AZ Immigration Law Signed

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Here are my thoughts…

People near the border pretty much got sick and tired of bitching and moaning, and seeing it get nowhere. So they took matter into their own hands. I applaud the governor for signing the bill, even with Obama criticizing it, he is equally irresponsible for not securing the border. So his opinion on this is worthless in my opinion.

How officers use this will determine the outcome of it. If they plan to arrest every single Latino, then of course it will be a nightmare in every possible manner. However, if cops use the idea of probably cause and reasonable suspicion intelligently, then it will be good. What is my definition of reasonable suspicion? If a cop pulls over someone for a traffic violation, and they hand over a library card from Guatemala, then yea I might think he could be illegal. However, someone gets questioned for eating nachos, then yea that’s worthless. I like nachos, don’t fuck with my nachos. Rather than listen to all the exaggerated rhetoric, it will depend on how cops go about enforcing this law to see how it pans out.

Like Standard Donkey mentioned, it will have to stand up to legal challenges.[/quote]

Great post, Max.[/quote]
I agree and wouldn’t have bothered posting what I did if I had seen this first. Don’t ask me how I missed it max. Exactly right.

22

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Anyone (Trib?) know about the Constitutionality of this? Do the Bill of Rights apply to States? Does Arizona have something in their Constitution against this sort of thing? [/quote]
The general, but not universal consensus among those whose opinion I care about is that the feds should enforce national borders, but absent that states can do it as long as it doesn’t violate federal law which of course all the open border types are quick to claim is the case. I don’t know. I do know if I were an official in a state with borders under siege like Arizona and the feds were dragging their feet I’d probably start looking for solutions too in the absence of clear evidence I couldn’t.[/quote]

Put yourself in Governor Brewer’s position.

She has to deal with people who complain about illegals, drug smugglers, border violence, and when she reaches out to the Feds to help her do the job that they should be doing, they shrug her off. I don’t blame her, if anything, I wish she was my governor instead of the Austrian Joke. At bare minimum, she has tapped into the non-politically correct arena. It is now OK to be openly opposed to illegals, when before people were fearful of being looked at as racist. States will be watching how this pans out, and legally if it does, don’t be surprised when other states want to throw their hat in the ring.

24

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
So what do you guys think of it? [/quote]

Depends entirely on enforcement. The police departments may choose not to really enforce it at all. OR they might use it simply to harass people. [/quote]

I agree

25

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Anyone (Trib?) know about the Constitutionality of this? Do the Bill of Rights apply to States? Does Arizona have something in their Constitution against this sort of thing? [/quote]
The general, but not universal consensus among those whose opinion I care about is that the feds should enforce national borders, but absent that states can do it as long as it doesn’t violate federal law which of course all the open border types are quick to claim is the case. I don’t know. I do know if I were an official in a state with borders under siege like Arizona and the feds were dragging their feet I’d probably start looking for solutions too in the absence of clear evidence I couldn’t.[/quote]

Put yourself in Governor Brewer’s position.

She has to deal with people who complain about illegals, drug smugglers, border violence, and when she reaches out to the Feds to help her do the job that they should be doing, they shrug her off. I don’t blame her, if anything, I wish she was my governor instead of the Austrian Joke. At bare minimum, she has tapped into the non-politically correct arena. It is now OK to be openly opposed to illegals, when before people were fearful of being looked at as racist. States will be watching how this pans out, and legally if it does, don’t be surprised when other states want to throw their hat in the ring. [/quote]

I loath Ms. Brewer but would have signed the bill also .Illegal labor has dragged down the wages so low. When I left Ohio in 85 drywall paid $.08 a sq ft in AZ it paid $.04 a sq ft . talk about culture shock :slight_smile:

26

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Anyone (Trib?) know about the Constitutionality of this?[/quote]

I can’t think of a section of the Constitution that prohibits it or better yet delegates it to the federal government. Now that doesn’t mean some case law differs.

With that in mind the 10th Amendment clearly states, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Maybe someone else can correct me.[quote]

Do the Bill of Rights apply to States? [/quote]

According to the doctrine of the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment, yes. I think those, including jurists, who have promoted this and set precedents have stretched the original intent of the 14th.

However, that is the position of McDonald in the pending case before the USSC, McDonald v. Chicago, that is that the 14th incorporates the 2nd. Many other cases have been established that have incorporated the other amendments.

