YAAAAA!!! Arizona passes strict illegal immigration act
 

Arizona passes strict illegal immigration act
The bill directs police to determine the immigration status of noncriminals if there is a 'reasonable suspicion' they are undocumented. Immigrant rights groups say it amounts to a police state.
Reporting from Denver
Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday approved what foes and supporters agree is the toughest measure in the country against illegal immigrants, directing local police to determine whether people are in the country legally.

The measure, long sought by opponents of illegal immigration, passed 35 to 21 in the state House of Representatives.



The state Senate passed a similar measure earlier this year, and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is expected to sign the bill.

The bill's author, State Sen. Russell Pearce, said the law simply "takes the handcuffs off of law enforcement and lets them do their job."

But police were deeply divided on the matter, with police unions backing it but the state police chief's association opposed the bill, contending it could erode trust with immigrants who could be potential witnesses.

Immigrant rights groups were horrified, and contended that Arizona had been transformed into a police state.

"It's beyond the pale," said Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "It appears to mandate racial profiling."

The bill, known as SB 1070, makes it a misdemeanor to lack proper immigration paperwork in Arizona. It also requires police officers, if they form a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal immigrant, to determine the person's immigration status.

Currently, officers can inquire about someone's immigration status only if the person is a suspect in another crime. The bill allows officers to avoid the immigration issue if it would be impractical or hinder another investigation.

Citizens can sue to compel police agencies to comply with the law, and no city or agency can formulate a policy directing its workers to ignore the law -- a provision that advocates say prevents so-called "sanctuary" orders that police not inquire about people's immigration status.

The bill cements the position of Arizona, whose border with Mexico is the most popular point of entry for illegal immigrants into this country, as the state most aggressively using its own laws to fight illegal immigration. In 2006 the state passed a law that would dissolve companies with a pattern of hiring illegal immigrants. Last year it made it a crime for a government worker to give improper benefits to an illegal immigrant.

Mark Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank that advocates tougher immigration enforcement, said the new law is a logical extension of the state's previous enforcement efforts.

"It makes sense that they would be the first to do it since they're ground zero for illegal immigration," he said.

Krikorian added that he doubted the law would be used much. "Obviously, their prosecutors aren't going to go out and prosecute every illegal alien," he said. "It gives police and prosecutors another tool should they need it."

Opponents, however, raised the specter of officers untrained in immigration law now being required to determine who is in the country legally. They noted that though the bill says race cannot solely be used to form a suspicion about a person's legality, it implicitly allows it to be a factor.

"A lot of U.S. citizens are going to be swept up in the application of this law for something as simple as having an accent and leaving their wallet at home," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

The ACLU and other groups have vowed to sue to block the bill from taking effect should Brewer sign it. They note that a federal court struck down a New Hampshire law in 2005 that said illegal immigrants were trespassing, declaring that only the federal government has the authority to enforce immigration. Another provision of the Arizona law, which makes day laborers illegal, violates the 1st Amendment, critics contend.

The issue of local enforcement of immigration laws has been especially heated in Arizona, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has taken an aggressive stance, conducting sweeps in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods to round up illegal immigrants.

His actions have drawn a civil rights investigation from the U.S. Department of Justice but strong praise from Arizonans. Other agencies have argued against Arpaio's stance, saying that they need illegal immigrants to trust them enough to report crimes.

Brewer, a Republican, has not taken a public stance on the bill. She replaced Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who became President Obama's Homeland Security chief last year. Napolitano had vetoed similar bills in the past. Brewer faces a primary challenge next month; most observers expect her to sign the measure.

Some Republicans have privately complained about the bill, which Pearce has been pushing for several years, but were loath to vote against in an election year. The House was scheduled to approve it last week but the vote was delayed until Tuesday to give sponsors a chance to round up enough votes. It picked up steam after the killing late last month of a rancher on the Arizona side of the Mexican border. Footprints from the crime scene led back to Mexico.

In an impassioned debate Tuesday afternoon, both sides relied on legal and moral arguments.

"Illegal immigration brings crime, kidnapping, drugs -- drains our government services," said Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican. "Nobody can stand on the sidelines and not take part in this battle."

Democrats were just as passionate. "This bill, whether we intend it or not, terrorizes the people we profit from," said Rep. Tom Chabin.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4677282.story

Arizona House passes immigration bill
The Arizona House of Representatives passed a sweeping immigration bill Tuesday that would give police broad powers to arrest illegal immigrants, require immigrants to carry valid papers, and make it a misdemeanor to pick up and transport undocumented day laborers and migrants.
Senate Bill 1070 now goes back the Arizona Senate, which previously passed the measure and now must approve the House changes. The House version includes language exempting people who drive migrants to church or provide emergency services from being prosecuted.
Republicans supporting the bill say it would help combat illegal immigration and Mexican drug cartels in the state. The bill also would require police to enforce immigration laws.
“This updated version gives our local police officers the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, while protecting the civil rights of citizens and legal residents,” said Arizona Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills.
Andrew Thomas, who is running for state attorney general, also voiced his support of the bill.
"This bill would give state and local law enforcement officials important new tools for the fight against illegal immigration. I strongly support its passage and look forward to defending the law in court next year should I be elected Attorney General,” he said.
Critics — including the Arizona Interfaith Network and Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform — say the bill is anti-Hispanic and would discourage businesses from hiring Latinos. They also claim the sweeping police powers and papers requirements would turn Arizona into a police state.

