Saturday, April 24, 2010

Freedom Outlawed in Arizona

Bigotry and hatred are now the law in Arizona:
The legislation, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants, allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.
So, what does an undocumented worker look like and how do this differ from the looks of a documented worker?

Zach has more.


  1. Bigotry and hatred? Wow.

    Entering this country without permission is an illegal act under federal law. Law enforcement will still be required to have reasonable suspicion to question someone; the same thing they use now for other crimes including traffic stops.

    Can you tell me what a bank robber looks like? How about a rapist, what do they look like? The same standard used to question people in these and all illegal acts will be used in this instance as it has been.

    The only bigotry and hatred is coming from people opposed to follow existing laws.

  2. SO you're for people entering the United States illegally. And you think 70% of Arizonians are racist bigots to boot.

    Arizona has problems people in Wisconsin do not understand.

  3. Wisconsin just does not have the problem eith illegals that AZ, CA, Las Vegas, Texas and other states in the West. So, understandingly, you don't know what the problem is really like.
    So, it's easy to crititize when you look at the problem from afar.
    Illegals cause major headaches to our healthcare, social services, education and crime.

  4. This is racial profiling at its worse. That each of you is trying to rationalize it says more about you than it does about the actual abhorrent law.

    And I can't believe anyone would even try to infer that native born Americans are incapable of crime. Undocumented immigrants make up a small portion of our jail population.

    BTW, the federal law makes it out to be a civil issue, not criminal.

  5. Wow you are completely out of touch. Entering the country illegally is a criminal offence; it appears you received your law degree from the same school that provided you with your accounting degree.

    Back to the racial issue, the fact the majority of illegal border crossing is made from the southern boundary of this country is not racial, just factual.

    The paintbrush of racial profiling is similar to the paintbrush of racism used for other political arguments...very weak proving there is no facts involved just emotion.

  6. Being illegally
    present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and
    subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil

    Congressional Research Service Report for Congress(pdf, page 15)

    Apparently you got your law degree the same place you bought your dictionary. It is offense, not offence.

  7. INA act 275 lists both criminal and civil penalties for criminally entering this country illegally. Many criminal activities hold civil penalties, they are still criminal activities regardless of the adjudication action.

    Before you begin to prance about on spelling (people in glass houses) you should begin more of your lame research. That means if you are going to quote something legal perhaps you should actually look at the law and not some report.

  8. What would really be fair is for the US to rewrite our immigration laws to match those of Mexico.

  9. The criminal penalties are for entering the country fraudulently, i.e. lying on an application. Running across the border is civil. Unless you are saying that the majority of undocumented immigrants are able to just pull the wool over INS and customs, I think the vast majority would be civil cases.

  10. Not my words, but they may enlighten you...though doubtful.

    "a crime is an offense against public welfare, whereas a civil wrong is an offense against private interests. While civil damages are awarded to compensate a victim for harm he has suffered at the injurer's hands, criminal punishment is inflicted to allow the state to vindicate its interest in the common good."

    Entering the country illegally is a crime, the adjudication (court) is where a civil or criminal penalty is given.

  11. I bet the racial profiling part of this poorly thought out law is found unconstitutional. (4th Amendment).

  12. Capper,

    If I'm not mistaken, police need probable cause in order to question Hispanics, which means it's not racial profiling.

    I'm personally torn on this issue. I believe that Arizona has a lot of problems because of their weak border and high influx of illegal aliens. However, they are real people with real families. And therefore, tearing them apart to deport them when they impose no harm to the community as a whole is morally wrong and inhumane.

    The Arizona governor has a point. The federal government's inaction brought this on. If the federal government would protect her borders, we wouldn't have this problem. Democrats know that Hispanics vote 65% with them, and first generation immigrants are even more likely than that to vote Democrat. Therefore, Democrats are not likely to strengthen the border.

    And Republicans don't want to cross businesses that employ illegals and also risk losing even more Hispanics by getting tough on illegal immigration.

    Personally, I don't understand how hard it is to build an effective wall across the border. If we have billions to give to other nations for support, we have billions to build a wall spanning from Texas to California.

  13. I was with you on all your points, and agree with them, until we got to the wall business.

    The solution is obvious. Make immigration less arduous for people wishing to come here and are not criminals. That will eliminate the majority of illegal entries and allow the authorities to focus on the real problems.

  14. The influx of illegal immigrants is hurting the border states, especially the ER and OB divisions of their local hospitals. And this is only part of the problem.

    I'm no expert on immigration. I don't know why our country makes it so difficult for immigrants to flow from the southern border into the U.S., but my best bet is to go with the border states that understand their problem a little better than you and I. If they see a serious problem, then one must exist. They need to build the wall first and foremost, then it will be much easier to deal with those who reside in the country illegally.

  15. Your insistence on a wall is kind of funny considering that when they tried to build a wall (in Texas, I think), they hired illegal immigrants to do the work.

  16. What does that have to do with anything? Building a wall is the most humane way of handling this problem as it largely prevents the federal and state governments from rounding up and deporting illegal immigrants. Do you agree?

  17. Actually, I do not agree. It would be very expensive to build a wall that would be high enough and deep enough into the earth to be effective, and that doesn't mean that someone who is desperate enough couldn't find another way around or through said wall.

  18. Because a person is desperate the law should not apply?

    I suspect all bank robbers are desperate also, should they not be held accountable to the law either?

  19. There is no comparison between someone trying to get a better life and someone robbing a bank. That is simply a false choice.

    Again, the smartest answer would be to simplify the immigration policies so that today's immigrants can get into America as did our forefathers.

  20. The comparison is both are a crime...some people can’t see the truth here. Picking and choosing which laws to hold people accountable to is unacceptable.

    I agree reform is needed. Until changed current laws still are valid and require enforcement.

    For the record our forefathers are also the ones that changed the laws to what they are today...

  21. The levels are distinctly different. One could not reasonably compare littering to murder, even though both are against the law.

    As for the forefather's changing the law, that is true. But they also held different views of right and wrong, like the equality of races or genders.

  22. The equality of races or gender have nothing to do with the law. Entering the country, without following established law, is a crime.

    The reason we have laws is to establish and strengthen our society. By allowing these law breakers to continue without ramifications leads to terrible presidents...