Legal Showdown - Arizona's Immigration Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wirelessly posted

Reba said:
souggy said:
I thought only convicts need their fingerprints in the database?

That and people who has legally changed their names.
Click to expand...
All military people are in the fingerprint data system, as are all people who have had security background checks, and in South Carolina, all people who apply for conceal carry permits.

Also, as far as "convicts"; fingerprints are taken when a suspect is booked, not when someone is convicted, so there are prints of people on file who were never convicted of a crime.

Hospitals make prints of babies' feet, and some parents get fingerprints of their children to keep for identification if they go missing. Of course, these kinds of prints aren't in the computer systems but could be available if needed.
Click to expand...

:ty:
 
After Arizona, why are 10 states considering immigration bills? - Yahoo! News

After Arizona, why are 10 states considering immigration bills?


By Daniel B. Wood Daniel B. Wood – Mon May 10, 8:01 pm ET

(The Christian Science Monitor)

Given the anger sparked by Arizona's immigration bill nationwide – including protests and calls to boycott Arizona – the campaign promises of Colorado gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis could be seen as a bit of a surprise.

He has vowed to follow Arizona's lead and pass a tough new anti-illegal immigration law. “We are stopping the retreat. No more retreat,” he said in a local radio interview. “Federal government, if you are not going to do it, we are going to do it.”

Mr. McInnis's comments are but one example of how the Arizona firestorm has hardly scared off politicians in other states around the country. In some cases, it might actually be encouraging them.

Oklahoma is looking at passing tougher penalties for illegal immigrants caught with firearms. South Carolina might make it illegal to hire workers on the side of the road. In addition, state immigration legislation is also being considered in Idaho, Utah, Missouri, Texas, North Carolina, Maryland, Minnesota, and Colorado.

In many cases, the potential legislation is merely part of the perpetual national debate about immigration, which has taken form in more than 200 state-level immigration bills being signed into law each year from 2007 to 2009, notes Catherine Wilson, a political scientist at Villanova University in Philadelphia.

But there could be at least a shade of political opportunism as well, says Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn.

“This all means that Republicans elsewhere see political advantage in pressing for Arizona-style laws,” he says.



(Video on article not included, link above provides the article with the video. Subtitles are not included!)





Arizona law: A tipping point for states?That would not be unprecedented. In 2004, Arizona approved Prop. 200, which barred illegal immigrants from receiving most nonessential state benefits and services. Many other states followed.

Anti-illegal immigration advocates argue that the new Arizona immigration law represented a tipping point that other states are now following.

“What we are witnessing around the country is that the public’s patience is wearing out with the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws and protect the interests of American workers and taxpayers,” says Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

“Local officials – who tend to be more in-tune with the concerns of their constituents – are responding and doing what they can to address a serious problem for their states and communities,” he says.

But the movement among statehouses to enact immigration-related legislation began to take shape well before the Arizona law, says Professor Wilson.

She pinpoints 2006, and notes that the 200 immigration-related bills passed between 2007 and 2009 included 40 states and ranged in topic from law enforcement and employer verification to identification and licenses.

New levels of frustrationThe public’s renewed focus on immigration issues, together with recent events like the high-profile killing of an Arizona rancher, are expected to increase the tide of legislation. Three national polls have shown wide support for Arizona's SB 1070 in particular and crackdowns on undocumented immigrants in general.

“We should expect this trend of state-level activity to accelerate this year in the absence of federal legislation on immigration," Wilson says.

President Obama’s tacit acknowledgment that immigration reform is not feasible in the short term and his recent quips at a White House correspondents' dinner – where he mocked the Arizona law – have fueled frustration, says Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College.

Immigration activists have posted a video to YouTube that juxtaposes his comical remarks with statistics on soaring drug smuggling and narcotics prosecutions. The video includes the punch line: “President Obama, broken borders are not a laughing matter. Do your job and secure the border.”

“President Obama's mockery of the Arizona law has handed ammunition to its proponents,” says Professor Pitney, pointing out that the ad is paid for by Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer.

Related:

Arizona immigration law: Can city boycotts work?

Opinion polls show broad support for tough Arizona immigration law

Arizona immigration law: Embarrassment or way forward for Republicans?
Click to expand...
 
Reba said:
We already have a "green card" system for legal immigrants to work in the USA, so I see no need for a "limited citizenship." There are work visas and student visa available. Also, citizenship involves more than just a job. Citizenship involves loyalty to one's country. How can a person have "limited" loyalty to one's country? Either you are a citizen with all rights and responsibilities, faithful to that country, or you are not. One can be a legal resident without being a citizen.
Click to expand...