Read more: Arizona House passes immigration bill - Phoenix Business Journal:
Immigration day at the Legislature
At a morning news conference, a group representing clergy and business denounced Senate Bill 1070, Sen. Russell Pearce's wide-ranging illegal immigration bill and tiptoed up to the edge of calling the Mesa senator a modern-day Hitler.
Among other things, the bill would require local law enforcement to determine a person's immigration status if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" to think the individual is in the country illegally.
It also attempts to prevent day laborers, by making it a misdemeanor both to solicit work from a roadway and to hire someone who is doing so and creates a misdemeanor offense if someone transports, or attempts to transport, an illegal immigrant when the driver knows the individual is in the country illegally.
These provisions, and many more, prompted the Arizona Interfaith Network and Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform to issue a lengthy statement detailing the problems with what they called "an indecent and dangerous bill."
They say the bill's provision would harm the state's economy by forcing households with even one person here illegally to leave, would clog the courts with numerous lawsuits and put police in a no-win position of having to choose between ignoring a law that requires them to check the immigration status of almost anyone they stop or risking charges of racial profiling.
And, said Father Glenn Jenks of the Arizona Interfaith Network, it would violate moral codes held by most world religions: "We must welcome the stranger and sojourner as if he were God himself."
Sheridan Bailey, a member of the employers group and owner of Ironco, a steel-fabrication business, said the groups are trying to convince "15 moderate House members," all Republicans, to vote against the bill. These lawmakers, whom he did not name, are wary of the bill's provisions but feel cowed by what Bailey called "mob rule and intimidation" being wielded by one or two or three members of the Legislature.
Asked who he was referring to, Bailey declined to name names. Instead, he read a psychological profile of Adolph Hitler and told those gathered at a news conference "I allow you to draw your own conclusion."
Pearce rejected such comments as "name calling" and predicted his bill will pass.
"We're prepared, and we'll prevail," he said.
The House is scheduled to begin debate on the matter at 1:30 p.m.; a formal vote is expected later this afternoon. If it passes, it will go to Gov. Jan Brewer for her consideration.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Ok , lets put this in perspective

Jan Brewer will sign this but before the ink is dry the 9th in San Fran will
put a stop to it

You all know it as well as I do

It will languish in court for years ,

The invasion continues

Nice try though

"A lot of U.S. citizens are going to be swept up in the application of this law for something as simple as having an accent and leaving their wallet at home," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona."

Read: Don't speak English and have no ID, drivers license, or insurance.

"Democrats were just as passionate. "This bill, whether we intend it or not, terrorizes the people we profit from," said Rep. Tom Chabin.":):):):confused:

Its about time illegals felt terrorized

Its also about time we get rid of this bogus PC "profiling" idiocy

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

The vast majority of illegals in Arizona and indeed in the US are hispanic

If they are legal it should not be a problem proving it.

Exactly how many people leave their ID at home?

I'd say not very many

I like this bill.

So do I.
I just wish other States would catch on to it as well.

Well if looks like Oklahoma is doing its part to tell Mexico that that state has had enough. More and more states are starting to take this issue on, it's our govenment that's the biggest problem.

Yes , Terrill really gave mexico a ration

He threatened to throw everything including the kitchen sink at illegals in that state if mexico wants to take the gloves off.

This is truly it. It's amazing that it takes a bill to do it. No legislation should be necessary, really.

How can they get away with a passage exempting people who are driving some cockroach to church? Next you'll see that everybody hauling illegals will just say they were driving them to church. And meanwhile the rotten churches will be housing the same scum. Isn't this a violation of the seperation of church and state?

Always remember when people make the Adolph Hitler allusions, that Adolph Hitler was an illegal immigrant in Germany from Austria who gained entry to Germany by being a veteran of WWI, a war that Germany did not start, but was started by Austria.

I believe that this bill is bad law, and I hope that it gets overturned, because "reasonable suspicion" is too low a threshold for LE, and will lead to American citizens being harassed by LEO.

