You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 11:18:15 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?  (Read 13780 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #150 on: July 20, 2010, 12:43:50 AM »
Ofcourse different crimes carry different levels of punishment. You assumed I meant murder or theft? Posession seems to carry little more than a slap on the wrist these days if the amount is small enough. Note, posession. Not trafficking. 

And infiltrating the country by illegally crossing the border is right along the lines of speeding just a little over the limit? I'm sorry I don't quite follow.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #151 on: July 20, 2010, 01:04:04 AM »
Quote from: Lyell
College Law teaches that certain ethnicities are predispositioned to commit certain crimes no matter the conditions of their upbringing.
          "Predisposed."  You're broadcasting much more attitude than proof of good research.  That word is more often associated with disease, moral decay, and ill intent.  Show me an ethnic identity without any effect on background.  Blacks are much more likely to be forced into low-income, low-infrastructure neighborhoods.  Those who aren't, are more likely to also be struggling to deal with the issues of acquaintances who are.

Quote
They support that by providing statistical data based on convictions across all races and all crimes. I'd provide statistical information about undocumented illegal aliens being here illegally except that they ARE undocumented, so any number I do pull would have to be from my ass.
          So they have statistics, which you offer above.  Except you won't, because you know there really is no good evidence there.

Quote
There's actually nothing to it. I was wrong. It's not decided by the census, it's decided by who pays property taxes. I guess that would involve a lot less since they only have to tally how many people pay said taxes.   But that leaves a larger margin for error when guessing what portion of the population doesn't pay those taxes.
         
          Beats me; I don't pay them either.  Perhaps they could choose a better method of surveying.  I've already gone into that.  However, if there's no reasonable guess now, then how can you be clear on how many to multiply across those social services you claim are being used either?  You were arguing it cost too much originally.  Although overall I honestly think you would rather just scream moral injustice, and never mind the numbers.
 
Quote
I never said they were illegitimately crying "victimhood." I said that the situation most of them are in is a cycle of perpetual "victimhood" that they have no reason to leave. The race card is so effective because no company wants a civil rights lawsuit.
            I don't see the difference between your first set of scare quotes and the second one.  "Victim" which you disbelieve was such, or another of the same.  You're talking about anything but the the inequality that preceded the civil rights movement and still hasn't been completely pushed aside.  And much of it affects immigrants in similar ways.

         "The race card."   You do tons of smoke and no substance with this line.  First, you try to say it's racist if I point out that inequality has long existed and continues to.  Now, you want to make it unacceptable for liberals to talk about race again.  As if racial inequality were some big game (playing cards) and for you, it apparently started with the civil rights movement for no good reason.

Quote
I saw one man moved around in a company for eight years while they tried to find some position he could be in where he didn't have to interract with anyone. Have you ever considered THAT as a deterrant to hiring someone of colored skin?
         Japan is treated as a less racially diverse society, and they have historically been infamous for keeping people on the job without function.  Show us that White networks don't do something similar.  Or perhaps, give preferential access for good old boys to transfer.

Quote
Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare. They ARE however, eligible for the other free services I listed (proper representation in court, use of our roadways and ER treatment).
         With the possible exception of local roads, I'm skeptical that they consistently show up to utilize all of the services you might list.  Court and ER without paperwork to count who uses it?

Quote
It WAS intended for the illegal immigrants that the democrats are pushing to give complete amnesty to for being here illegally and instantly make them legal citizens. Legal citizens that I ask, where will the money come from to pay for their welfare?
         Hop some threads and if you prefer, deny that there's a whopping chunk of money to be saved on tax and health care reform.

Quote
The Constitution of the United States guarantees the divine right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the government shall not infringe upon. It does not guarantee equal results.

         It does not retract that earlier thing about freedom of representation and all created equal.  The law is called an equal opportunity law.  We're still working on that equal part.  It sounds to me like you're now arguing specifically in the direction of a land where opportunity should not be equal...  After all, if it's not guaranteed...  What follows?  Women were not originally guaranteed the vote either.  Why, that'll put those single mothers back in their place so Reaganomics can cut welfare again!

Quote
Not only are companies warming up to women, but people with tattoos down the length of thier arms and males with long hair are getting attention. If they were just hired based on physical perception, I'm sure there'd be someone more traditionally clean-cut and office executive appearing to hire over them.
         I'd ask according to whom, which companies, and are they the sort that (say, Arizona) immigrants have access to based on wealth, documentation, gender performance, and social networks.  If I were to take up your "I saw one" way of evidence, well I've been denied a job clearly based upon the length of my hair.
 
Quote
The president writes and Congress approves (or debates over) the budget ('til approved). The fiscal year extends from October to September. Obama and Congress decided on the current budget. It takes more than one man to destroy a nation or to incite war. In our case, it took 2,995.
         There's a little blame to go around, sure.  But they weren't all sitting in the Executive Branch calling themselves "the Decider" to make their case, requesting and presenting as fact faulty selections from the intelligence community, and shouting to the people about mushroom clouds.  I put more of the culpability with the office of the president on certain matters like these, where it's that job in particular to show better judgment.

Quote
Protection from enemies foriegn and domestic are included in those services. But the ones that get the most attention are the ones closest to home. Is it going to take occupation by an alien power before funding the military and police is a legitimate concern? Or perhaps we should inflate the number of people who qualify for public services so we can force money out of the military and police, or face rioting masses. Brilliant plan.
        That lovely undercurrent of the right doesn't get what it wants, then there will be violence?  Sounds like a good reason to crack down harder on firearms to me!  A little more seriously though, about now?  I'd worry more about mass protests for bailing out Wall Street too liberally, stalling in Congress on financial reform (and possibly health care), and opposition to unemployment benefits.  It could be kind of hard to pass all that off as a "liberal" fillibuster.

