Arizona style immigration law coming to Virginia?

[Anonymous]

How many of you actually read the bill?

Or did you just get the quick and dirty from a website?

I am willing to be not many of you have read it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:How many of you actually read the bill?

Or did you just get the quick and dirty from a website?

I am willing to be not many of you have read it.

I have read it. What's your point?

[Anonymous]

I thought the Washington Post poll showing very strong levels of support for the AZ law was interesting. Especially living here in the DC area (home in MD) where it's widely villanized.

Frankly, I think AZ is getting a bit desperate and the people I know from there have said as much. They may not think the law was the best thing since sliced bread, but there is a sense that the border enforcement is NOT working and that they have a very large and growing illegal population as a result while the feds aren't doing enough to address that fact.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please explain the difference between this law, in its amended current condition, and Federal Law. Thanks!

There are significant differences. I'll let Factcheck.org explain them:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/arizonas-papers-please-law/

Bottom line:

"Contrary to what the law’s defenders often say, the new statute does more than merely mirror federal law."

thanks very much for the source; I appreciate it. The law sounds eminently reasonable. As your source says - no more than what courts currently allow. I hope it spreads like wildfire through the states and/or the federal government actually starts paying attention to the laws on it's own books.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
thanks very much for the source; I appreciate it. The law sounds eminently reasonable. As your source says - no more than what courts currently allow. I hope it spreads like wildfire through the states and/or the federal government actually starts paying attention to the laws on it's own books.

Nice try. Factcheck.org says the Arizona law only limits profiling to what is currently allowed by the courts. The law obviously includes things other than profiling. As Factcheck says, "Other parts of the state law, though, don’t exist at the federal level".

For instance, the law makes it illegal for a driver to stop and attempt to hire or to hire and pick up passengers if that action impedes traffic. It is illegal for a person to get into someone's vehicle in order to be hired. Obviously, these laws are aimed at day laborers who are simply assumed to all be illegal. It also allows authorities to get around the profiling issue. An officer simply says, "I didn't demand this guy prove his status because he is brown and speaks with an accent. He was getting into a car in ordered to be hired."

Same with the extension of the bill to civil ordinances. If you happen to have too many cars at your house or fail to cut your grass, the police can come asking for your documents.

Factcheck's conclusion is not that Arizona's law allows no more than what the courts currently allow. The organization's conclusion is the exact opposite.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Nice try. Factcheck.org says the Arizona law only limits profiling to what is currently allowed by the courts. The law obviously includes things other than profiling. As Factcheck says, "Other parts of the state law, though, don’t exist at the federal level".

In fact, if I may go a step further than Jeff, that "currently allowed" clause could be rephrased as directing the police to use any kind of profiling not yet prohibited by the courts!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
thanks very much for the source; I appreciate it. The law sounds eminently reasonable. As your source says - no more than what courts currently allow. I hope it spreads like wildfire through the states and/or the federal government actually starts paying attention to the laws on it's own books.

Nice try. Factcheck.org says the Arizona law only limits profiling to what is currently allowed by the courts. The law obviously includes things other than profiling. As Factcheck says, "Other parts of the state law, though, don’t exist at the federal level".

For instance, the law makes it illegal for a driver to stop and attempt to hire or to hire and pick up passengers if that action impedes traffic. It is illegal for a person to get into someone's vehicle in order to be hired. Obviously, these laws are aimed at day laborers who are simply assumed to all be illegal. It also allows authorities to get around the profiling issue. An officer simply says, "I didn't demand this guy prove his status because he is brown and speaks with an accent. He was getting into a car in ordered to be hired."

Same with the extension of the bill to civil ordinances. If you happen to have too many cars at your house or fail to cut your grass, the police can come asking for your documents.

Factcheck's conclusion is not that Arizona's law allows no more than what the courts currently allow. The organization's conclusion is the exact opposite.

I have no issue with a state not wanting people to impede traffic while hiring workers, checking up on two many cars on a lawn or failure to cut grass. If these break civil ordinances you should not be doing them. Vis actions directed at day-laborers -- Day laborer pick-up is already being debated in the area. It is not an easy topic--given that it does cause businesses and passers-by inconvenience. It seems a small small footnote to this law. It does not seem worthy of rhetoric like "Nazi" "Bigoted" "f-****". Being here illegally and working illegally are crimes. If this law causes inconvenience in those endeavors, good. I wish it were stopped long before it got to the point of people hopping into people's pick-ups for illegal employment. Sad that it's come to this. What is Obama's plan (besides suing AZ) to end criminal entry/employment in this country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:,,, Being here illegally and working illegally are crimes. If this law causes inconvenience in those endeavors, good. I wish it were stopped long before it got to the point of people hopping into people's pick-ups for illegal employment. Sad that it's come to this. What is Obama's plan (besides suing AZ) to end criminal entry/employment in this country?