My biggest question as an American citizen of Latino heritage is, "What is meant by the term 'reasonable suspicion'"? Is it any brown person? Is it any brown person with a large family? Is it any brown person driving an older model car? Does this mean that I have to be concerned about getting pulled over for DWB (driving while brown) when I visit my family in Arizona or when I am traveling through Arizona to visit my dad in New Mexico? Perhaps I should just bypass Arizona altogether and spend my money in Nevada, Utah and Colorado. Does this mean that I have to "prove" my citizenship to any Arizona LEO just because he has "reasonable suspicion" that I am illegal? Since when do I have to prove anything to any LEO? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

This bill is full of too many holes. It is a knee jerk reaction that is going to cause more problems than it will solve, and it should be overturned.

Why would this law automatically revolve around one race? or any specific race?
If you take a look at my thread about illegal alien tracker in Sac, there are many different races being checked for immigration status. The cause usually revolves around specific ID issues, not race. Either they present false ID, no ID and give false information. or have some evidence on them that may implicate them in an illegal presence crime.

So you really think that LE will pull over white Caucasians and ask them to prove their immigration/citizenship status based on "reasonable suspicion"?

The issue is that LE had "reasonable suspicion" that some other crime was being committed. The problem with SB1070 is that this bill bases "reasonable suspicion" on immigration status. I have no issue with a person having their immigration status checked because they are suspected of another crime, but to make "reasonable suspicion" of immigration status the sole basis for stopping a person just smacks of a totalitarian state (insert German accent), "I want to see your papers!"

Edited to add: I think that the intention of this bill is admirable. However the wording of this bill is abominable.

The only possible reason that anyone could criticize this bill is if they didn't want illegal immigrants under the eye of law enforcement for the simple and sole reason of being in the country illegally.

Yes, if you speak with an accent, you might be an illegal immigrant. If you don't speak English at all, you cannot be a US citizen and so should be able to answer to law enforcement about the legality of your presence in the US. At any time, all the time, any time a law enforcement officer decides they want to pursue the issue. That's it. But that's the easy part, for people whose country of origin in a non-English speaking country.

As long as law enforcement does not exclude fluent English speakers from investigating whether the person is illegal or not, why should anyone complain? There are other clues that law enforcement can go by in pursuing illegal immigrants and other things to observe to excite the attention of law enforcement besides ethnic origin or native language.

This law is important precisely because it does not orient itself around country of origin and it well might without appearing racist. It might address the Mexican government and the activity of Mexican organized crime specifically, but it didn't. It is a bill that might easily work in California with little alteration.

BULLSHIT!

The rest of this post is unworthy of any discussion.

MY brown children wouldn't mind it as they know that terrorists and illegals come in all colors.

I think "reasonable suspicion" would be defined in the fine print of the bill, otherwise, I see this as a can of worms for lawsuits against the cops.
I see this as being more fluff than fire actually. . . but my first thought was.. oh great, now they'll be moving to Ca. :rolleyes:

Personally I feel this "profiling" Bs is way out of control

Since most illegal in Az and indeed in the US are hispanic , they should "reasonably" all be suspect

Besides , If I get pulled over I have to produce ID

And before anyone spouts off , I was "profiled" as looking like someone robbing 7-11s , I just produced my Id , explained where I was and where I was going and I was on my way.

If you want to put the heat on illegals , or the greatest amount of them , yes , you start profiling and you don't stop.

One of the reasons that this bill is so appalling to me is that it trades innocent until proven guilty for a temporary respite from the illegal invasion. Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

As I said earlier, this bill's intentions are admirable, but the language is abominable.

We are living in a different time, and desperate times call for desperate measures. If we stay on the same road we're on, and do not change our approach to dealing with the illegals, we will lose all. So is it better to give some to save the rest, or to not give any and lose it all?

Things just can's stay the same, and we can't keep the status quo.

Sure, being pulled over and having to produce an ID is not the presumption of guilt. Yes, profiling is a fundamental part of criminal investigation. The word "profiling" has been twisted to mean something entirely different. It has been used to make people forget that at one time, you could be harrased by the police if you were found in a white neighborhood and you were an African American. And of course at one time in the Jim Crow south, it was genuinely against the law to be black and in certain places, using certain facilities that were supposed to be white only.

On this, I respectfully agree to disagree. It's a slippery slope once you start lowering LE standards. I refuse to give any essential liberties for temporary security.

Bottom line its simple , produce a valid ID , not a problem , I would think in most cases even without Id if your a legal resident it wouldn't be more than a minor inconvenience to produce "papers",

Nobody is talking about outlawing "mexicans" or anyone else , Or taking away anyones rights , (unless your here illegally)


"I refuse to give any essential liberties for temporary security"
As a legal citizen exactly what are you being ask to give up?

I thought I made my concerns clear in my initial post. Was there something that you needed clarification on?

Yes there is

You sound like an illegal sympathizer

Bottom line legal Hispanics have little to fear , If ask for your id , it should be about a 2 minute deal and your on your way

Small price to pay to get rid of mass numbers of illegals

I had no problem being profiled and id'ed , why do you ?