Quote
Dismantling ICE should be a start. Let's get rid of them and put that into education and infrastructure. They're refusing to deport illegal immigrants now anyways. Infact, some cities are declaring themselves havens for immigrants, saying they won't deport anyone that's there illegally.
       I have some issues with ICE actually..  But weren't you the one saying if the feds won't act, it is up to the states?  It sounds like you want the feds to trust the states to follow the spirit of federal laws and let them have at it...  Until you determine that the locals are not in compliance of (whichever law you put first, say immigration at the border versus social service provision) and then you want the feds to take over again?  Weren't you just blaming the left for making conditions that encourage trigger-happy people to play chicken?

« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 01:12:26 AM by kylie »

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #152 on: July 20, 2010, 04:18:48 AM »
          "Predisposed."  You're broadcasting much more attitude than proof of good research.  That word is more often associated with disease, moral decay, and ill intent.  Show me an ethnic identity without any effect on background.  Blacks are much more likely to be forced into low-income, low-infrastructure neighborhoods.  Those who aren't, are more likely to also be struggling to deal with the issues of acquaintances who are.
          So they have statistics, which you offer above.  Except you won't, because you know there really is no good evidence there.

Actually, that was bait. Bait you took eagerly and turned against me. I didn't say what the statistics were, who had them or who they favored. So here's the dirty. 70 percent of all burglary arrests are of whites, 28 percent of blacks. Two-thirds of those arrests are over the age of eighteen and 90 percent of them are male. Ofcourse these numbers DO come from the UCR and they admit to thier own inaccuracy and lack of accountability for crimes that occur without arrests. Happy yet?
 
       
          Beats me; I don't pay them either.  Perhaps they could choose a better method of surveying.  I've already gone into that.  However, if there's no reasonable guess now, then how can you be clear on how many to multiply across those social services you claim are being used either?  You were arguing it cost too much originally.  Although overall I honestly think you would rather just scream moral injustice, and never mind the numbers.

Because there is a clear estimate of how much the cost will increase. There are many figures floating around but the general consensus seems to be somewhere in the 7 million to 20 million range. (CNN's Lou Dobbs, Tuscon sector Border Patrol union local 2544, John McCain, Sam Zamarripa, Time Magazine) They all seem to agree that the number is increasing every day though. Is this the part where I'm supposed to scream moral injustice? Do I hear an untrustworthy/invalid source claim brewing?


             I don't see the difference between your first set of scare quotes and the second one.  "Victim" which you disbelieve was such, or another of the same.  You're talking about anything but the the inequality that preceded the civil rights movement and still hasn't been completely pushed aside.  And much of it affects immigrants in similar ways.

  "The race card."   You do tons of smoke and no substance with this line.  First, you try to say it's racist if I point out that inequality has long existed and continues to.  Now, you want to make it unacceptable for liberals to talk about race again.  As if racial inequality were some big game (playing cards) and for you, it apparently started with the civil rights movement for no good reason.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where African-Americans were still picking cotton in fields for a meal a day and a shoddy roof over thier heads and white people regarding them as property was still the status norm. Last I checked you couldn't do that anymore, and I and my parents never owned slaves. So how long is that going to be held over our heads? How many more generations down the line will "I'm sorry for the mistakes of my ancestors" be enough? Oh, wait. It won't be. Not until every person of colored skin is in a $250k home that they didn't have to pay for with a steady income from a white collar job. You get right to funding that, too.

I really hope the day comes where a white male gets fired by a black supervisor and there's a civil rights lawsuit over it. I wonder how much controversy that will bring?

       
Japan is treated as a less racially diverse society, and they have historically been infamous for keeping people on the job without function.  Show us that White networks don't do something similar.  Or perhaps, give preferential access for good old boys to transfer.

Did you really just tell me other countries do it too, so that makes it okay?

With the possible exception of local roads, I'm skeptical that they consistently show up to utilize all of the services you might list.  Court and ER without paperwork to count who uses it?

Immigrants, illegal or not, have a right to leagal counsel, and to competent council in immigration court. It falls under the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect of our justice system.

"Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available." -The Wall Street Journal

Hop some threads and if you prefer, deny that there's a whopping chunk of money to be saved on tax and health care reform.

Oh, the data's out there so I have to go search for it? Double Standard much?

So they have statistics, which you offer above.  Except you won't, because you know there really is no good evidence there.

Tsk tsk.

It does not retract that earlier thing about freedom of representation and all created equal.  The law is called an equal opportunity law.  We're still working on that equal part.  It sounds to me like you're now arguing specifically in the direction of a land where opportunity should not be equal...  After all, if it's not guaranteed...  What follows?  Women were not originally guaranteed the vote either.  Why, that'll put those single mothers back in their place so Reaganomics can cut welfare again!

Opportunity was once expressed to me as a moment where preparedness meets luck. Everyone has a near certainty of education, at scholarships, reimbursment or financial aid for higher education. Performance history usually is a good indicator that investors and donators act on. These resources are nearly provided. Preparedness you can guarantee. Luck you can not. And even with that door opened, some choose not to step through. Something happened that put that single mother where she was. It was a choice.
         

I'd ask according to whom, which companies, and are they the sort that (say, Arizona) immigrants have access to based on wealth, documentation, gender performance, and social networks.  If I were to take up your "I saw one" way of evidence, well I've been denied a job clearly based upon the length of my hair.

-The Wall Street Journal ("The Tattooed Executive," Mielikki Org, Thursday August 28, 2003) Didn't mention whether or not it was a company accessable by immigrants. I suppose that would require finding out which company it is and giving them a call.


