Judge Blocks Key Parts of Arizona "Papers Please" Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APPEAL TO EMOTION ALERT! APPEAL TO EMOTION ALERT!

My family has been victimized by legal American citizens. Can we deport all of those, too?

Your argument makes no sense. We process legal American citizens according to American law and use our prison system. Did you not know this? What is your argument for not detaining (possible trying and imprisoning) and then deporting an illegal lawbreaker caught on American soil?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APPEAL TO EMOTION ALERT! APPEAL TO EMOTION ALERT!

My family has been victimized by legal American citizens. Can we deport all of those, too?

Your argument makes no sense. We process legal American citizens according to American law and use our prison system. Did you not know this? What is your argument for not detaining (possible trying and imprisoning) and then deporting an illegal lawbreaker caught on American soil?

Did I argue that the person in question shouldn't be prosecuted? No. But I don't think all immigrants should be deported because of the actions of a tiny minority.

Got reading comprehension?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APPEAL TO EMOTION ALERT! APPEAL TO EMOTION ALERT!

My family has been victimized by legal American citizens. Can we deport all of those, too?

Your argument makes no sense. We process legal American citizens according to American law and use our prison system. Did you not know this? What is your argument for not detaining (possible trying and imprisoning) and then deporting an illegal lawbreaker caught on American soil?

Did I argue that the person in question shouldn't be prosecuted? No. But I don't think all immigrants should be deported because of the actions of a tiny minority.

Got reading comprehension?

Dear Reading Comprehension,

You seem to have missed the point being made (sigh). Deport all ILLEGAL immigrants who have had encounters with the law (victimized people) like this guy--instead of releasing them to the streets to do it again. Got a problem with that?

Signed,

Your Tutor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APPEAL TO EMOTION ALERT! APPEAL TO EMOTION ALERT!

My family has been victimized by legal American citizens. Can we deport all of those, too?

Your argument makes no sense. We process legal American citizens according to American law and use our prison system. Did you not know this? What is your argument for not detaining (possible trying and imprisoning) and then deporting an illegal lawbreaker caught on American soil?

Did I argue that the person in question shouldn't be prosecuted? No. But I don't think all immigrants should be deported because of the actions of a tiny minority.

Got reading comprehension?

Dear Reading Comprehension,

You seem to have missed the point being made (sigh). Deport all ILLEGAL immigrants who have had encounters with the law (victimized people) like this guy--instead of releasing them to the streets to do it again. Got a problem with that?

Signed,

Your Tutor

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Dear Reading Comprehension,

You seem to have missed the point being made (sigh). Deport all ILLEGAL immigrants who have had encounters with the law (victimized people) like this guy--instead of releasing them to the streets to do it again. Got a problem with that?

Signed,

Your Tutor

Do you propose that such deportations take place without due process? Many people who have "encounters with the law" turn out to be innocent. Imagine a case of someone who is working and raising a family but has an expired visa. He is wrongly accused of a crime and arrested. Is it worth deporting him and destroying his family as a result of the false accusation? What about a woman who has over-stayed a visa because she faces the threat of female genital mutilation upon return to her home country. If she is arrested for a crime should she be sent home to have her clitoris cut off without even the benefit of a deportation hearing? I ask because "this guy" was awaiting such a hearing and you seem to object to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be an issue where the politicians (R&D) will be on one side (for the illegals and their "vote") and the populace on the other. It will be interesting how it all falls through. I for one will not vote for any politician who is not against illegal immigration.

If "illegals" are voting we have some drastic problems--maybe this is how Bush won Florida in 2000. Obama did this for show for the Nov. elections and it will probably backfire, ir for not other reason, it is an anti-incumbent electorate. I predict it will end up in the US Supreme Court and unless, Scalia, Roberts. Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, are all put on the mother ship and shuttled off to MARS, the lower court ruling will be reversed. And if that isn't the case, it will be one of the main issues in the 2012 presidential elections and the GOPers will use it to their advantage. 60 to 65 percent of American voters are against illegal immigrants and the ballot box will show their consternation. Smart politicians, if you want to be reelected, legal voters are where you put your faith not in illegals who can't vote.

Actually, a lot of the conservative judges are big believers in federal powers, so if they remain ideologically consistent, they are far more likely to uphold the ruling. We shall see.

Also, it is not illegals who are voting, but a candidate is far more likely to garner support in the Hispanic community if he is supporting of immigrants.

A political candidate is far less likely to garner votes in other communities, notably white, if he/she supports illegal immigration.

A. No one supports illegal immigration. They just have different limits on how far to go to prosecute it. No one would suggest setting up immigration checkpoints on every major highway, or having the police routinely stop metro trains and search everyone on board for papers.