Or is it the la raza thing ? You still have a soft spot for the invaders?(hispanic only)


What ever it takes guy , what ever it takes
Profile every hispanic in this country , you won't get an argument from me since they are the BIGGEST violators of immigration laws.

Cops are not pulling over people DWB. Probable cause still exists. What this law does is allow officers to ask immigration status when there is probable cause to stop someone. Anyone.
Before they could only do that if a crime was committed.


Great video! Arizona Senator Russell Pearce nails an open borders advocate.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/...ion.debate.cnn

Let's not turn this well intentioned event into a racial divide. As far as I can see, the AZ law was not meant to be used in conjunction with racial profiling. If they didn't intend that, then we shouldn't expand on their intent to include it. SOS does not condone any procedure that uses race as a tool for enforcement of laws. It matters not the race of the prime offenders of our immigration laws, because fairness and blind justice are to be preserved and practiced regardless. That's the law in California.

It is a given that some American born hispanics are going to be stopped in error. It is going to be an inconvenience in the hispanic community. The community, collectively, even if some in that community are as against criminal immigration as anyone could be.

That said, and I truly sympathize. I don't care. Cold and hard hearted that I am, I don't care.

Criminal immigrants take root in the hispanic community. They are helped, sheltered, many American born hispanics are members of advocacy organizations that teach all the ways to take advantage of our system. The criminals make friends. They all come attached to a sad story. Friends help them evade the law and avoid their responsibility. If anything, legal hispanics deserve to be inconvenienced which is a small penalty to the gigantic wrong they do to this country and its people. Hispanics who are in the best positions to identify and expose criminal immigrants don't. To me, they are just laying down with dogs and getting up scratching fleas.

To the miniscule number of hispanics that are fighting the border war, I applaud your efforts, you are suffering the inconvenience of howing identification and explaining your actions. As long as the facts are straight, it isn't law enforcement inconveniencing you. It's the criminal immigrants who made the actions by law enforcement necessary.

You have no idea to whom you are talking. Then again it's easy to toss flames like this from the safety of your keyboard. Besides you can ask just about anyone here about my contributions to this movement under the old SOS moniker.

You have no problem, because you probably won't get stopped. I on the other would, and I believe that this sort of invasion by LE is a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments.

I am going to ignore this considering this has been said from the safety of anonymity. However, should you and meet in real time, then there will be a discussion of this insult, and it won't end peacefully. Nor will it end with you victorious.

Why? Because you think we are not real Americans like you?

Let the facts speak for themselves

I don't think any other member of this board disagrees with this new law

You seem to be the only one,

Why is that?

Spoken like a true coward.

Now that is a response I would expect from la raza
"If you can't answer the question , just hurl insults"

I'm a vet of the HB forum wars , I can spot um a mile away

So exactly why are you the ONLY one that doesn't support this law?

Added On April 21, 2010
An Arizona bill requiring immigrants to carry registration may become law, despite concerns it promotes racial profiling.


Video with Sheriff Joe

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...iref=allsearch

Rick Sanchez

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...iref=allsearch

Just saw John McQuisling on TV, somberly talking about how "serious" is the violence from Mexico. He just discovered this after twenty years of trying to pave the way for the Mexican invasion. If this fraud is that desperate that he actually has to resort to telling the truth, then there is hope that the people of AZ are going to rise up.

I have never seen this phony behave this way before. For the first time in memory he stopped referring to the Mexicans as "God's children." People in AZ have had enough of this pompus ass.

I predict that there will be a recall movement if Brewer screws the people of AZ and vetoes the bill.

In any case she has until tomorrow to sign it or ignore it and let it kick in.

If she signs it , she gets re elected , if she doesn't , well.............

re: Az immigration law
 

I think it's ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC they passed this. Finally some officials are getting gutsy enough to do this, though I am VERY VERY PO'd that our own president had the nerve to call this legislation "misguided" and also "irresponsible" (!!). Our own Pres! I don't understand how ANYONE could see this as anything other than the right thing to do. But to use the word "irresponsible" just shows us all what side Obama is on.

Well , with the events of the day I truly hope Brewer signs this bill
and tells that moron dumbomba to go pound sand

I also hope that they ask every HISPANIC in the state to prove they are legal

Profiling is not a crime , they only want everyone to think it is ,

All kinds of people get profiled every day , yes even white people

Enough with the BS , the vast majority of illegals in Arizona and in this country are HISPANIC , time to address the problem and get it dealt with.

Legal , law abiding Americans of Hispanic decent have nothing to fear in the least.
And if there is a mistake or two , oh well ,

Am I wrong?

No USA. You are not wrong.

Resistance to the occupation of the USA is being galvanized by this law.