There's a little blame to go around, sure.  But they weren't all sitting in the Executive Branch calling themselves "the Decider" to make their case, requesting and presenting as fact faulty selections from the intelligence community, and shouting to the people about mushroom clouds.  I put more of the culpability with the office of the president on certain matters like these, where it's that job in particular to show better judgment.

Were this any other poster I would probably say "yes, and I won't go over an itemized list over all the lies Obama has told" either, but I'm making a special exception for you.

1. End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 "We will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all." -Barack Obama's Comprehensive Tax Plan

President Barack Obama's campaign pledge to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 has fallen off the radar. It wasn't part of the tax cuts in the economic stimulus bill, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It wasn't in Obama's first budget outline, which was approved by Congress on April 2, 2009. And it's not part of any proposed legislation that can be found. (White House, Remarks by the President on taxes , April 15, 2009. Social Security Administration, Economic Recovery One-Time Payments Information. Office of Budget and Management, Budget Documents for Fiscal Year 2010. Office of Budget and Management, Summary Tables)

2. End no-bid contracts above $25,000 "We will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid." -Obama's Plan for America: Fiscal

Indeed, since Obama took office, none of the instructions from the White House's Office of Management and Budget -- which serves as the administration's controller -- has put any limits on the value of no-bid contracts. The guidance from the president and OMB appears to acknowledge that federal agencies may not always bid a project competitively, and instead has encouraged managers to do more to increase competition among contractors.

There is a paper trail:

In a memo March 4, 2009, President Obama ordered the OMB to develop rules to "govern the appropriate use and oversight of sole-source and other types of noncompetitive contracts and to maximize the use of full and open competition and other competitive procurement processes." But no mention of any $25,000 rule.

The OMB followed up with a July 29, 2009, memo ordering agencies to cut by 10 percent the total dollars awarded via three types of so-called "risky" contracts, including no-bid or single-bid contracts. Again, nothing on a $25,000 rule.

Then, on Oct. 27, 2009, the OMB's Office of Federal Procurement issued guidelines for agencies that asked procurement officers to find more ways to use competitive contracts. But it didn't mention the $25,000 rule that candidate Obama had promised either.


3. Allow imported prescription drugs "We will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S." -Obama health care plan

But such a provision was not included in the final health care law that passed both chambers of Congress and was signed by the president.

The motivation for the promise came from an existing trend of Americans crossing the Canadian border to buy cheaper prescription drugs. Yet for the most part, it remains illegal for Americans to buy prescription drugs there -- for safety reasons, the Food and Drug Administration says.

But in the wake of negotiations with the prescription drug industry -- one of the first big health industry players to support the White House's health care reform effort -- Obama's drug importation promise faded into the background. Now, with passage, it's officially off the table.

I suppose I should stop now. I mean, the man DID make substantial progress with putting a leash on the credit industry, expand loans for small businesses and brought some transparency to health care providers (not that he's done as much for the administration.)


That lovely undercurrent of the right doesn't get what it wants, then there will be violence?  Sounds like a good reason to crack down harder on firearms to me!  A little more seriously though, about now?  I'd worry more about mass protests for bailing out Wall Street too liberally, stalling in Congress on financial reform (and possibly health care), and opposition to unemployment benefits.  It could be kind of hard to pass all that off as a "liberal" fillibuster.

You are consistant with your tactics if nothing else. I was referring to the people who won't be getting thier government handouts because the system is overloaded. They'll be the ones rioting. You won't have to worry about the gun owners. They'll likely hunt for food if the need presents itself, and protect what they own from looters. Congress is currently intentionally avoiding hot topics like financial reform because elections are right around the corner. With it, they can claim the republicans are stonewalling them and present them as an evil. Otherwise, all Obama has for the campaigning he's doing is democrats = good.
 

I have some issues with ICE actually..  But weren't you the one saying if the feds won't act, it is up to the states?  It sounds like you want the feds to trust the states to follow the spirit of federal laws and let them have at it...  Until you determine that the locals are not in compliance of (whichever law you put first, say immigration at the border versus social service provision) and then you want the feds to take over again?  Weren't you just blaming the left for making conditions that encourage trigger-happy people to play chicken?

Federal law criminalizes being in the country illegally; Arizona’s law mirrors federal.  The Arizona law simply allows local law enforcement to enforce what is already federal law. The only way the government may restrict a state's law-making power is ultimatums regarding funding, or the law is declared unconstitutional in The Supreme Court. ICE is a FEDERAL organization. Arizona's police force is a state organization. Federal agencies have requested cooperation from local authorities in the past to aid in investigations. Now, the reverse is true. Arizona's law enforcement will be charged with identifying and prosecuting illegal aliens and ICE doesn't want to do the deportation on the grounds that any illegal alien identified by Arizona's new proceedure has been identified unconstitutionally. Okay, so the reverse would be true if the state organization could go to the federal organization and expect help.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #153 on: July 20, 2010, 05:48:04 PM »
Quote from: Lyell
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where African-Americans were still picking cotton in fields for a meal a day and a shoddy roof over thier heads and white people regarding them as property was still the status norm. Last I checked you couldn't do that anymore, and I and my parents never owned slaves. So how long is that going to be held over our heads? How many more generations down the line will "I'm sorry for the mistakes of my ancestors" be enough? Oh, wait. It won't be. Not until every person of colored skin is in a $250k home that they didn't have to pay for with a steady income from a white collar job. You get right to funding that, too.
          We may have an impasse where the rest of the conversation is going to fall apart.  You’ve surely guessed it:  I’m about to conclude you’re ignorant about how race operates in the US.  You can go on pulling the “how do you know what you know” and make it sound very educated with the tactical feel of critical inquiry all you want.  Never mind that the right has long openly declared its total contempt of both reflexivity – you know, that’s saying just where one gets ideas from, like minorities do when they point to discrimination – and deconstructionism, or taking apart an argument based on its politics as well as its structure!.  The sad irony is that the right distorts the history of critical theory to the extent that it’s a history of asking questions related to identity formation and equality for less centrally supported minorities (as opposed to the right which tends to have a whole lot of backing already).  It’s not merely a technical means of shooting down everything that comes its way. 