B. White Americans are becoming the minority. At just about this point, the average baby born here is nonwhite. In 40 years, 25% of the country will be hispanic. So while you are correct that some white votes may be lost over immigration policy, the long term backlash will cause irreparable damage to the Republican party. Even Karl Rove told his party that they cannot make it long term without some decent share of the Hispanic vote.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Dear Reading Comprehension,

You seem to have missed the point being made (sigh). Deport all ILLEGAL immigrants who have had encounters with the law (victimized people) like this guy--instead of releasing them to the streets to do it again. Got a problem with that?

Signed,

Your Tutor

Do you propose that such deportations take place without due process? Many people who have "encounters with the law" turn out to be innocent. Imagine a case of someone who is working and raising a family but has an expired visa. He is wrongly accused of a crime and arrested. Is it worth deporting him and destroying his family as a result of the false accusation? What about a woman who has over-stayed a visa because she faces the threat of female genital mutilation upon return to her home country. If she is arrested for a crime should she be sent home to have her clitoris cut off without even the benefit of a deportation hearing? I ask because "this guy" was awaiting such a hearing and you seem to object to that.

I propose that a guy who had two arrests prior for drunk driving, numerous moving violations, AND was here illegally should not have been out on the street. He should have been HELD until his deportation hearing that could have established the facts of the matter. A woman awaiting a hearing on genital mutilation would not have over-stayed her visa--she would be here on a refugee status. If she commits a crime - like drunk driving- while awaiting that hearing then YES, she should be locked up to await the hearing. Thanks for doing your best to falsely inflame things though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be an issue where the politicians (R&D) will be on one side (for the illegals and their "vote") and the populace on the other. It will be interesting how it all falls through. I for one will not vote for any politician who is not against illegal immigration.

If "illegals" are voting we have some drastic problems--maybe this is how Bush won Florida in 2000. Obama did this for show for the Nov. elections and it will probably backfire, ir for not other reason, it is an anti-incumbent electorate. I predict it will end up in the US Supreme Court and unless, Scalia, Roberts. Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, are all put on the mother ship and shuttled off to MARS, the lower court ruling will be reversed. And if that isn't the case, it will be one of the main issues in the 2012 presidential elections and the GOPers will use it to their advantage. 60 to 65 percent of American voters are against illegal immigrants and the ballot box will show their consternation. Smart politicians, if you want to be reelected, legal voters are where you put your faith not in illegals who can't vote.

Actually, a lot of the conservative judges are big believers in federal powers, so if they remain ideologically consistent, they are far more likely to uphold the ruling. We shall see.

Also, it is not illegals who are voting, but a candidate is far more likely to garner support in the Hispanic community if he is supporting of immigrants.

A political candidate is far less likely to garner votes in other communities, notably white, if he/she supports illegal immigration.

A. No one supports illegal immigration. They just have different limits on how far to go to prosecute it. No one would suggest setting up immigration checkpoints on every major highway, or having the police routinely stop metro trains and search everyone on board for papers.

B. White Americans are becoming the minority. At just about this point, the average baby born here is nonwhite. In 40 years, 25% of the country will be hispanic. So while you are correct that some white votes may be lost over immigration policy, the long term backlash will cause irreparable damage to the Republican party. Even Karl Rove told his party that they cannot make it long term without some decent share of the Hispanic vote.

Giving up national sovereignty, law and order mechanisms, and pathways to legal immigration does not affect just whites. And please do not assume that Hispanic legal immigrants are so lockstep as to fall for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Dear Reading Comprehension,

You seem to have missed the point being made (sigh). Deport all ILLEGAL immigrants who have had encounters with the law (victimized people) like this guy--instead of releasing them to the streets to do it again. Got a problem with that?

Signed,

Your Tutor

Do you propose that such deportations take place without due process? Many people who have "encounters with the law" turn out to be innocent. Imagine a case of someone who is working and raising a family but has an expired visa. He is wrongly accused of a crime and arrested. Is it worth deporting him and destroying his family as a result of the false accusation? What about a woman who has over-stayed a visa because she faces the threat of female genital mutilation upon return to her home country. If she is arrested for a crime should she be sent home to have her clitoris cut off without even the benefit of a deportation hearing? I ask because "this guy" was awaiting such a hearing and you seem to object to that.

I propose that a guy who had two arrests prior for drunk driving, numerous moving violations, AND was here illegally should not have been out on the street. He should have been HELD until his deportation hearing that could have established the facts of the matter. A woman awaiting a hearing on genital mutilation would not have over-stayed her visa--she would be here on a refugee status. If she commits a crime - like drunk driving- while awaiting that hearing then YES, she should be locked up to await the hearing. Thanks for doing your best to falsely inflame things though.

