New Immigration Policy Controversy in Arizona

[Que Saudade 284]

If I walk into the bank down the street and stick a gun in the teller's face, should i be found not guilty because going to prison would put my children in a bad situation? Children pay for their parents breaking the law everyday. Nothing new.

You should. But that is the wrong analogy. If you walk into the bank to rob it accompanied by your 12 year old child, should your child be found guilty?

The premise of this whole debate is not about the parents who brought the kids over, it is about the kids who were brought over by their parents. There are certain requirements that must be fulfilled in order to qualify for deferred action. Have you actually read them all? Link here

If they obtain an EAD (under deferred action) and are considered legal to work, then why is Arizona wanting to continue to treat them as illegals and not allow them to get drivers license?

[kytwell 179]

You should. But that is the wrong analogy. If you walk into the bank to rob it accompanied by your 12 year old child, should your child be found guilty?

Only if child demands to keep the ill-gotten proceeds of the crime.

Edited August 29, 2012 by kytwell

[Boiler 45,470]

It is all political, basically a pissing match. I could denigrate both.

As I understand it State's issue DL's and decide who they want to issue them to and on what basis.

The Fed's control only the minimum standard by threat of removing money.

[rocks 494]

You are either a politician or a reporter.... You perfectly take things out of context.

Agreed.

[JohnR! 5,495]

As I understand it State's issue DL's and decide who they want to issue them to and on what basis.

The Fed's control only the minimum standard by threat of removing money.

The States' decide on the basis upon which they will issue DL's. They can assert the need to show evidence of legal residence in the US but they cannot choose which documents to recognize. So long as the individual is legally in the US, Arizona has no business deciding on issuing DLs based on 'how' they became legal.

This is no different than AZ refusing to issue DLs to K-1 visa holders and demanding they present their GC.

There is a limit for how much contempt for the US Constitution a state can show in its legislation, even if this is an election year and Brewer needs to step up the pandering.

[JMH 21]

Absolutely. They should be followed. However, the law is discriminatory,plain and simple. If you don't want illegals working, fine I concur, then also amend the law that makes it illegal to hire these workers instead of exploiting them. People who take advantage of illegals for financial gain are no better than the early settlers who owned slaves.

Arizonans created this problem by utilizing a cheap labor force when it was to their benefit. Now, Arizona wants to cry victim to the very problem that was perpetuated by their greed.

I understand the citizen's perspective. They should also look at the root of the problem. There lies a primary cause to the current situation.

Ummm. . . it was illegal for them to be hired before this. Also, this is not a law (that would require congress/senate approval), it's a executive order giving them more rights than they had before. Our Gov also didn't change anything, she just reminded our state that anybody here illegally doesn't qualify for STATE benafits. It's not discrimination, it's the law and always has been.

[rocks 494]

Ummm. . . it was illegal for them to be hired before this. Also, this is not a law (that would require congress/senate approval), it's a executive order giving them more rights than they had before. Our Gov also didn't change anything, she just reminded our state that anybody here illegally doesn't qualify for STATE benafits. It's not discrimination, it's the law and always has been.

If they have an EAD then they aren't here illegally.

[JMH 21]

I consider the president's executive order more political pandering the governor's. First, Arizona has a very high immigrant population (legal and illegal) so she loses more than she gains by angering that group of people. The good news is that most of the legal immigrants (and Arizona voters) know the importance of doing things the correct way. This is why she is won the election. Second, unlike the president she didn't change anything. She didn't order that certain current laws would stop being enforced, and she never removed benefits from any group that was entitled to them. I get tired of hearing how this is discrimination or a punishment for them. It clearly isn't either.

Before the presidential order:

The parents are not citizens

The children are not citizens

Did not qualify for state benifits

Not legally allowed to work

Could be deported if caught

After the presidential order:

The parents are not citizens

The children are not citizens

Still do not qualify for state benifits

Legally allowed to work

Won't be deported for two years.

If you think this is discrimination, or a punishment. . . then we must have VERY different ideas about the concepts! Finally, just being given the right to work legally doesn't grant you all state benifits. Just as violent criminals can't own a gun, sex offender's can't live near a school, and felons can't get food stamps. Are they allowed to work, yes. Are they entitled to full state benifits, no. I'm glad I live in Arizona and she's got my vote.

Edited August 29, 2012 by JMH

[rocks 494]

If they have an EAD they are here legally. Why should they be denied access to a drivers license which can enable them to go to work, and thus pay taxes?

[JohnR! 5,495]

I consider the president's executive order more political pandering the governor's.

The Executive Order was a message from the POTUS to Congress indicating they should put aside their partisanship and work together. If he were pandering he would have exec ordered the entire Dream Act, instead of this temporary and limited measure.

[justashooter 430]

Huh? The purpose of the document (EAD) is to allow them to work legally, and that includes paying taxes. What are you talking about?

earned income credit, american opportunity act (college funding), aid to families with dependent children, fuel cost assistance, medicaid/medicare, WIC, section 8 housing, etc, all together up to $20,000 per year for someone here illegally who begins to qualify and takes a low wage job that results in ZERO tax contribution and $20,000 in cost to the state in which they are living.

[justashooter 430]

The Executive Order was a message from the POTUS to Congress indicating they should put aside their partisanship and work together. If he were pandering he would have exec ordered the entire Dream Act, instead of this temporary and limited measure.

he overstepped the bounds of his authority as it is.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

This seems like another toothless law. AZ has and will accept EADs as a primary ID, so unless the federal government gives out specially marked EADs indicating that they are on deferred action how will the DMV even know?

[justashooter 430]

Only if child demands to keep the ill-gotten proceeds of the crime.

fruit of the poisoned tree, see blackstone.

http://edmichaels.hubpages.com/hub/Diving-into-Blackstone

[JohnR! 5,495]

This seems like another toothless law. AZ has and will accept EADs as a primary ID, so unless the federal government gives out specially marked EADs indicating that they are on deferred action how will the DMV even know?

Well, so long as they are passing these laws, they need not worry about their constituency realizing they are not doing anything to solve the economic woes that afflict Arizona. Brewer is giving her constituency a reality TV show instead of running the State.

Give 'em the old razzle dazzle

Razzle Dazzle 'em

Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it

And the reaction will be passionate

Give 'em the old hocus pocus

Bead and feather 'em

How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

Chicago, the Musical.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Gegel