That doesn’t change the fact that the history of discrimination is not confined to the pre-Civil War era.  It is ongoing on a massive scale, and you are apparently dead set against recognizing it.  Which is not precisely the same as presuming hopeless racism…  But yes, I would be a little suspicious of your sources.  As I’ve said already, there is a geneaology of abuses that strings from the Jim Crow laws on up to current election “monitoring” politicking.  Add in real estate prices rigged against Black communities, federal and state urban policies rigged to encourage investment in the outskirts away from historically Black neighborhoods.  Just for one quick source:  http://www.answers.com/topic/ghetto  (Under “African American Ghettos”)   
Quote
        The "Racial" Provisions of FHA Underwriting Manual of 1938, included the following guidelines which exacerbated the segregation issue:
Recommended restrictions should include provision for: prohibition of the occupancy of properties except by the race for which they are intended …Schools should be appropriate to the needs of the new community and they should not be attended in large numbers by inharmonious racial groups.[14][22]
        This meant that ethnic minorities could secure mortgage loans only in certain areas, and it resulted in a large increase in the residential racial segregation and urban decay in the United States.[23] The creation of new highways in some cases divided and isolated black neighborhoods from goods and services, many times within industrial corridors. For example, Birmingham, Alabama’s interstate highway system attempted to maintain the racial boundaries that had been established by the city’s 1926 racial zoning law. The construction of interstate highways through black neighborhoods in the city led to significant population loss in those neighborhoods and is associated with an increase in neighborhood racial segregation.[24] By 1990, the legal barriers enforcing segregation had been replaced by decentralized racism, where whites pay more than blacks to live in predominantly white areas.[9] Some social scientists suggest that the historical processes of suburbanization and decentralization are instances of white privilege that have contributed to contemporary patterns of environmental racism.[25] 
          And there is the local level.  Just for example:  Recently, NYT ran an article about a very new Black high school being closed while parents of Whites in a building from the 1950’s refused to bus their children to the newer facility, where students received higher test scores. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/us/11biloxi.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=black%20school%20close&st=cse  The laws against inter-racial marriage are finally gone (a full century after the Civil War having passed to achieve that), yet some high school districts still act to create de facto segregated proms…  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24prom-t.html
         
         But freedom of speech swings both ways, and you may just go on denying that this is only a partial list of relevant concerns.
 
Quote
Did you really just tell me other countries do it too, so that makes it okay?
        I believe Whites do it too, and you haven’t addressed the likelihood of that.  Japan simply shows that it’s quite possible for a dominant group to save lots of positions for itself.  In their case, it actually happens to be the men among that group, but my point is that not only minorities are capable of creating preferential slots.  The majority simply does based upon playing favorites to use and distribute profits themselves derived partly from discriminatory laws (some old, some newer).  The government has a duty to redress that, as long as it claims there is equal opportunity.

Quote
"Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available."
         This is getting perhaps more substantial, but I’m not sold that it’s more costly than the sort of policy in the Arizona law will be…  Nor that we couldn’t afford it by managing the overall economy better.

Quote
Congress is currently intentionally avoiding hot topics like financial reform because elections are right around the corner. With it, they can claim the republicans are stonewalling them and present them as an evil. Otherwise, all Obama has for the campaigning he's doing is democrats = good.
         I’m not sure which sort of reform you wanted to say they’re avoiding?  One just passed, after protracted (but by now predictable) Republican stonewalling.  It is also not limited to restraining credit card issues alone, although that is significant.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/15/wall-street-reform-clears_n_647393.html
Quote
Perhaps most significantly, the law will limit the total amount of derivatives speculation a single bank can engage in, aimed at preventing a run-up in food or energy prices. In 2008, Goldman Sachs and other swaps traders drove the price of wheat to levels that caused starvation around the globe. Oil prices similarly skyrocketed as a result of speculation. Lincoln's reforms will restrict the activity that led to the soaring prices and should, said Greenberger, bring down food and energy prices around the globe.
And with that, I think you’ve presented enough other items for a separate thread on Obama financial policy.  I might be more inclined to join you, if you hadn’t earlier advertised your presumption that education is only visible in Obama through the use of mirrors, teleprompters, or whatever technophilia that kitsch image was trying to satire.  If that was all it took to “reasonably” attack a political figure, then we could have saved ourselves from super-technical MacNamara and much of Vietnam, and recent talk of WMD in Iraq.  Technical spectacle, indeed.

Quote
The Arizona law simply allows local law enforcement to enforce what is already federal law. The only way the government may restrict a state's law-making power is ultimatums regarding funding, or the law is declared unconstitutional in The Supreme Court. ICE is a FEDERAL organization. Arizona's police force is a state organization. Federal agencies have requested cooperation from local authorities in the past to aid in investigations.
         Immigration is federal business.  As you've said it's a federal law to begin with!  It's up to Washington how to interpret the spirit and context at any given time.  It is not up to Arizona under the Constitution to take steps that could be easily interpreted as militarizing the border.  If Arizona calls for troops and doesn't get them, or calls for a certain police action and doesn't get it, they don't have a lot of recourse.  Now they're playing chicken with the feds:  "You won't stop us from detaining more people under a federal with local police using a non-approved local expansion of that law, will you?"  New York might as well decide that if there is a federal tax of 1% on interstate shipping, it will add another 5% of its own because well, if the feds can do it why can't we.  At some point, the center is going to cry foul on principle.  If not out of concern that the action does more actual harm than good. 

« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 05:50:48 PM by kylie »

Offline Valerian

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #154 on: July 20, 2010, 06:06:07 PM »
This might be an excellent opportunity for the two of you to try out the brand-new Dialogues area of the P&R forums, since this seems to have become a lengthy conversation between the two of you.

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #155 on: July 20, 2010, 06:20:44 PM »
No. I'm done. I can't say anything without several pages of data or examples before any single points are valid. And when they are they're ignored. So yeah, I'm pretty much done debating the issue.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #156 on: July 20, 2010, 07:03:13 PM »
Quote
   Immigration is federal business.  As you've said it's a federal law to begin with!  It's up to Washington how to interpret the spirit and context at any given time.  It is not up to Arizona under the Constitution to take steps that could be easily interpreted as militarizing the border.  If Arizona calls for troops and doesn't get them, or calls for a certain police action and doesn't get it, they don't have a lot of recourse.  Now they're playing chicken with the feds:  "You won't stop us from detaining more people under a federal with local police using a non-approved local expansion of that law, will you?"  New York might as well decide that if there is a federal tax of 1% on interstate shipping, it will add another 5% of its own because well, if the feds can do it why can't we.  At some point, the center is going to cry foul on principle.  If not out of concern that the action does more actual harm than good. 

 The problem is, is the Fed isn't enforcing the federal law that much, if at all. They know were some illegals are and the raids they do seem to be geared more for PR purposes than for an agency actually following the law they are supposed to be upholding. If the fed isn;t upholding a law they are supposed to, then who is? The only ones who can are the States.

 I think someone here posted that Obama and ICE are not going to deport anyone that is caught under the Arizona law. People that will likely be proven to be illegals. If that's true, that is a huge black mark against the government. Polls by agencies and polling firms on both sides have shown that a lot of people are angry at the Feds for not enforicjng the law. That most Americans support the law (over 60-70% I believe). It's that inaction for a problem and the willingness to forgive the illegals and give them a path to citizenship, that's making people made.  The Fed knows there's a problem and isn't doing a damned thing about it.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #157 on: July 21, 2010, 06:18:03 AM »
Quote
The problem is, is the Fed isn't enforcing the federal law that much, if at all.

         Once you choose to ground your argument in the letter of federal law, then you're binding yourself to federal jurisdiction.  I don't know of anywhere in federal law or the Constitution that says "and the states will act when their leaders deem that the federal government has failed to effectively enforce its laws."  If the States will not respect the federal government's decisions about how or when -- or even, under which conditions -- to either perform or delegate actions on federal matters, and they will not continue to negotiate that through the federal system, then those states are risking a Constitutional crisis.  At best it's usurping federal power, and at worst it's called leaning toward secession. 

          The federal government can choose to do lots of things -- or not do them right yet! -- based upon various standing laws in combination.  The mere existence of a particular, single law expressing one out of so many directions and principles does not force them to place say, enforcing border patrols over maintaining the price of agricultural goods.  They may even feel that it's actually more important to maintain fair diplomatic relations with Mexico this year, and that is a federal decision too.  The feds have the authority to delegate immigration control to the states if they wish.  The states only have the capacity to request and negotiate from the feds.  They do not have some blank check to determine how federal laws will be applied, nor to intensify border policing by their own choice. 

        By analogy:  If the US formally declares war with Canada but Washington does not see a need to deploy forces and actually press the issue, that does not mean Montana has any Constitutional right to send its National Guard ahead to invade. 

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #158 on: July 21, 2010, 03:14:25 PM »
Article IV, Sections I, II and IV of the Constitution

Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

State citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Ammendment X - Ratified 12/15/1791.
Powers of the States and People
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.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #159 on: July 21, 2010, 07:12:28 PM »
         Once you choose to ground your argument in the letter of federal law, then you're binding yourself to federal jurisdiction.  I don't know of anywhere in federal law or the Constitution that says "and the states will act when their leaders deem that the federal government has failed to effectively enforce its laws."  If the States will not respect the federal government's decisions about how or when -- or even, under which conditions -- to either perform or delegate actions on federal matters, and they will not continue to negotiate that through the federal system, then those states are risking a Constitutional crisis.  At best it's usurping federal power, and at worst it's called leaning toward secession. 

          The federal government can choose to do lots of things -- or not do them right yet! -- based upon various standing laws in combination.  The mere existence of a particular, single law expressing one out of so many directions and principles does not force them to place say, enforcing border patrols over maintaining the price of agricultural goods.  They may even feel that it's actually more important to maintain fair diplomatic relations with Mexico this year, and that is a federal decision too.  The feds have the authority to delegate immigration control to the states if they wish.  The states only have the capacity to request and negotiate from the feds.  They do not have some blank check to determine how federal laws will be applied, nor to intensify border policing by their own choice. 

        By analogy:  If the US formally declares war with Canada but Washington does not see a need to deploy forces and actually press the issue, that does not mean Montana has any Constitutional right to send its National Guard ahead to invade.

 If the federal government isn't enforcing a law it is supposed to and has said it will NOT do so because of a state, the the States have the right to take matters in their own hands. Each state has the responsibility to guaruntee it's citizens safety. Esprcially when the federal government isn't doing that.

Offline Jude

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #160 on: July 21, 2010, 07:17:01 PM »
Calling illegal immigration invasion is clearly exaggeration for the sake of emotional manipulation.  As is claiming that it's a matter of safety unless you have the statistics to show that illegal immigrants are a serious threat to safety.  Do you?  One or two instances of criminal illegal aliens is not enough evidence.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 07:18:34 PM by Jude »

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #161 on: July 21, 2010, 07:33:45 PM »
Playing down problems for the sake of pushing through the policy you want is deception.