I know txgolfer doesn't mean anything about it but "limited citizenship" sounds.... like slave system. treated like second-class citizen.
 
Jiro said:
just a clever political ploy to get federal government jumping and moving. Obama would grin and say - go ahead. make my day.

if those 10 states pass it, they better not ask feds for some $$$ if they went broke from enforcing the immigration law and paying for legal lawsuits.

gimmi gimmi gimmi? I think not.
Click to expand...

I really don't think that is the point of the entire issue with those ten states. It seems that the point is, is that they are taking up the slack of the Federal Government.

Honestly, if the Federal Government had done it's responsibilty regarding the immigration laws, would we be in this situation now? Would the Legal Immigrants be at peace, and without fear of racial profiling from authorities?

If something is not met and it leads to issues, this being one of them for example, and someone takes up the responsibility, someone who really should not be doing this due to consequences that can occur, what would you expect from the situation?
 
DGirl101 said:
I really don't think that is the point of the entire issue with those ten states. It seems that the point is, is that they are taking up the slack of the Federal Government.

Honestly, if the Federal Government had done it's responsibilty regarding the immigration laws, would we be in this situation now? Would the Legal Immigrants be at peace, and without fear of racial profiling from authorities?

If something is not met and it leads to issues, this being one of them for example, and someone takes up the responsibility, someone who really should not be doing this due to consequences that can occur, what would you expect from the situation?
Click to expand...

nothing except to vote for people who would put it as their priority #1. It's like demanding LAPD to make us safe and LA a murder-free zone because LA residents are paying tax for it so they expect results. Well you don't like what the city has for you? then hire your own private security guards.

You don't like public transportation? then get your own car
You don't like public library? then pay for amazon.com
You don't like public school? then pay for private school
You don't like public hospital? then pay for private hospital
 
Jiro said:
nothing except to vote for people who would put it as their priority #1. It's like demanding LAPD to make us safe and LA a murder-free zone because LA residents are paying tax for it so they expect results. Well you don't like what the city has for you? then hire your own private security guards.

You don't like public transportation? then get your own car
You don't like public library? then pay for amazon.com
You don't like public school? then pay for private school
You don't like public hospital? then pay for private hospital
Click to expand...

What if you don't like your health insurance?
 
Jiro said:
nothing except to vote for people who would put it as their priority #1. It's like demanding LAPD to make us safe and LA a murder-free zone because LA residents are paying tax for it so they expect results. Well you don't like what the city has for you? then hire your own private security guards.

You don't like public transportation? then get your own car
You don't like public library? then pay for amazon.com
You don't like public school? then pay for private school
You don't like public hospital? then pay for private hospital
Click to expand...
Why should taxpayers have to pay twice?

If I'm already paying for police protection, why should I also have to pay for private security?
 
Reba said:
Why should taxpayers have to pay twice?

If I'm already paying for police protection, why should I also have to pay for private security?
Click to expand...

She shoots ..... she scores!
 
Reba said:
Why should taxpayers have to pay twice?

If I'm already paying for police protection, why should I also have to pay for private security?
Click to expand...

that's if you're not satisfied with the level of security you have. Point is - it is unrealistic and silly to demand town/city/state police to step it up.

btw - taxpayers pay only once. it is optional for you to pay for additional private service.
 
Jiro said:
too bad that you will pay fines to be uninsured.
Click to expand...

but I'm predicting that will be overturn by court in eventually and right now, it isn't enforce until 2012 or later.
 
Jiro said:
that's if you're not satisfied with the level of security you have. Point is - it is unrealistic and silly to demand town/city/state police to step it up.

btw - taxpayers pay only once. it is optional for you to pay for additional private service.
Click to expand...
No, we would be paying twice.

Once, our taxes pay for our public services.

Twice, our private money to pay for private services.

If we pay our taxes for public services, then we should get what we pay for. We shouldn't have to pay additional money.

Otherwise, give us taxpayers a refund so we can apply that money towards private services.
 
Reba said:
No, we would be paying twice.

Once, our taxes pay for our public services.

Twice, our private money to pay for private services.

If we pay our taxes for public services, then we should get what we pay for. We shouldn't have to pay additional money.

Otherwise, give us taxpayers a refund so we can apply that money towards private services.
Click to expand...

Private service is optional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top