1070 already working (Flagstaff, Sedona: law, legal, safety)

[Ritchie_az]

If anything does come of it, and I doubt that it will, it may be that 1070 ends up inadvertently legalizing thousands of aliens. The judge is surely going to toss the provision that people can be held indefinitely while their immigration status is determined and the criminalizing of being in the US without "papers" as well (under US law it is a civil offense - not a criminal one). So, the cops will turn over the suspected illegals to ICE who will release them until a determination can be made. When ICE does this, the suspected illegal immediately becomes temporarily legal and can even apply for and hold a job. ICE will simply drag their feet and never make the determinations in cases of low risk busboys and landscapers. Once the illegals figure this out, they will be "volunteering" for a stop and refer.

If that happens, that would reflect very poorly on the federal government, and would show just how broken the federal system is.

[Duluth07]

Not having much knowledge about immigration law and guidelines, I have done my own research over the past decade because I am a United States citizen who has wanted to immigrate to Canada. I have a college degree, no kids, no 'record' and excellent language skills in both English and French. Yet, the road to permanent citizenship in Canada appears to be an impossible one. One look at 'Citizenship and Immigration Canada' webpage and it appears that, when looking at the points system, you must have a doctorate-level education, a quarter of a million dollars in savings, each and every debt paid off (including all student loans), and be so advanced in your career that any job you would be applying for in Canada would be one that no current Canadian citizen would have the credentials to qualify for (after doing a nationwide search). Yet every day it seems as if Mexicans come here with the opposite of my intentions, dreams and goals - many children, no language skills or interest in US culture, and no intentions of ever earning a degree or even a high school diploma. Obviously, many DO have goals that include the same as mine. As well, I know that life in Mexico is terrible and probably anyone who could get out of there would. But that's where we are left with a moral dilemma, which is why I'm posting this question here - at what point does policy (immigration policies should be the same for ALL, regardless of nationality) trump compassion; particularly for a nation (US) that has no resources left to assist people with no skills to ever live above any state's poverty line?

It angers me that people have been coming here illegally when it is common knowledge that having 6 kids by the age of 21, and being a grandparent by 28, basically guarantees you a lifetime of poverty and also guarantees another generation of the same living conditions. We are seeing that in other states where 5 year welfare limits have prompted people to suddenly claim they have fibromyalgia, traumatic brain injury, ADHD, or any other extremely vague medical condition that, with the right lawyer, any of us could claim we have. What these people want is a ticket to never have to work again or contribute to society. They have used their children shamelessly by brainwashing them with these phony disabilities so the parent can collect 6 SSI checks for all the kids.

Back to my comment or question, it just infuriates me that Canada has an immigration policy that is so restrictive that only the top 1% of this country's population will ever get the chance to move there. The US appears to have taken the low road by allowing any and every person wanting to come here, while taking nothing into account in terms of this person's ability to provide for themselves or their families. Meanwhile the rest of us are told to deal with it and keep paying for these services for people who dislike us from day one, yet are happy to take our money. We are then told if we don't like the conditions of this country we should leave it. But now what's discovered is - where are we supposed to go? We can't leave. While I am angry that Canada has such restrictive policies, they are an example of how a country is doing well in this financial crisis by restricting who gets in and who does not. You can't just show up. Sometimes you will be waiting 5-10 years while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to get in. The majority of the time all this will be for nothing, as you will be rejected.

Imagine if the US had these policies in place, and at the same time, required a sponsor to be legally and financially responsible for each and every immigrant that entered US soil. We're about 50 years past that reality now.

[Ritchie_az]

But that's where we are left with a moral dilemma, which is why I'm posting this question here - at what point does policy (immigration policies should be the same for ALL, regardless of nationality) trump compassion; particularly for a nation (US) that has no resources left to assist people with no skills to ever live above any state's poverty line?

We do what we can (by that, I mean non-profits and churches and just "ordinary" people who give) to help the world's poor. But as a nation, we cannot offer open arms to the worlds poor unless it is our goal to become poor ourselves (and what good is that?). Much of the world would love to come to America, especially the poor, third-world nations. We are compassionate people who give so much. But we cannot bankrupt ourselves in the process.
Our immigration policy is not nearly as strict as Canada's (or Mexico's, for that matter), but it is not necessarily free or easy, either. I do believe that more people would be allowed to enter legally (be given citizenship) if there were fewer people coming illegally. I do believe they factor illegal immigrants when they determine how many will be allowed in.

[Ponderosa]

We will know more about how fear of the law is working when schools open in a couple weeks.

[Bummer]

I find many of the posts on this thread very disturbing . . .

Obviously, as a society, we seem to value the God Almighty Dollar over basic law and order.

Personally, I don't give a rat's butt about a few businesses going under because they either hired Illegals or catered to them.

I care even less that a few Illegals are forced to sell the "valuables" on the street corner and move to another state because they are afraid of SB1070. They came here with nothing, drained the social services budgets, contributed nothing and now the media wants me to feel sorry for them because they are being forced to relocate . . . NOT.