Testimony of District Attorney John M. Morganelli before the House Subcommittee on immigration, Border, Security and Claims

"Unfortunately, the majority of illegal aliens who are here are engaged in criminal activity. Identity theft, use of fraudulent social security numbers and green cards, tax evasion, driving without licenses represent some of the crimes that are engaged in by the majority of illegal aliens on a daily basis merely to maintain and hide their illegal status.

In addition, violent crime and drug distribution and possession is also prevalent among illegal aliens. Over 25% of today's federal prison population are illegal aliens. In some areas of the country, 12% of felonies, 25% of burglaries and 34% of thefts are committed by illegal aliens."

Offline Zakharra

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #162 on: July 21, 2010, 11:38:49 PM »
Calling illegal immigration invasion is clearly exaggeration for the sake of emotional manipulation.  As is claiming that it's a matter of safety unless you have the statistics to show that illegal immigrants are a serious threat to safety.  Do you?  One or two instances of criminal illegal aliens is not enough evidence.

 The plain fact they are here illegally is breaking the law in and of itself. That's enough in my book to kick their butts out of the country. After taking finger and retinal prints to catalog them.

Offline BCdan

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #163 on: July 22, 2010, 10:29:20 PM »
I don't think the new immigration law is going to work because it doesn't address the basic economics of the issue.  The most effective way is to prosecute employers who are breaking the law.  Make them pay some very steep fines and just make it economically infeasible to hire illegal immigrants.  When the demand for illegal immigrants dries up, supply will very likely go down.  Couple that with cleaning up the bureaucracy that comes with trying to be a citizen (90% of which is the time it takes to file paperwork) and you are basically left with the real actual criminals amongst the illegal immigrant population, which I think federal and local law enforcement can clean up. 

Checking peoples immigration status and deporting individuals is treating symptoms, not the actual cause of the problem, which is permissive behavior towards illegal hiring practices. 

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #164 on: July 22, 2010, 10:40:38 PM »
I don't think the new immigration law is going to work because it doesn't address the basic economics of the issue.  The most effective way is to prosecute employers who are breaking the law.  Make them pay some very steep fines and just make it economically infeasible to hire illegal immigrants.  When the demand for illegal immigrants dries up, supply will very likely go down.  Couple that with cleaning up the bureaucracy that comes with trying to be a citizen (90% of which is the time it takes to file paperwork) and you are basically left with the real actual criminals amongst the illegal immigrant population, which I think federal and local law enforcement can clean up. 

Checking peoples immigration status and deporting individuals is treating symptoms, not the actual cause of the problem, which is permissive behavior towards illegal hiring practices.

The problem with this solution is the same problem with the Arizona law. Penalties already exist, as taken from MinnesotaLawyers.com.

"There are civil and criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens. Sec. 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, makes it unlawful for any person knowingly to hire, recruit or refer for a fee any alien not authorized to work. An employer that violates these laws can face penalties of:

· $250 to $2,000 fine for each unauthorized individual;

· $2,000 to $5,000 for each employee if the employer has previously been in violation; or

· $3,000 to $10,000 for each individual if the employer was subject to more than one cease and desist order.

The employer could also be fined $100 to $1,000 for each individual “paperwork” violation.

The criminal penalties for a pattern and practice violation can be up to $3,000 for each unauthorized alien, imprisonment up to six months, or both. "

Is I.C.E. or any federal organization going to have the resources to systematically check every employer?


Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #165 on: July 22, 2010, 11:17:52 PM »
        Expulsion of a person from the country is not a matter that defaults to the states, even if the federal government fails to satisfy them.  It is not as if the federal government can be forced to turn over its discretion over border control whenever some state decides it wants a specific action or other but the feds do not oblige.  You can see this in the judge's questions about items in the Arizona law. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/07/16/20100716arizona-immigration-law-court-hearing.html#ixzz0uTN4PQE

Quote from: AZ Republic
•  A peace officer without a warrant may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

     "Who gets arrested that couldn't get arrested before?" Bolton asked. "The determination of what makes an individual removable from the U.S. is a determination only the federal government can make."

•  In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code Section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

     "Isn't that really just an attempt to get around the fact that Arizona can't have its own alien-registration law?" Bolton asked.
         While there is always a certain degree of tension in practice between formal federal authority and some local practices, I think it would take a rather bizarre judgment to allow the entire law.  Reading about the present court case, it seems some portions are receiving more scrutiny from the bench (the above) than others (potential conflicts with separate federal enforcement efforts and drain upon federal resources for an unapproved approach).

         There is the claim that Arizona is merely asking the government for information about every person it chooses to consider merely suspect.  This is already sneaking past Bolton's question above though -- because if the federal government says the Arizona officers are not properly trained to enforce immigration even at the level of deciding "suspects," that would be that.  The federal case is saying, we the feds would not normally detain people under a standard with the breadth Arizona appears to be indicating it will pursue.  [Edit: They do explicitly say that, if I read correctly.]  And that's federal power of decision on immigration already.  Back to square one.  Accept federal authority on a federal matter, or be a vigilante.

         However, if the court ignores that hard Constitutional bottom line and chooses to assume more that as a practical matter, the Arizona police must be somehow active in enforcing one application or another of federal law, then there is an argument about whether the foreseeable process of enforcement will be acceptable.   Then, you have to explain exactly how they might determine suspicion of illegal presence in the first place without racial profiling.  Which at least in a sweeping and highly visible case like this, should be shot down as something the federal government is clearly committed to oppose.  Setting up  immigration "enforcement" in a way that directly threatens civil rights for legal residents is a non-starter in this regard.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 11:23:56 PM by kylie »

Offline BCdan

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #166 on: July 23, 2010, 12:51:21 AM »
The problem with this solution is the same problem with the Arizona law. Penalties already exist, as taken from MinnesotaLawyers.com.