First off, I love how you misunderstood my questioning your reading comprehension to me stating my name as reading comprehension. Clearly that really IS difficult for you.

To your point, no one is arguing that criminals of any kind should be allowed to freely roam the streets. That is the kind of nonsensical strawman argument that the conservative right drums up to scare folks into thinking liberals/Democrats/their-opponent-du-jour want the streets overrun with violent criminals. If a person poses a direct threat to society, regardless of citizenship status, they should be properly detained until due process takes its course. But until their citizenship status is properly ascertained and they receive a proper deportation hearing (if necessary), they should be treated like anyone else. If the facts deem they ought to be detained, then they should be detained. If the facts deem they should be released pending a hearing, then they should be released. Why don't we let facts and reason, not emotion, hyperbole, and fear, dictate?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I propose that a guy who had two arrests prior for drunk driving, numerous moving violations, AND was here illegally should not have been out on the street. He should have been HELD until his deportation hearing that could have established the facts of the matter. A woman awaiting a hearing on genital mutilation would not have over-stayed her visa--she would be here on a refugee status. If she commits a crime - like drunk driving- while awaiting that hearing then YES, she should be locked up to await the hearing. Thanks for doing your best to falsely inflame things though.

How much of a tax increase are you willing to accept in order to build and staff sufficient prisons for holding people who are awaiting immigration hearings? Bear in mind, that this guy had been waiting two years for his hearing.

If a woman has refugee status, they don't need a hearing. There have been cases of woman over-staying visas because they feared FGM upon return home. These woman sought hearings in order to obtain refugee status. It has not always been easy for such woman to get asylum in the US. Read this article that describes how complex this issue is:

http://legalworkshop.org/2010/04/21/cornell-law-review-post

You again failed to stipulate that the people who you would like to see detained -- presumably for years -- would actually have to have been convicted of a crime. I would think that would be a minimum requirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be an issue where the politicians (R&D) will be on one side (for the illegals and their "vote") and the populace on the other. It will be interesting how it all falls through. I for one will not vote for any politician who is not against illegal immigration.

If "illegals" are voting we have some drastic problems--maybe this is how Bush won Florida in 2000. Obama did this for show for the Nov. elections and it will probably backfire, ir for not other reason, it is an anti-incumbent electorate. I predict it will end up in the US Supreme Court and unless, Scalia, Roberts. Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, are all put on the mother ship and shuttled off to MARS, the lower court ruling will be reversed. And if that isn't the case, it will be one of the main issues in the 2012 presidential elections and the GOPers will use it to their advantage. 60 to 65 percent of American voters are against illegal immigrants and the ballot box will show their consternation. Smart politicians, if you want to be reelected, legal voters are where you put your faith not in illegals who can't vote.

Actually, a lot of the conservative judges are big believers in federal powers, so if they remain ideologically consistent, they are far more likely to uphold the ruling. We shall see.

Also, it is not illegals who are voting, but a candidate is far more likely to garner support in the Hispanic community if he is supporting of immigrants.

A political candidate is far less likely to garner votes in other communities, notably white, if he/she supports illegal immigration.

A. No one supports illegal immigration. They just have different limits on how far to go to prosecute it. No one would suggest setting up immigration checkpoints on every major highway, or having the police routinely stop metro trains and search everyone on board for papers.

B. White Americans are becoming the minority. At just about this point, the average baby born here is nonwhite. In 40 years, 25% of the country will be hispanic. So while you are correct that some white votes may be lost over immigration policy, the long term backlash will cause irreparable damage to the Republican party. Even Karl Rove told his party that they cannot make it long term without some decent share of the Hispanic vote.

Giving up national sovereignty, law and order mechanisms, and pathways to legal immigration does not affect just whites. And please do not assume that Hispanic legal immigrants are so lockstep as to fall for that.

Agreed that whites are not the only ones affected. It wasn't my post that wrote "notably whites".

But I am not underestimating the effect on the Hispanic vote. This is a big deal to them. 70% of them oppose the Arizona law. And if you think that it will be an election issue for a bunch of whites, you have to believe that this will be an even more important voting issue for Hispanics.

[Anonymous]

So 30% of them don't? That's sizable.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I propose that a guy who had two arrests prior for drunk driving, numerous moving violations, AND was here illegally should not have been out on the street. He should have been HELD until his deportation hearing that could have established the facts of the matter. A woman awaiting a hearing on genital mutilation would not have over-stayed her visa--she would be here on a refugee status. If she commits a crime - like drunk driving- while awaiting that hearing then YES, she should be locked up to await the hearing. Thanks for doing your best to falsely inflame things though.

