Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: CCTAU on May 18, 2010, 01:04:18 PM
-
Huge gap between officers on this law. I mean two are suing and one police chief is upset. HUGE GAP.
Ariz. immigration law divides police across US
By JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press Writer Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writer – Mon May 17, 7:17 pm ET
PHOENIX – Arizona's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigration is dividing police across the nation, pitting officers against their chiefs and raising questions about its potential to damage efforts to fight crime in Hispanic communities.
Two officers are challenging the law in court, while police unions that lobbied for it are defending it against criticism from police officials.
Both sides are debating how a law such as Arizona's can be enforced, without leading to racial profiling of Hispanics and without alienating residents in Hispanic neighborhoods with whom police have spent years trying to build trust.
"Before the signing of this bill, citizens would wave at me," said David Salgado, a 19-year Phoenix police officer who sued the city and the governor asking that the law be blocked. "Now they don't even want to make eye contact."
Still, police unions say, many of their officers in Arizona, the nation's busiest corridor for illegal immigration and smuggling, are tired of feeling helpless when dealing with people they believe are in the country illegally. Those officers want a tool to arrest them.
"Crime is not based upon skin color, it's based upon conduct," said Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, the union representing Phoenix officers that lobbied aggressively for the law.
It requires police enforcing another law to verify a person's immigration status if there's "reasonable" suspicion they are in the U.S. illegally.
Several Arizona police chiefs and sheriffs say, as hard as officers try not to profile, enforcing the law will inevitably lead to it. They say it will end up taking time away from solving crimes in their cities and towns.
"When you get a law that leads a state down this path, where the enforcement is targeted to a particular segment of the population, it's very difficult not to profile," said Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, a critic of the law.
On Monday, police bosses from Maryland and Nevada condemned the law, saying that it could suck up vital resources and destroy delicate relationships with immigrant communities if implemented in their own states. There are at least nine other states considering similar legislation.
Police Chief Thomas Manger of Montgomery County, Md., in suburban Washington said he doesn't have the resources or the desire to enforce federal immigration violations by people who aren't disrupting the community.
"If they're not committing a crime here, frankly, I'm not sure how it enhances public safety to target those people for removal," he said.
Manger spoke on a conference call with the sheriff of Washoe County, Nev., and the retired police chief of Sacramento, Calif. The call was organized by the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, which advocates immigration reform.
Their criticism added to the chorus of opponents since the law's adoption April 23. There have been calls for boycotts, and some state and local governments have decided to stop doing business with the state in protest.
On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the latest challenge to the law in federal court on behalf of labor unions and others.
The law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by the pending court challenges. Being in the country illegally would become a state crime, and Arizona residents could sue an agency or officer they feel isn't enforcing immigration laws to the fullest extent possible.
Arizona's legislation was passed in part with the lobbying muscle of the unions. An association of police chiefs tried to defeat or soften it.
Tucson police officer Martin Escobar also filed a lawsuit, arguing there's no "race-neutral" criteria for him to suspect that someone's in the country illegally. Some say it would be impossible to enforce without relying on indicators such as skin color, clothing and accent.
They worry Hispanic crime victims will be too scared to call for help, or eyewitnesses will refuse to cooperate in murder investigations.
Supporters say there are plenty of indicators other than race that suggest someone is an illegal immigrant, including a lack of identification and conflicting statements. They say police have plenty of experience enforcing laws without relying on physical characteristics.
If officers are empowered to decide when it's appropriate to arrest or even to kill someone, they should be trusted not to profile based on race, said Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, a supporter whose jurisdiction includes busy human and drug smuggling routes into Phoenix.
"We will do it without profiling," he said. "And any police chief or any sheriff in Arizona will not tolerate profiling based on race or national origin. That's unacceptable."
Gov. Jan Brewer insists racial profiling will not be tolerated. When she signed the bill, Brewer ordered the state's police training and licensing board to develop standards for enforcement that avoid profiling.