"There are civil and criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens. Sec. 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, makes it unlawful for any person knowingly to hire, recruit or refer for a fee any alien not authorized to work. An employer that violates these laws can face penalties of:

· $250 to $2,000 fine for each unauthorized individual;

· $2,000 to $5,000 for each employee if the employer has previously been in violation; or

· $3,000 to $10,000 for each individual if the employer was subject to more than one cease and desist order.

The employer could also be fined $100 to $1,000 for each individual “paperwork” violation.

The criminal penalties for a pattern and practice violation can be up to $3,000 for each unauthorized alien, imprisonment up to six months, or both. "

Is I.C.E. or any federal organization going to have the resources to systematically check every employer?

I think if these penalties, especially for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants and hiring multiple illegal immigrants, could be increased greatly and those penalties used to help pay for enforcement.  Right now, if an employer keeps a worker for lets say a year before being fined, he can make much more money by paying that illegal worker far below minimum wage than can be fined.  The economic incentive to hire illegal workers needs to be removed by greatly raising the cash penalties to those employers. 

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #167 on: July 23, 2010, 04:51:44 AM »
I think if these penalties, especially for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants and hiring multiple illegal immigrants, could be increased greatly and those penalties used to help pay for enforcement.  Right now, if an employer keeps a worker for lets say a year before being fined, he can make much more money by paying that illegal worker far below minimum wage than can be fined.  The economic incentive to hire illegal workers needs to be removed by greatly raising the cash penalties to those employers.

Even with the penalties increased, as prevalent as the problem is, I ask again, how is I.C.E. or any government agency supposed to enforce them without manually checking every corporation? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but it seems like we'd just be exchanging one modification to procedure routine stops meant to assist a government agency in doing its job for a money sink that would take more time to properly implement. Plus, I can only imagine the court cases revolving around 'I didn't know their papers were fake!'


Offline BCdan

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #168 on: July 23, 2010, 11:02:32 AM »
Even with the penalties increased, as prevalent as the problem is, I ask again, how is I.C.E. or any government agency supposed to enforce them without manually checking every corporation? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but it seems like we'd just be exchanging one modification to procedure routine stops meant to assist a government agency in doing its job for a money sink that would take more time to properly implement. Plus, I can only imagine the court cases revolving around 'I didn't know their papers were fake!'

I think it would still be vastly cheaper that deporting random people off the street who aren't going to pay a fine or do anything.  And you asked how ICE is going to get the resources to do this, not how they are going to enforce it.  I don't think you are going to find a single solution that somehow makes money to pay for enforcement, but not doing anything about millions of undocumented people simply isn't going to work.  Hopefully a higher penalty will make it economically infeasible to hire illegal workers, but the Arizona law isn't going to address the core problem. 

And saying 'I didn't know their papers were fake!' could be fixed by drawing a line as to what employers have to do to not be prosecuted.  Make the legal language clear and unambiguous. 

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #169 on: July 23, 2010, 12:06:21 PM »
I just want again to point out are state level officers required or not to aid in the enforcement of Federal Laws or not, that is the debate for me.

If the Fderal Government can nitpick you must aid us in finding ,say, a murderer of a Fderal agent up for just a Federal crime but no immigration is our turf and then why should the states bother helping in Federal crimes. I would say if I was the Governor of Arizona fine unless a crime is a state crime but Federal no officer from the local to state level will assist you in any cases. Your on your own.

Why shouldn't they its so far has been accepted that states have every right to arrest Federal criminals and illegal immigrants fit that bill don't they? Precedent backs that up at many court cases dealing with organized crime, terrorism, treasury crimes and the like when the Feds insisted on Federal charges and juristiction.

And to that the law is not even in effect it could work they want to stall it on Possible problems and infractions not cases that have happened that is unprecedented as well. What are they afraid of the law works and makes them look bad?

Offline cassia

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #170 on: July 23, 2010, 12:22:31 PM »
They don't have to check everyone. Randomly selecting employers to check compliance merely needs increased and made more thorough when it does happen. The more that are subject to such inspections, the greater the chilling effect on others. Some may decide to gamble anyway and hire illegal immigrants on the hope that they will be lucky, but if the financial consequences are enough, many will decide it's not worth the risk. Especially if the penalties were modified so that larger businesses pay a larger penalty - a portion of the fines being based on a percentage of profit or a percentage of the corporation's gross income. That would help avoid the problem of stricter enforcement leading to small businesses unable to pay the fines complying while large companies decide to try their luck, able to absorb one or two fines without having to fold.

Secret shoppers under the age of 21 go to stores and bars from time to time attempting to buy liquor. The fairness of a law designed to deny young adults, old enough to join the military, the rights that slightly older adults have aside - these compliance shops are random and do not go to every retailer every time. Nonetheless, they are very useful for enforcement because you never know if and when they'll show up. Almost no one wants to run the risk of getting caught with their pants down, so they obey the law even when it causes a slight loss of business. The few retailers and bar managers who soak up the extra business by allowing under-21 patrons to buy alcohol are playing a very dangerous game and usually get caught and punished eventually.

There's no reason that each and every employer would have to be monitored frequently to make sure there are no illegal immigrants on their payroll. Randomly auditing a large enough minority annually would make most think twice.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #171 on: July 23, 2010, 12:27:17 PM »
Randomly auditing a large enough minority annually would make most think twice.