[/quote]
You’re wrong push. article 1 section 8 :the power…to establish a uniform rule of naturalization…" and “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…” grants this authority first to the federal government.
However, state officers have the authority to arrest individuals on the basis of suspicion of committing a federal crime but have no obligation to.
It’s also absurd to argue that additional members of the workforce illegal or otherwise somehow adversely affects natural citizens. It’s the unconstitutional mandates placed on private individuals that pits one class of worker against another.

28

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Anyone (Trib?) know about the Constitutionality of this? Do the Bill of Rights apply to States? Does Arizona have something in their Constitution against this sort of thing? [/quote]
The general, but not universal consensus among those whose opinion I care about is that the feds should enforce national borders, but absent that states can do it as long as it doesn’t violate federal law which of course all the open border types are quick to claim is the case. I don’t know. I do know if I were an official in a state with borders under siege like Arizona and the feds were dragging their feet I’d probably start looking for solutions too in the absence of clear evidence I couldn’t.[/quote]

Put yourself in Governor Brewer’s position.

She has to deal with people who complain about illegals, drug smugglers, border violence, and when she reaches out to the Feds to help her do the job that they should be doing, they shrug her off. I don’t blame her, if anything, I wish she was my governor instead of the Austrian Joke. At bare minimum, she has tapped into the non-politically correct arena. It is now OK to be openly opposed to illegals, when before people were fearful of being looked at as racist. States will be watching how this pans out, and legally if it does, don’t be surprised when other states want to throw their hat in the ring. [/quote]

I loath Ms. Brewer but would have signed the bill also .Illegal labor has dragged down the wages so low. When I left Ohio in 85 drywall paid $.08 a sq ft in AZ it paid $.04 a sq ft . talk about culture shock :)[/quote]

This is exactly my point. I have alot of buddies who work in construction, have completed apprenticeship programs, only to be low balled by the guys standing around Home Depot. Cheap labor isn’t cheap. The difference is made up with social costs like education, welfare, and incarcerating illegals. You get what you pay for.

This bill has been crafted carefully, should be interesting to see what happens. They could easily amend a few things, keep the rest, and make it a great law still.

29

Ihre Papiere bitte?

30

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Anyone (Trib?) know about the Constitutionality of this? Do the Bill of Rights apply to States? Does Arizona have something in their Constitution against this sort of thing? [/quote]
The general, but not universal consensus among those whose opinion I care about is that the feds should enforce national borders, but absent that states can do it as long as it doesn’t violate federal law which of course all the open border types are quick to claim is the case. I don’t know. I do know if I were an official in a state with borders under siege like Arizona and the feds were dragging their feet I’d probably start looking for solutions too in the absence of clear evidence I couldn’t.[/quote]

Put yourself in Governor Brewer’s position.

She has to deal with people who complain about illegals, drug smugglers, border violence, and when she reaches out to the Feds to help her do the job that they should be doing, they shrug her off. I don’t blame her, if anything, I wish she was my governor instead of the Austrian Joke. At bare minimum, she has tapped into the non-politically correct arena. It is now OK to be openly opposed to illegals, when before people were fearful of being looked at as racist. States will be watching how this pans out, and legally if it does, don’t be surprised when other states want to throw their hat in the ring. [/quote]

I loath Ms. Brewer but would have signed the bill also .Illegal labor has dragged down the wages so low. When I left Ohio in 85 drywall paid $.08 a sq ft in AZ it paid $.04 a sq ft . talk about culture shock :)[/quote]

This is exactly my point. I have alot of buddies who work in construction, have completed apprenticeship programs, only to be low balled by the guys standing around Home Depot. Cheap labor isn’t cheap. The difference is made up with social costs like education, welfare, and incarcerating illegals. You get what you pay for.

This bill has been crafted carefully, should be interesting to see what happens. They could easily amend a few things, keep the rest, and make it a great law still. [/quote]

Being a Contractor , I pay taxes , insurance they pay neither and they bid the jobs just below where I can make profit .In the late 90s you would see those truck come on a job sight , all the illegals would disapear , but they were back the following day. They have to go after employers also .

31

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

32

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Anyone (Trib?) know about the Constitutionality of this? Do the Bill of Rights apply to States? Does Arizona have something in their Constitution against this sort of thing? [/quote]
The general, but not universal consensus among those whose opinion I care about is that the feds should enforce national borders, but absent that states can do it as long as it doesn’t violate federal law which of course all the open border types are quick to claim is the case.