The board will meet Wednesday to adopt a framework for the training program, which director Lyle Mann said would include digital instruction materials for all of Arizona's 15,000 police officers.
Designing a training courses that prevents officers from using "the shortcut of race" will be difficult, said Jack McDevitt, associate dean of criminal justice at Northeastern University who studies racial profiling.
"No training you give police officers is going to change all of the officer's behavior," McDevitt said. "Unfortunately, the shortcut will be: 'What does this person look like? What kind of accent does he have? And what kind of car is he driving?'"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_cops_divided (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_cops_divided)
From what it sounds like, the officers on the street actually doing the job are the ones that like the new law (and fought for it). A few grand-standers and the political higher ups are the only ones in law enforcement that are upset.
-
Huge gap between officers on this law. I mean two are suing and one police chief is upset. HUGE GAP.
From what it sounds like, the officers on the street actually doing the job are the ones that like the new law (and fought for it). A few grand-standers and the political higher ups are the only ones in law enforcement that are upset.
I would say that as a general rule that any law that gives your avg street cop a "reason" to stop someone, especially when he only needs suspicion they're "illegal", will find support among the guys on the street.
-
I would say that as a general rule that any law that gives your avg street cop a "reason" to stop someone, especially when he only needs suspicion they're "illegal", will find support among the guys on the street.
Yes. And more right to carry gun laws are gonna cause crime to go up. The officers did not want the right to just stop anyone and inquire of their legal status. They wanted to have the right to just ask if they are legal. There was such a fear of being sued, that many districts would not even allow the officer to ASK for legality of residence. Guys were in jail for murder and rape and no one was allowed to ask if they were legal. This law gives the officers the right to inquire legal status without getting accused of JUST harassing.
I don't think we'll see the abuse that folks are scared of. But I do think we'll see an increase in illegal alien arrests. And we should. If a person is legally in this country, then that person has no reason to be scared. If you are a law abiding citizen doing good things for the community, then you should not have to worry. If you break the law, then expect to show ID. If you are in the area of a police presence, then expect to show ID. I do this already and I am as legal as they come.
The fear of high speed police chases and home storm trooping "just because the guy was brown", will not come to pass.
-
I would say that as a general rule that any law that gives your avg street cop a "reason" to stop someone, especially when he only needs suspicion they're "illegal", will find support among the guys on the street.
The new Arizona law doesn't do that. You and others are arguing against something that does not exist. I'll try this again, since it was brought up again...
1. What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do?
2. What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does not already place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?
-
The new Arizona law doesn't do that. You and others are arguing against something that does not exist. I'll try this again, since it was brought up again...
1. What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do?
2. What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does not already place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?
With all of the pontificating by some of our resident local legal professionals against the new Arizona immigration law, I haven't seen any responses to the above two questions. In fact, these questions seem to be thread killers. What’s the deal? :poke:
-
With all of the pontificating by some of our resident local legal professionals against the new Arizona immigration law, I haven't seen any responses to the above two questions. In fact, these questions seem to be thread killers. What’s the deal? :poke:
The answers are harder to chase down than a speeding bambalance?
-
The fear of high speed police chases and home storm trooping "just because the guy was brown", will not come to pass.
Yes, but you know as good as me CCT that this is what they have to peddle to the masses (their constituents). A convenient untruth. Its what they want to HEAR, not what is so.
-
The new Arizona law doesn't do that. You and others are arguing against something that does not exist. I'll try this again, since it was brought up again...
1. What can any Arizona law enforcement official do under the Arizona immigration law that a federal law enforcement official cannot already do? That's kind of one of the major points...it's Federal Jurisdiction.
2. What requirement does the Arizona law place on any non-citizen living in Arizona that federal law does not already place on any non-citizen living elsewhere in the United States?
See answer to #1
-
See answer to #1
I think that's an argument, but that's not the answer. Arizona and others are tired of waiting for the Federal Gubm'et. They took action.
-
I think that's an argument, but that's not the answer. Arizona and others are tired of waiting for the Federal Gubm'et. They took action.
