The Church and Immigration Policy

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

The actual law requires that local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is

[WalkerW]

To bad the American Indians did not have a "Papers Please" law.

All the more reason to have one. And I don't get the point of your video link.

[USU78]

You realize that I live in Maricopa County, right? Furthermore, I've discussed this with a friend who is a Maricopa County Deputy; I know whereof I speak.

I'm sure your source thinks that.

[USU78]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

The actual law requires that local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is

[ttribe]

I'm sure your source thinks that.

I have more than one source (I cited one). I have more than a little insight into the operations of law enforcement in this area of the country.

Look, I'm no raging lib, I know there's a real problem here. I literally see it every day. However, I also know the propensity for man to begin exercising "unrighteous dominion" as soon as he gets "a little authority." This law, as written, has problems.

[WalkerW]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

The actual law requires that local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is

[USU78]

I have more than one source (I cited one). I have more than a little insight into the operations of law enforcement in this area of the country.

Look, I'm no raging lib, I know there's a real problem here. I literally see it every day. However, I also know the propensity for man to begin exercising "unrighteous dominion" as soon as he gets "a little authority." This law, as written, has problems.

Is one of those problems, in your view, the prohibition of local governments refusing to comply with state and federal law wrt illegal immigration?

[USU78]

Who is more likely to get questioned: Jose Garcia #1 who speaks English and has a driver's license or Jose Garcia #2 who has no driver's license, can't speak English, and has 20 others who have no identification and can't speak English in the back of a van?

There are more variables than appearance. My wife is Mexican. I doubt she would be questioned because she fits Jose Garcia #1.

Exactly. "Reasonable suspicion" is a facts-determined concept.

Nobody's got a problem with JG1. It's the JG2's of the world.

[ttribe]

Is one of those problems, in your view, the prohibition of local governments refusing to comply with state and federal law wrt illegal immigration?

Not the prohibition, per se, but the enforcement thereof - a suit can be brought by any citizen and any litigation funds come from the State, not the municipality.

Additionally, the "word on the street" regarding "reasonable suspicion" does not line up with your argument. Unless you can show me otherwise, it is my impression that "reasonable suspicion" does not equal "probable cause" and how it is being operationalized here also does not line up with your argument about this being a "secondary" matter. I assume you realize, of course, that a driver's license is not considered sufficient evidence of citizenship status, right?

[thesometimesaint]

WalkerW:

You are still lacking the US constitutionally mandated Probable Cause. Race, or color of skin are impermissible reasons to stop anyone.

[thesometimesaint]

WalkerW:

You are still lacking the US constitutionally mandated Probable Cause. Race, or color of skin are impermissible reasons to stop anyone.

[Confidential Informant]

Just out of curiosity, how many of you have actually read the immigration laws of our country and know what they say? I have. In fact, I have a copy of the INA sitting two feet from me right now.

Are you even aware many, many of your the people you call "illegals" in fact have not committed any crime? Yes, it is a crime to cross the border illegally. It's punishable by 6-months in jail and a $200 fine. That's it. It's a misdemeanor. Also, the crime begins AND ends once the border is crossed. It is not an on-going crime as some seem to believe. There is a vast difference between "illegal entry" (which is the actual crime) and being "illegally present" which is not a crime.

A person who enters the U.S. legally but then overstays the visa has not committed any crime. There is no criminal statute that makes overstaying your visa a crime, so such people have NOT committed a crime.

C.I.

[Senator]

There is a vast difference between "illegal entry" (which is the actual crime) and being "illegally present" which is not a crime.

Why do we deport them? If one pays the fine and serves his time, is he then free to stay?

[ttribe]

Just out of curiosity, how many of you have actually read the immigration laws of our country and know what they say? I have. In fact, I have a copy of the INA sitting two feet from me right now.

Are you even aware many, many of your the people you call "illegals" in fact have not committed any crime? Yes, it is a crime to cross the border illegally. It's punishable by 6-months in jail and a $200 fine. That's it. It's a misdemeanor. Also, the crime begins AND ends once the border is crossed. It is not an on-going crime as some seem to believe. There is a vast difference between "illegal entry" (which is the actual crime) and being "illegally present" which is not a crime.

A person who enters the U.S. legally but then overstays the visa has not committed any crime. There is no criminal statute that makes overstaying your visa a crime, so such people have NOT committed a crime.