I don’t know. I do know if I were an official in a state with borders under siege like Arizona and the feds were dragging their feet I’d probably start looking for solutions too in the absence of clear evidence I couldn’t.[/quote]

Put yourself in Governor Brewer’s position.

She has to deal with people who complain about illegals, drug smugglers, border violence, and when she reaches out to the Feds to help her do the job that they should be doing, they shrug her off. I don’t blame her, if anything, I wish she was my governor instead of the Austrian Joke.

At bare minimum, she has tapped into the non-politically correct arena. It is now OK to be openly opposed to illegals, when before people were fearful of being looked at as racist. States will be watching how this pans out, and legally if it does, don’t be surprised when other states want to throw their hat in the ring. [/quote]

I loath Ms. Brewer but would have signed the bill also .Illegal labor has dragged down the wages so low. When I left Ohio in 85 drywall paid $.08 a sq ft in AZ it paid $.04 a sq ft . talk about culture shock :)[/quote]

This is exactly my point. I have alot of buddies who work in construction, have completed apprenticeship programs, only to be low balled by the guys standing around Home Depot. Cheap labor isn’t cheap. The difference is made up with social costs like education, welfare, and incarcerating illegals. You get what you pay for.

This bill has been crafted carefully, should be interesting to see what happens. They could easily amend a few things, keep the rest, and make it a great law still. [/quote]

Being a Contractor , I pay taxes , insurance they pay neither and they bid the jobs just below where I can make profit .In the late 90s you would see those truck come on a job sight , all the illegals would disapear , but they were back the following day. They have to go after employers also .[/quote]

So Pitt, what do you think about the Bill/Law?

33

One of you mentioned that it should be implemented in the course of an officer following up on an actual offense e.g. broken tail light, drunk and disorderly. I agree with this. Otherwise AZ is now apartheid south africa.

34

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Anyone (Trib?) know about the Constitutionality of this? Do the Bill of Rights apply to States? Does Arizona have something in their Constitution against this sort of thing? [/quote]
The general, but not universal consensus among those whose opinion I care about is that the feds should enforce national borders, but absent that states can do it as long as it doesn’t violate federal law which of course all the open border types are quick to claim is the case.

I don’t know. I do know if I were an official in a state with borders under siege like Arizona and the feds were dragging their feet I’d probably start looking for solutions too in the absence of clear evidence I couldn’t.[/quote]

Put yourself in Governor Brewer’s position.

She has to deal with people who complain about illegals, drug smugglers, border violence, and when she reaches out to the Feds to help her do the job that they should be doing, they shrug her off. I don’t blame her, if anything, I wish she was my governor instead of the Austrian Joke.

At bare minimum, she has tapped into the non-politically correct arena. It is now OK to be openly opposed to illegals, when before people were fearful of being looked at as racist. States will be watching how this pans out, and legally if it does, don’t be surprised when other states want to throw their hat in the ring. [/quote]

I loath Ms. Brewer but would have signed the bill also .Illegal labor has dragged down the wages so low. When I left Ohio in 85 drywall paid $.08 a sq ft in AZ it paid $.04 a sq ft . talk about culture shock :)[/quote]

This is exactly my point. I have alot of buddies who work in construction, have completed apprenticeship programs, only to be low balled by the guys standing around Home Depot. Cheap labor isn’t cheap. The difference is made up with social costs like education, welfare, and incarcerating illegals. You get what you pay for.

This bill has been crafted carefully, should be interesting to see what happens. They could easily amend a few things, keep the rest, and make it a great law still. [/quote]

Being a Contractor , I pay taxes , insurance they pay neither and they bid the jobs just below where I can make profit .In the late 90s you would see those truck come on a job sight , all the illegals would disapear , but they were back the following day. They have to go after employers also .[/quote]

So Pitt, what do you think about the Bill/Law?

[/quote]

Time will tell if it is constitutional , but if nothing it SHOULD kick America in the ass, it has been a problem for me personally for 25 years and am sure it has been a problem for other AZ residents for a lot longer than that

35

Countries that have stricter immigration laws are stagnating. Our industrialized nation is

1.)living longer, which costs money

2.) not reproducing enough.

so we NEED immigrants. Furthermore, their cheap labor drives down costs and benefits society. It carries over into other industries when people have more money to spend… Simply put, its all about supply and demand - and they wouldn’t be here if there was no demand for them.