I thought we had already ascertained (or did I read it elsewhere) that entering without papers is a criminal offense, but being here without papers is a civil offense.

[jsteele]

Here is a contradiction that perhaps someone can explain to me. For months, certain conservatives have been up in arms about the Census and the ten questions or so that we are asked to answer. For example, Erick Erickson, founder of the conservative Red State blog said if a Census worker came on his property, he would "Pull out my wife's shotgun". Congresswoman Michelle Bachman said that she would not complete the census form entirely. Apparently, a number of leading conservatives believe that the government does not have the right to ask questions such as "How many people are living in your house?" and "What is Person #1's Sex?"

On the other hand, many conservatives -- including Erickson and Bachman -- believe that it is perfectly fine for a policeman to ask that you prove your immigration status because you have done nothing more than, for instance, jaywalk across an empty street. The policeman could detain you if you are unable to demonstrate your legal status. If Erickson will grab his wife's shotgun at the sight of a Census worker, what would he do if a policeman who noticed his grass hadn't been cut wanted to see Erickson's passport and birth certificate? To believe Erickson, he will happily produce the documents despite doing so seems much more intrusive than disclosing the number of residents of his home. Can anyone explain to me why the Census is the work of the devil while immigration checks are our civic duty?

[Anonymous]

What are people more upset about? Illegal immigration or being asked to show an ID when already interacting with police? One guess.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What are people more upset about? Illegal immigration or being asked to show an ID when already interacting with police? One guess.

The constitution requires a census. So, to follow your logic, if you already have to interact with a census worker, you should not be angry about a few innocuous questions. Yet, those questions are enough to to cause Erickson to grab his wife's shotgun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Arizona law says cause includes anyone in legal contact with an officer. What does that mean? If I ask a cop for directions, is that legal contact? It's certainly not ILlegal contact. Guess I shouldn't do that without my ID.

Let's face facts: this law is motivated by racism, jingoism, and xenophobia. And nothing else. If you think it is, you have fallen for nonsensical talking points. Actually understanding this law, the Constitution, and the intentions of those proposing the law (such as the self-admitted Nazi-sympathizer who originally proposed it), you are simply uninformed and need to keep your bigotry to yourself.

Accusations of bigotry are truly the last retreat in American-debate. Let's pull out the racism card and wave it wildy! That'll shut everyone up!!! So much for your vaunted free speech.

What is a race card? Seriously? What is that? Are we playing a game?

I like how acknowledging someone who IS a bigot of BEING a bigot is the problem. Not actually BEING the bigot. But acknowledging it. Let's not stop bigotry. Let's just ignore it. Well played, sir.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are people more upset about? Illegal immigration or being asked to show an ID when already interacting with police? One guess.

Well, there is this thing called Real ID. It was supposed to provide a reliable ID, and here is a sampling of opposition. This includes governors, attorneys-general, senators from both sides of the aisle, security professionals, and regular citizens. At least 19 states have passed laws preventing the implementation of Real ID.

http://www.realnightmare.org/opposition/9/
http://www.realnightmare.org/opposition/92/
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/032508/sta_261490385.shtml
http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2007/05/09/real-id-opposition-turns-up-the-heat.aspx
http://www.civilrights.org/advocacy/letters/2005/opposition-to-the-real-id-act-of-2005.html
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/092208/sta_335273923.shtml

[Anonymous]

I support real ID. And being asked for it when traveling etc. Again, what solutions are Obama and Holder offering besides NOT meeting with Jan Brewer and offering to sue the good people of AZ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support real ID. And being asked for it when traveling etc. Again, what solutions are Obama and Holder offering besides NOT meeting with Jan Brewer and offering to sue the good people of AZ?

It seems to me that there is a big difference between a lawsuit challenging a state law and suing "the good people of AZ". Twisting the facts through linguistic trickery is either muddled thought or a sleazy debate tactic. Please note: Suggesting that the poster may have fallen into muddled thought is not an accusation of stupidity; most of us are intellectually careless now and then.