Arizona’s illegal-immigration law heads to Supreme Court. Will justices strike it dow

Status
Not open for further replies.
CrazyPaul said:
That would require them to have their SSN in order to pay taxes but they are not US citizens so they can't get SSN. I believe that only US citizens can get their own SSN. Correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
nope. anybody can get it.... assuming that they meet legal requirements.

Foreign Workers And Social Security Numbers
Social Security numbers are used to report an individual's wages to the government and to determine a person's eligibility for Social Security benefits. You need a Social Security number to get a job, collect Social Security benefits and receive some other government services.

If you are temporarily in the United States to work, your employer will ask for your Social Security number. In general, only noncitizens authorized by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to work in the United States can get a Social Security number.

Although many other businesses, such as banks and credit companies, also ask for your number, you are not required to provide it. You can get many services without a Social Security number, including a driver's license.
Click to expand...

Social Security Numbers For Noncitizens
Unless you are a noncitizen who wants to work in the United States, you probably do not need a Social Security number.

Generally, only noncitizens authorized to work in the United States by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can get a Social Security number. Social Security numbers are used to report an individual�s wages to the government and to determine a person�s eligibility for Social Security benefits. You need a Social Security number to work, collect Social Security benefits and receive some other government services.

Lawfully admitted noncitizens can get many benefits and services without a Social Security number. You do not need a number to get a driver�s license, register for school, obtain private health insurance, or to apply for school lunch programs or subsidized housing.

Some organizations use Social Security numbers to identify you in their records. Most, however, will identify you by some other means if you request it.

We cannot assign you a Social Security number solely so you can get a driver�s license or a service that requires a credit check.

Although many companies, such as banks and credit companies, may ask for your Social Security number, you generally are not required to provide one if you don�t have one.
Click to expand...
 
CrazyPaul said:
I will ask my deaf friend who is Mexican how much for a bus trip to Mexico. In that article you linked, number 4 doesn't sound right to me. $1,000 per person to be transported to Mexico is bullshit.
Click to expand...

what do you think how much it would cost then?
 
CrazyPaul said:
I will ask my deaf friend who is Mexican how much for a bus trip to Mexico. In that article you linked, number 4 doesn't sound right to me. $1,000 per person to be transported to Mexico is bullshit.
Click to expand...

That's correct about $1,000 per person because of court cost, lawyer fee, trip, food and shelter.
 
TXgolfer said:
:laugh2: I knew you would claim you were right. The part of the law which you were most strongly against was upheld. I would call this a tie. Many Latinos see this as a loss.

"Sad Day" For Civil Rights: Gutierrez | NBC Chicago
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Most people did not know about the other laws but were quite familiar with the AZ law that was not struck down. That was the most contentious law of them all
 
kokonut said:
Absolutely. Most people did not know about the other laws but were quite familiar with the AZ law that was not struck down. That was the most contentious law of them all
Click to expand...

Well, it is more loss for you. ;)
 
Jiro said:
the one that was upheld has actually been allowed for a long time. The major component of this comical law was struck down.
Click to expand...

Yup, I know some state troopers stopped some people and ask for document about question if they are legally, even some county sheriffs ask same questions for many years.
 
Jiro said:
the one that was upheld has actually been allowed for a long time. The major component of this comical law was struck down.
Click to expand...

Well you can spin it however you want. If I cared I would link any number of posts where you complained about the racial profiling involved in the upheld portion. But I don't :)

There are three objectives I wanted this law to accomplish....I will not go into them, but I will say I am confident all objectives will be met through the upheld portion. I am not overjoyed with the ruling but I am fairly happy with it.
 
kokonut said:
Absolutely. Most people did not know about the other laws but were quite familiar with the AZ law that was not struck down. That was the most contentious law of them all
Click to expand...

Yeah, like I said above....I believe AZ will be able to achieve it's goals through the upheld portion. At least the counties that want to will be able to. Basically the ruling was "meh". I expect more of the same Thursday
 
TXgolfer said:
Well you can spin it however you want. If I cared I would link any number of posts where you complained about the racial profiling involved in the upheld portion. But I don't :)

There are three objectives I wanted this law to accomplish....I will not go into them, but I will say I am confident all objectives will be met through the upheld portion. I am not overjoyed with the ruling but I am fairly happy with it.
Click to expand...

All of 3 portions are unconstitutional but only ONE is constitutional so you can't integrate 3 unconstitutional portions into one constitutional portion.

It looks like you are only happy about one portion is constitutional but... it is very old news.
 
TXgolfer said:
Yeah, like I said above....I believe AZ will be able to achieve it's goals through the upheld portion. At least the counties that want to will be able to. Basically the ruling was "meh". I expect more of the same Thursday
Click to expand...

No, when rest of 3 portions are strike down so entire of AZ immigration law is pointless now because one constitutional portion isn't going work for AZ government.
 
TXgolfer said:
Well you can spin it however you want. If I cared I would link any number of posts where you complained about the racial profiling involved in the upheld portion. But I don't :)

There are three objectives I wanted this law to accomplish....I will not go into them, but I will say I am confident all objectives will be met through the upheld portion. I am not overjoyed with the ruling but I am fairly happy with it.
Click to expand...

Pretty obvious.
 
TXgolfer said:
Yeah, like I said above....I believe AZ will be able to achieve it's goals through the upheld portion. At least the counties that want to will be able to. Basically the ruling was "meh". I expect more of the same Thursday
Click to expand...

With Romney as President I'm sure this law will kick into high gear rather than have a foot-dragging govt.
 
Foxrac said:
That's correct about $1,000 per person because of court cost, lawyer fee, trip, food and shelter.
Click to expand...
Re-read post #73. # 4 - transportation only (one way trip) - $1,000 per person to be transported back to Mexico so that doesn't include court fees which is # 3 - legal proceeding - $817. Food and shelter is # 2 - detention - $3,355.

Four stages of deportation process: apprehension, detention, legal proceeding and transportation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top