EPTI think the best way is to make an example. Lets say you and your 5 neighbors hire a security guard group to protect your land. While protecting your land you notice that people keep breaking into your place and stealing stuff. Since the other neighbors don't really care since they aren't being stolen that much from, they just tell you they will add someone else. On your own as a house though you decide its not enough, so you send one of the people who live in the household to help watch the house to protect from invaders. The neighbors start complaining "thats not fair, if you protect your place more, then they are going to try to break into our house instead of yours" This is exactly why arizona wants to protect their land and how they have 100% authority to do so. Remember, each state is a separate mostly sovereign entity. They are allowed to enforce federal law if they do so in a manner that does not conflict with federal law or federal law enforcement (and in fact this law makes the feds job easier, not harder)
Arizona SB1070 Anti Immigration Law - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
I think the best way is to make an example. Lets say you and your 5 neighbors hire a security guard group to protect your land. While protecting your land you notice that people keep breaking into your place and stealing stuff. Since the other neighbors don't really care since they aren't being stolen that much from, they just tell you they will add someone else. On your own as a house though you decide its not enough, so you send one of the people who live in the household to help watch the house to protect from invaders. The neighbors start complaining "thats not fair, if you protect your place more, then they are going to try to break into our house instead of yours" This is exactly why arizona wants to protect their land and how they have 100% authority to do so. Remember, each state is a separate mostly sovereign entity. They are allowed to enforce federal law if they do so in a manner that does not conflict with federal law or federal law enforcement (and in fact this law makes the feds job easier, not harder) | ||
|
Alphonsse
United States518 Posts
On July 16 2010 19:26 darmousseh wrote: The question really isn't about the law. It's already a federal law. The question is whether local law enforcement can enforce a federal law. My thinking is "duh". Asking someone if they are an illegal immigrant is the same as if being asked if a cop asked you "do you smoke marijuana"...you don't have to answer and they cannot take the unanswered question as a sign that you do. In fact, I really doubt this law will have anything but a minor effect on illegal immigration the united states. In the end, I see the supreme court upholding the law since nothing in the law itself violates the already present federal law. I think the best way is to make an example. Lets say you and your 5 neighbors hire a security guard group to protect your land. While protecting your land you notice that people keep breaking into your place and stealing stuff. Since the other neighbors don't really care since they aren't being stolen that much from, they just tell you they will add someone else. On your own as a house though you decide its not enough, so you send one of the people who live in the household to help watch the house to protect from invaders. The neighbors start complaining "thats not fair, if you protect your place more, then they are going to try to break into our house instead of yours" This is exactly why arizona wants to protect their land and how they have 100% authority to do so. Remember, each state is a separate mostly sovereign entity. They are allowed to enforce federal law if they do so in a manner that does not conflict with federal law or federal law enforcement (and in fact this law makes the feds job easier, not harder) Moving to America and working = breaking in and stealing stuff? I don't buy it. Edit: I think a more fair analogy would be breaking in, doing your dishes, mowing your lawn, and then grabbing a bite to eat out of your fridge. | ||
|
Diuqil
United States307 Posts
On May 12 2010 10:07 poor newb wrote: you get what you vote for This has been foreseen for a while now. Watch, a lot of Jews are going to come into Arizona. | ||
|
superman.
65 Posts
On July 16 2010 19:42 Alphonsse wrote: Moving to America and working = breaking in and stealing stuff? I don't buy it. Edit: I think a more fair analogy would be breaking in, doing your dishes, mowing your lawn, and then grabbing a bite to eat out of your fridge. How would you describe the massive mexican drug cartel which is currently operating in Arizona shooting cops? | ||
|
SilverLeagueElite
United States626 Posts
On July 16 2010 19:54 superman. wrote: How would you describe the massive mexican drug cartel which is currently operating in Arizona shooting cops? Helping the economy. | ||
|
Alphonsse
United States518 Posts
On July 16 2010 19:54 superman. wrote: How would you describe the massive mexican drug cartel which is currently operating in Arizona shooting cops? That's another issue entirely, and I wonder if that would be a problem if not for our own war on drugs? | ||
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
| ||
|
Wombatsavior
United States107 Posts
Yeah! go north american union! | ||
|
Chupacabra(UCSD)
Mexico225 Posts
| ||
|
FindingPride
United States1001 Posts
| ||
|
yrba1
United States325 Posts
| ||
|
TymerA
Netherlands759 Posts
Parties (right-winged) that want to stop this '´problem´' from spreading or increasing (stop immigration from those countries) are gaining popularity here. I have mixed thoughts about it. However, back to the OP's topic, i do think its unacceptable to ask for legal papers because of how someone looks. exactly like OP pointed out, it does have a lot of similarities with what Nazis did. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state's attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy. Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work. In all, Bolton struck down four sections of the law, the ones that opponents called the most controversial. Bolton said she was putting those sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues. The ruling said the Obama administration, which sought the injunction, is likely to "succeed on the merits" in showing the above provisions are preempted by federal law. "The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws." | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On July 19 2010 22:50 TymerA wrote: i do think its unacceptable to ask for legal papers because of how someone looks. exactly like OP pointed out, it does have a lot of similarities with what Nazis did. Except that Nazis planned on killing people based on race, while in this instance race is a criterion for ensuring people are obeying the law, and if they don't, they are deported, not killed. EDIT: This is complete hypocrisy as well, since the Feds ignore sanctuary cities, but get so involved with states trying to enforce existing laws. | ||
|
Mania[K]al
United States359 Posts
Nobody will ever be happy. Just find something new to cry about as soon as this all blows over. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
How is this any different than what the Border patrol does every single day? Hell what they do is worse b/c at least the police would have to at least have reason to talk to them. Anyone who has been through a Border Patrol checkpoint (which there are dozens of down here) knows that they just wink at the white people and let them by and don't even stop to talk unless you're Mexican. They see a van with a Mexican driver? Well then they'll pull it over and noone cries "racism!" Weird double standard. Overall I think the result of this bill is pretty funny. I keep hearing reports of Mexican groups as well as the government in Mexico telling "immigrants" to avoid Arizona because it is "anti-immigrant." Good! Then it looks like the law did it's job. The way they talk about avoiding Arizona they make it sound like it's hurting the state but ironically this is exactly what the law and the large majority of people want. | ||
|
Jathin
United States3505 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On July 29 2010 12:57 Jathin wrote: And you fail to see how racism plays into this at all? My point is you don't see them shutting down BP checkpoints nor do you have the ACLU and Pro-Immigrant groups protesting at the BP HQ. Apparently racism is ok as long as the right people are doing it. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
In return Mexico received US $18,250,000[43] ($457,373,077 today)—less than half the amount the U.S. had attempted to offer Mexico for the land before the opening of hostilities[44]—and the U.S. agreed to assume $3.25-million ($81,450,000 today) in debts that the Mexican government owed to U.S. citizens If Mexico wants Arizona back they can have it, but we'll take our money back thank you very much. | ||
|
ckw
United States1018 Posts
| ||
| ||