And I do not think the Arizona law supercedes federal. It coincides with it does it not?
-
And I do not think the Arizona law supercedes federal. It coincides with it does it not?
It can't supercede it, and in some areas, it's solely within the jurisdiction of the Fed. Government. Immigration is one such area, or that's one major argument.
-
It can't supercede it, and in some areas, it's solely within the jurisdiction of the Fed. Government. Immigration is one such area, or that's one major argument.
So there really is no issue here? Arizona is not making up laws to counteract federal law, so within state's rights, they are perfectly legal.
-
So there really is no issue here? Arizona is not making up laws to counteract federal law, so within state's rights, they are perfectly legal.
Um, if that's what you took from what I wrote... :blink:
-
It continues...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051702175.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051702175.html)
Memo from 2002 could complicate challenge of Arizona immigration law
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
In the legal battle over Arizona's new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona.
The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have "inherent power" to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law. It was issued by Jay S. Bybee, who also helped write controversial memos from the same era that sanctioned harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects.
The author of the Arizona law -- which has drawn strong opposition from top Obama administration officials -- has cited the authority granted in the 2002 memo as a basis for the legislation. The Obama administration has not withdrawn the memo, and some backers of the Arizona law said Monday that because it remains in place, a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona would be awkward at best.
"The Justice Department's official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Robert Driscoll, a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration who represents an Arizona sheriff known for aggressive immigration enforcement. "How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?"
The Arizona law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) last month, makes the "willful failure" to carry immigration documents a crime and empowers police to question anyone if authorities have a "reasonable suspicion" the person is an illegal immigrant. It has drawn words of condemnation from President Obama and intense opposition from civil rights groups, who on Monday filed what they said was the fifth federal lawsuit over the legislation.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said the department is considering a lawsuit against Arizona, and Civil Rights Division lawyers have been studying the law and consulting with some civil rights groups.
"The Civil Rights Division has been working around the clock," said one outside lawyer who has spoken to Justice Department officials. The lawyer spoke on the condition of anonymity because the contacts are not public. "They have a lot of attorneys on it, and they're taking a really hard look at filing their own lawsuit or intervening." Justice Department officials declined to comment Monday beyond saying they are continuing to review the government's legal options.
The 2002 opinion, known as the "inherent authority" memo, reversed a 1996 Office of Legal Counsel opinion from the Clinton administration. "This Office's 1996 advice that federal law precludes state police from arresting aliens on the basis of civil deportability was mistaken," says the 2002 memo, which was released publicly in redacted form in 2005 after civil rights groups sued to obtain it.
Office of Legal Counsel documents do not have the force of law but carry great weight within the executive branch and are considered to be the Justice Department's official position on a legal or constitutional issue.
Cecillia Wang, managing attorney of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project -- which filed Monday's lawsuit in federal court in Phoenix along with the NAACP, the National Immigration Law Center and other groups -- said the 2002 memo would not present an obstacle to a Justice Department lawsuit. She said the power that the Arizona law gives to police "goes far beyond" the basic arrest authority cited in the memo.
But Wang renewed the ACLU's call for the Obama Justice Department to withdraw the 2002 memo, which she called legally incorrect. "The fact that this memo is lurking out there gives cover and comfort to people in Arizona and other states who want to pass these overbroad and extraordinary anti-immigration measures," she said.
-
Miss Wang is dedicated to beating it.
-
It continues...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051702175.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051702175.html)
The article touches on one of the major problems with the AZ law, namely that it's not a violation of any criminal statute to be in the country without permission from immigration authorities.
-
The article touches on one of the major problems with the AZ law, namely that it's not a violation of any criminal statute to be in the country without permission from immigration authorities.
Where do you get that?
There are an awful lot of signs across our northern and southern borders that clearly state, "If you are entering the United States without presenting yourself to an Immigration Officer, YOU MAY BE ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED for violating U.S. Immigration and Customs Laws." Are they lying?