Hey, it works for the IRS.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #172 on: July 23, 2010, 01:11:11 PM »
 
Quote
Expulsion of a person from the country is not a matter that defaults to the states, even if the federal government fails to satisfy them.  It is not as if the federal government can be forced to turn over its discretion over border control whenever some state decides it wants a specific action or other but the feds do not oblige.

 The problem is, is the federal government is actively failing to enforce a law it SHOULD be enforcing. The Arizona law would be taking the illegals that are caught and handing them over to ICE. Not deporting them like you are saying. They'd be handed over to the proper legal Federal authorities to be deported.

 
Quote
         However, if the court ignores that hard Constitutional bottom line and chooses to assume more that as a practical matter, the Arizona police must be somehow active in enforcing one application or another of federal law, then there is an argument about whether the foreseeable process of enforcement will be acceptable.   Then, you have to explain exactly how they might determine suspicion of illegal presence in the first place without racial profiling.  Which at least in a sweeping and highly visible case like this, should be shot down as something the federal government is clearly committed to oppose.  Setting up  immigration "enforcement" in a way that directly threatens civil rights for legal residents is a non-starter in this regard.

 The law is a State law, not a Federal law. The State law is helping enforce a Federal alone. It is not infringing on any Federal regulations or privileges. Besides, States are allowed to make laws more restrictive than Federal laws if they want. Minimum wage? There are a number of states that have a higher min wage than the Federal requirment.  Why shouldn't a state be allowed to make sure that legal citizens and legal alien residents are the only ones living there?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 01:16:09 PM by Zakharra »

Offline Lyell

Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #173 on: July 23, 2010, 03:58:40 PM »
I think it would still be vastly cheaper that deporting random people off the street who aren't going to pay a fine or do anything.  And you asked how ICE is going to get the resources to do this, not how they are going to enforce it.

I'm sorry, I was unaware that the cost of recruiting, training and providing an organization the resources required to enforce said policies was non-existant. Imagine for a moment, that instead of it just being bars with secret shoppers, EVERY establishment in the country is a potential bar. Instead of secret shoppers we have secret investors or secret clients.

I don't think you are going to find a single solution that somehow makes money to pay for enforcement, but not doing anything about millions of undocumented people simply isn't going to work.

The federal government, sanctuary cities and the head of I.C.E. disagree. They'd rather do nothing.

Hopefully a higher penalty will make it economically infeasible to hire illegal workers, but the Arizona law isn't going to address the core problem. 

The penalties would have to be so great that they compensate for any length of time said illegal worker(s) were generating profit via their lower wage. The core problem is that there is no strong contingency plan for identifying and deporting individuals who've successfully crossed the border and integrated with society.

And saying 'I didn't know their papers were fake!' could be fixed by drawing a line as to what employers have to do to not be prosecuted.  Make the legal language clear and unambiguous.

The matter is already fixed and has precedence. Pulling from the bar analogy, any establishment that knowingly or unknowingly serves alcahol to a minor is guilty of that crime. That the "victim" produced a false I.D. is not a valid defence. It would essentially be a no tolerance environment.

This produces another problem because it places the burden of identity upon the employer. Thorough background checks to ensure that the american citizen trying to get hired on really is an american citizen and not some identity thief? Would they eat that cost or would they rather just hire someone else with less of an accent and darker or lighter skin?

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Seriously E? No "Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law" thread?
« Reply #174 on: July 23, 2010, 07:27:25 PM »
Quote from: Zakharra
The problem is, is the federal government is actively failing to enforce a law it SHOULD be enforcing.
         There is a certain amount of discretion in any police work, and it isn’t the only law or concern that the federal government has to follow.  As much as you try to skirt around that, in the end it’s a federal matter just what “should” be done.   If I adopt your argument, then every time someone jaywalks, the police “should” be doing something…  So first, we need more people monitoring jaywalking instead of policing the border.  Don't you laugh, this issue is important and people across the whole country could save lives!  Oh, wait, but how many intersections are the county sheriffs going to guard all day...   Which neighborhood intersections will they choose to watch more?  What other laws will they devote less time to following up on?  "Get off the street, you dolts.  It's more important that you're in the bars making sure everyone is 21.  No, no, you have to leave now and take this guy all the way to the police station because he just broke the speed limit and is afraid to speak to you in English, but he doesn't have papers.  Never mind how many murders and rapes are happening while you do it."

         Speaking of frequency of crimes per population...  Honolulu actually tried to patrol against downtown jaywalking actively for a short time.  They even used some undercover cops!  They did it to make a point, after a number of people being hurt on the downtown streets.  Puffy middle class office workers were getting $75 tickets along with some blue collar folks working downtown.  Well, it didn’t last too long.  We can fairly assume that some other police operations were not getting done as fast at the same time.  But while it lasted, let's say Lyell went and counted "what kind of people" were receiving tickets.  Hawaii is pretty multi-ethnic, so apart from so many Filipinos simply living there, I doubt he would have found very much on race.  He might have concluded that office work is directly associated with jaywalking.  Or more reasonably, that more people are apprehended from a population when you demand the attention of police on one particular law and quite a few of them cross that law in the process of trying to survive.   But it also helps if you have a law that makes it easier to arrest them for day to day life and (in practice, often enough) then interrogate them some more in search of anything else that fits the  expanded profile of criminality by race...

Quote from: Zakharra
The Arizona law would be taking the illegals that are caught and handing them over to ICE. Not deporting them like you are saying. They'd be handed over to the proper legal Federal authorities to be deported.

          Well in filing suit against Arizona, the federal government is already saying, you know we would not detain people using this kind of process in the first place.  They might instruct ICE to refuse to deal with them.  Arizona might say ICE wasn’t looking for them very hard before.  But this would seem to stymie the Arizona circus of “doing something” about a matter they didn’t have real authority on in the first place.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 07:33:37 PM by kylie »