMVoq

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

steven, a preliminary injunction does not mean it's struck down.