C.I.

The AZ law seems to remedy some of these issues, but at what cost? It's not yet clear to me.

[gmormon]

Just out of curiosity, how many of you have actually read the immigration laws of our country and know what they say? I have. In fact, I have a copy of the INA sitting two feet from me right now.

Are you even aware many, many of your the people you call "illegals" in fact have not committed any crime? Yes, it is a crime to cross the border illegally. It's punishable by 6-months in jail and a $200 fine. That's it. It's a misdemeanor. Also, the crime begins AND ends once the border is crossed. It is not an on-going crime as some seem to believe. There is a vast difference between "illegal entry" (which is the actual crime) and being "illegally present" which is not a crime.

A person who enters the U.S. legally but then overstays the visa has not committed any crime. There is no criminal statute that makes overstaying your visa a crime, so such people have NOT committed a crime.

C.I.

How do you stop being an illegal once you enter the country illegal? I undestand the concept that all they did was enter the country illegally, but you don't stop being murderer, (and yes I know this is an extreme I am just trying to make a point, and I have known both an illegal alien and a murderer and I would rather havr the illegal live next door to me,) just because you don't commit anymore murders.

[Jeff K.]

So if they don't have their US Passport, (which by definition doesn't this make them a US Citizen,) on them and they get pulled over in Arizona does this make them illegal immigrants?

No, only if they don't have legal status (which they do have).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Just out of curiosity, how many of you have actually read the immigration laws of our country and know what they say? I have. In fact, I have a copy of the INA sitting two feet from me right now.

Are you even aware many, many of your the people you call "illegals" in fact have not committed any crime? Yes, it is a crime to cross the border illegally. It's punishable by 6-months in jail and a $200 fine. That's it. It's a misdemeanor. Also, the crime begins AND ends once the border is crossed. It is not an on-going crime as some seem to believe. There is a vast difference between "illegal entry" (which is the actual crime) and being "illegally present" which is not a crime.

A person who enters the U.S. legally but then overstays the visa has not committed any crime. There is no criminal statute that makes overstaying your visa a crime, so such people have NOT committed a crime.

C.I.

So what your telling me is that this is a complicated issue?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

The actual law requires that local law enforcement to arrest a person when there is

[frankenstein]

Joe The Dictator Arpio and his thugs, will do a fine job at getting SB1070 ruled unconstitutional. It will only be a matter of time before the numbers how much "skin color" or some other illegal profiling characteristic is the determining factor for those who are asked to prove they are in the United States legally.

If the FED really cared about SB1070 - and was not just issuing platitudes - then the FED would cut off all access for AZ law enforcement to the Verification System required by SB1070.

[frankenstein]

All this bill does is enforce federal law.

which would be a separation of powers issue, just as the FED can not enforce State Law, the State does not have authority to enforce a Federal Law.

[ERayR]

which would be a separation of powers issue, just as the FED can not enforce State Law, the State does not have authority to enforce a Federal Law.

This doesn't sound quite right to me. Can one of the legal minds please comment?

[WalkerW]

WalkerW:

You are still lacking the US constitutionally mandated Probable Cause. Race, or color of skin are impermissible reasons to stop anyone.

Notice that race had nothing to do with the reasons I gave. It was the lack of documentation, English-skills, etc. You ignored this and responded as if I had justified racial profiling.

If my wife was pulled over for speeding, didn't have a license (she does), couldn't speak English (she does; she actually can't speak Spanish), etc., I don't have a problem with the officer developing reasonable suspicion.

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

Yes it is about "Papers Please". In the former Soviet Union a person was required to have documents, issued by the State, on their person at all public times. It was a punishable crime to not carry those papers. Arizona has just made the same type of law. It empowers any law enforcement official to question a persons legal status on the highly dubious pretext of "reasonable suspicion". IOW What they look like.

[WalkerW]

What they look like

Of course, that is the only possible factor for reasonable suspicion...

[gmormon]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

Yes it is about "Papers Please". In the former Soviet Union a person was required to have documents, issued by the State, on their person at all public times. It was a punishable crime to not carry those papers. Arizona has just made the same type of law. It empowers any law enforcement official to question a persons legal status on the highly dubious pretext of "reasonable suspicion". IOW What they look like.

Do you mean to tell me you don't carry some form of Identification with you when you drive. My wallet is with me most of the time and especially when I am out and about looking giulty