36

[quote]orion wrote:
Ihre Papiere bitte?

[/quote]
Sorry,they are Mexican. Spreche nicht gut Deutsch.

37

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
Countries that have stricter immigration laws are stagnating. Our industrialized nation is

1.)living longer, which costs money

2.) not reproducing enough.

so we NEED immigrants. Furthermore, their cheap labor drives down costs and benefits society. It carries over into other industries when people have more money to spend… Simply put, its all about supply and demand - and they wouldn’t be here if there was no demand for them.[/quote]

This sounds like a free-market arguement for open immigration. Unfortunately, there is no free market. What happens is that other tax-payers subsidize the cost of unskilled-illegal- labor for the benefit of some employer looking for the cheapest worker.

We pay their ER bills, we send their anchor babies to school, we pay the extra policing for all the crime inside (and pouring out of) their ghettos. When they get some idiot to grant them amnesty next time, we’ll be funding their subsidized health-care plan, too.

We pay all the social and financial costs for a population which, even generations later, still doesn’t achieve. A Demographic which by the way is quickly outreproducing the very people who carry the burden of funding the social costs. Now that, isn’t a very good combination.

I’d rather have a succesful shrinking population then see it replaced by a population that can’t keep a father in the home for even half of it’s families. Cause guess who pays that child support? We do. Just so some contractor can cut his costs. Hire some blacks.

Sure, you might have to pay more, but maybe some of them will actually be able to afford a damn home now that their blue collar work isn’t being handed off to interlopers who are willing to pack themselves into a single apartment like eggs in carton.

And maybe, just maybe, with steady, reliable, low-skilled work, within a generation or two, their descendents will be climbing to the next rung on the socio-economic ladder.

38

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
One of you mentioned that it should be implemented in the course of an officer following up on an actual offense e.g. broken tail light, drunk and disorderly. I agree with this. Otherwise AZ is now apartheid south africa. [/quote]
we agree

39

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
Countries that have stricter immigration laws are stagnating. Our industrialized nation is

1.)living longer, which costs money

2.) not reproducing enough.

so we NEED immigrants. Furthermore, their cheap labor drives down costs and benefits society. It carries over into other industries when people have more money to spend… Simply put, its all about supply and demand - and they wouldn’t be here if there was no demand for them.[/quote]

This philosophy is why we have a growing secound class citizen population . We do not need cheap labor .

40

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]spyoptic wrote:
Countries that have stricter immigration laws are stagnating. Our industrialized nation is

1.)living longer, which costs money

2.) not reproducing enough.

so we NEED immigrants. Furthermore, their cheap labor drives down costs and benefits society. It carries over into other industries when people have more money to spend… Simply put, its all about supply and demand - and they wouldn’t be here if there was no demand for them.[/quote]

This sounds like a free-market arguement for open immigration. Unfortunately, there is no free market. What happens is that other tax-payers subsidize the cost of unskilled-illegal- labor for the benefit of some employer looking for the cheapest worker.

We pay their ER bills, we send their anchor babies to school, we pay the extra policing for all the crime inside (and pouring out of) their ghettos. When they get some idiot to grant them amnesty next time, we’ll be funding their subsidized health-care plan, too.

We pay all the social and financial costs for a population which, even generations later, still doesn’t achieve. A Demographic which by the way is quickly outreproducing the very people who carry the burden of funding the social costs. Now that, isn’t a very good combination.

I’d rather have a succesful shrinking population then see it replaced by a population that can’t keep a father in the home for even half of it’s families. Cause guess who pays that child support? We do. Just so some contractor can cut his costs. Hire some blacks.

Sure, you might have to pay more, but maybe some of them will actually be able to afford a damn home now that their blue collar work isn’t being handed off to interlopers who are willing to pack themselves into a single apartment like eggs in carton.

And maybe, just maybe, with steady, reliable, low-skilled work, within a generation or two, their descendents will be climbing to the next rung on the socio-economic ladder.[/quote]

ok thx for the reply, I don’t know much on the subject. Along those lines I read that immigrants and their children are a burden to the state, but if you span it over their lifetime they end up paying more in taxes and whatnot.

edit: even illegal ones