What I do care about and find extremely disgusting is how the Goons in Washington as well as the many Sanctuary Cities around this country are perpetuating this blatant disrespect for our laws and our sovereignty with their arrogance and stupidity.

Bottom line . . . yes, the economy is important, however, the safety and future of the Legal Citizens of the United States are much more important.

MY TWO CENTS WORTH.

[SacalaitWhisperer]

Remember the Alamo?

There were hispanics on both sides of the wall.


There are latino families who are legal Ameican citizens that will be impacted by this.
What about their rights?

Blacks and Latinos are registering to vote in record numbers.

You are energizing the electorate, AridZona. Was that your intention?

[Gurbie]

<<If I were a law enforcement officer reading this, I'd be offended. These guys are highly trained and very respectable and skilled folks. They will (and many already have begun to) receive training on this law. Just like they received training on all of the laws. There is no need to belittle them just because you disagree with the law.>>

I AM a law enforcement officer (in Socal, not Az, thank god). I'm not belittling Arizona's cops. I feel sorry for them. Thanks to your politician's short-sighted ambitions, and your general populace's apparent xenophobia, your police officers are going to be burdened with attempting to enforce an unworkable, odious law. Furthermore, they are going to be COMPELLED to enforce this law, lest they be subject to up to $5000 a day in civil fines (read it if you don't believe me). Whichever Heritage Foundation lawyer back in DC put THAT clause into SB 1070 certainly demonstrated just what the authors think of Arizona's cops, didn't they? They stripped your officers of one of a cop's greatest tools in attempting to enforce laws in a democratic society- the power of discretion. Why don't you check with your officers about how they feel about that?

Again, good luck.

[RedJacket]

"Furthermore, they are going to be COMPELLED to enforce this law, lest they be subject to up to $5000 a day in civil fines (read it if you don't believe me)."

The only absolute requirement for law enforcement officers and agencies to confirm a person's immigration status is if they are arrested for another crime. Everything else you wrote is just gobbledygook.

Mod Cut: Personal

[Ritchie_az]

There are latino families who are legal Ameican citizens that will be impacted by this.
What about their rights?

What about it? Which rights of theirs would be impacted?

I'm not belittling Arizona's cops. I feel sorry for them. Thanks to your politician's short-sighted ambitions, and your general populace's apparent xenophobia, your police officers are going to be burdened with attempting to enforce an unworkable, odious law.

Says you. Who cares? You're in California, home of sanctuary cities (which directly oppose federal immigration law) and folks who boycott something they've never read or tried to understand. You can call Arizonans all the names you want, I have a few choice ones for liberal Californians, but the mods would delete them, so I'll let you imagine what they are.
I guess your idea of great governance is Gray Davis, Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer. No thanks! You can have them! I'll take Arizona's "short-sighted" and "xenophobic" politicians any day.
AND, Arizona is NOT xenophobic. We like immigrants a lot, just as long as they are legal. What we are against are ILLEGAL immigrants. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand, it's a pretty simple concept, really. Remember, I'm in a hispanic family, and my hispanic relatives support 1070. A fair portion of them are from (born in) Mexico. But they came legally. Are they xenophobes? Or are you name-calling (a logical fallacy) because you don't have a real arguement that holds water?

They stripped your officers of one of a cop's greatest tools in attempting to enforce laws in a democratic society- the power of discretion.

The law is the law, and I'm glad law enforcement doesn't have discretion. They are sworn to uphold the law, not just whatever laws they agree with and forget about the ones they don't. It wouldn't be law enforcement anymore. Police officers don't get to pick and choose.

I AM a law enforcement officer

More and more, I'm beginning to doubt this.

[kdog]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

What about it? Which rights of theirs would be impacted?



Says you. Who cares? You're in California, home of sanctuary cities (which directly oppose federal immigration law) and folks who boycott something they've never read or tried to understand. You can call Arizonans all the names you want, I have a few choice ones for liberal Californians, but the mods would delete them, so I'll let you imagine what they are.
I guess your idea of great governance is Gray Davis, Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer. No thanks! You can have them! I'll take Arizona's "short-sighted" and "xenophobic" politicians any day.
AND, Arizona is NOT xenophobic. We like immigrants a lot, just as long as they are legal. What we are against are ILLEGAL immigrants. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand, it's a pretty simple concept, really. Remember, I'm in a hispanic family, and my hispanic relatives support 1070. A fair portion of them are from (born in) Mexico. But they came legally. Are they xenophobes? Or are you name-calling (a logical fallacy) because you don't have a real arguement that holds water?



The law is the law, and I'm glad law enforcement doesn't have discretion. They are sworn to uphold the law, not just whatever laws they agree with and forget about the ones they don't. It wouldn't be law enforcement anymore. Police officers don't get to pick and choose.



More and more, I'm beginning to doubt this.

Thanks for typing this so I didn't have to.