How much of a tax increase are you willing to accept in order to build and staff sufficient prisons for holding people who are awaiting immigration hearings? Bear in mind, that this guy had been waiting two years for his hearing.

If a woman has refugee status, they don't need a hearing. There have been cases of woman over-staying visas because they feared FGM upon return home. These woman sought hearings in order to obtain refugee status. It has not always been easy for such woman to get asylum in the US. Read this article that describes how complex this issue is:

http://legalworkshop.org/2010/04/21/cornell-law-review-post

You again failed to stipulate that the people who you would like to see detained -- presumably for years -- would actually have to have been convicted of a crime. I would think that would be a minimum requirement.

We've covered this ground--sigh--but here goes: it does not matter why she's here. If your FMG lady is arrested for a crime like drunk driving and here on illegal status (overstayed visa) she should be held until her hearing. You're right--it is not always easy for women to obtain asylum in the US. Reform the asylum system if you wish. I assume it is a slow-moving process to a) protect against fraud and b) because it's a mess of a bureaucracy. But if you are here, seeking asylum, obey the law and don't do anything criminal. Especially if you've now overstayed your visa. Perhaps she should go to Canada in the interim where asylum laws are much more generous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I propose that a guy who had two arrests prior for drunk driving, numerous moving violations, AND was here illegally should not have been out on the street. He should have been HELD until his deportation hearing that could have established the facts of the matter. A woman awaiting a hearing on genital mutilation would not have over-stayed her visa--she would be here on a refugee status. If she commits a crime - like drunk driving- while awaiting that hearing then YES, she should be locked up to await the hearing. Thanks for doing your best to falsely inflame things though.

How much of a tax increase are you willing to accept in order to build and staff sufficient prisons for holding people who are awaiting immigration hearings? Bear in mind, that this guy had been waiting two years for his hearing.

If a woman has refugee status, they don't need a hearing. There have been cases of woman over-staying visas because they feared FGM upon return home. These woman sought hearings in order to obtain refugee status. It has not always been easy for such woman to get asylum in the US. Read this article that describes how complex this issue is:

http://legalworkshop.org/2010/04/21/cornell-law-review-post

You again failed to stipulate that the people who you would like to see detained -- presumably for years -- would actually have to have been convicted of a crime. I would think that would be a minimum requirement.

We've covered this ground--sigh--but here goes: it does not matter why she's here. If your FMG lady is arrested for a crime like drunk driving and here on illegal status (overstayed visa) she should be held until her hearing. You're right--it is not always easy for women to obtain asylum in the US. Reform the asylum system if you wish. I assume it is a slow-moving process to a) protect against fraud and b) because it's a mess of a bureaucracy. But if you are here, seeking asylum, obey the law and don't do anything criminal. Especially if you've now overstayed your visa. Perhaps she should go to Canada in the interim where asylum laws are much more generous?

And where should she be held? And who foots the bill? These aren't rhetorical questions. So much of the outrage over illegal immigration has to do with what they cost us (though, again, there is a net economic gain in the aggregate, though this is not evenly distributed amongst regions/sectors)... yet you argue on behalf of a plan that would cost far, far more?

And before you argue that it will cost us more now but less down the road as it will serve as a deterrent, there is no evidence that any crime penalty has functioned as a deterrent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So 30% of them don't? That's sizable.

Not really. Most of those hispanics live nowhere near Arizona, and therefore are not personally affected by it that much. So you can expect the numbers to shoot up if we start talking nation-wide law. Within Arizona, 81% of hispanic registered voters oppose the law. And most of those who do support it are older voters. Again time works against the Republicans. That's bad. How bad? Compare to other issues:

% of Catholics who oppose abortion: 60
% of evangelicals who oppose gay marriage: 87
% of blacks who voted Democrat in 2004 Pres Election (let's face it, 2008 is an unfair comparison): 88

When George W. Bush came into office in 2001, Karl Rove was quoted: "In January 2001, Karl Rove told reporters that increasing the GOP share of the Latino vote was "our mission and our goal," one that would "require all of us in every way and every day working to get that done.""

In 2006, seeing anti-immigration sentiment increasing within the party, Ed Gillespie wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Anti-immigration rhetoric is a political siren song, and Republicans must resist its lure by lashing ourselves to our party's twin masts of freedom and growth -- or our majority will crash on the shoals."

So it's not just me saying it. It's the people who are responsible for building the numbers for Republicans. They know what the future trends are. They know that John McCain got just as many white votes as George W. Bush ever did. And they know that 2008 is only a taste of what a changing electorate will bring.