-
Where do you get that?
There are an awful lot of signs across our northern and southern borders that clearly state, "If you are entering the United States without presenting yourself to an Immigration Officer, YOU MAY BE ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED for violating U.S. Immigration and Customs Laws." Are they lying?
Illegal ENTRY is a violation of the Federal Criminal Code. If they catch you in the act of entering illegally, they can prosecute you. Usually they simply elect to deny entry/deport.
-
Illegal ENTRY is a violation of the Federal Criminal Code. If they catch you in the act of entering illegally, they can prosecute you. Usually they simply elect to simply deny entry/deport.
I can't provide a link, but from first hand knowledge...a juvenile was deported to Nicaragua last week because he committed a drug crime. ICE told him they could prosecute him on the charge and keep him in prison for a number of years, or he could sign a waiver to deport. He chose to be deported.
Immigration would much rather deport than prosecute. Our correctional facilities are already overcrowded and over their budget.
The state of Arizona can't possibly take on the task. They aren't equipped. They don't have the man-power. They don't have the state funds to house or prosecute illegals. They are simply making a lot of noise, hoping to pressure ICE into changing their policies. If the tax payer knew how much money was wasted every day by ICE, there would be an outcry to shut it down. Immediately. If we were to seriously get a handle on illegal immigration through deportation, we should have acted 20 years ago. Deporting every illegal we come across isn't the answer.
-
I can't provide a link, but from first hand knowledge...a juvenile was deported to Nicaragua last week because he committed a drug crime. ICE told him they could prosecute him on the charge and keep him in prison for a number of years, or he could sign a waiver to deport. He chose to be deported.
Immigration would much rather deport than prosecute. Our correctional facilities are already overcrowded and over their budget.
The state of Arizona can't possibly take on the task. They aren't equipped. They don't have the man-power. They don't have the state funds to house or prosecute illegals. They are simply making a lot of noise, hoping to pressure ICE into changing their policies. If the tax payer knew how much money was wasted every day by ICE, there would be an outcry to shut it down. Immediately. If we were to seriously get a handle on illegal immigration through deportation, we should have acted 20 years ago. Deporting every illegal we come across isn't the answer.
Yep! Unless it's murder, rape, or some crime against a person, they'll usually deport. Costs a helluva lot less.
-
Immigration would much rather deport than prosecute. Our correctional facilities are already overcrowded and over their budget.
The state of Arizona can't possibly take on the task. They aren't equipped. They don't have the man-power. They don't have the state funds to house or prosecute illegals. They are simply making a lot of noise, hoping to pressure ICE into changing their policies. If the tax payer knew how much money was wasted every day by ICE, there would be an outcry to shut it down. Immediately. If we were to seriously get a handle on illegal immigration through deportation, we should have acted 20 years ago. Deporting every illegal we come across isn't the answer.
Try the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986... We tried amnesty, and it didn't work. You might be interested to see how other countries handle illegal immigration. At this point, we're tired of the half-hearted attempts by both sides of the political spectrum. We're tired of turning our heads. Now, we want real action. Arizona may be the test of what is yet to come. Doing nothing with illegal immigration has brought the border states to the brink of bankruptcy... California, Arizona, New Mexico. We tried being nice, and that only seems to encourage more of it. It's time to man-up on the issue.
-
Try the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986... We tried amnesty, and it didn't work. You might be interested to see how other countries handle illegal immigration. At this point, we're tired of the half-hearted attempts by both sides of the political spectrum. We're tired of turning our heads. Now, we want real action. Arizona may be the test of what is yet to come. Doing nothing with illegal immigration has brought the border states to the brink of bankruptcy... California, Arizona, New Mexico. We tried being nice, and that only seems to encourage more of it. It's time to man-up on the issue.
It would be better that we go bankrupt prosecuting every single one of them?
-
Try the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986... We tried amnesty, and it didn't work. You might be interested to see how other countries handle illegal immigration. At this point, we're tired of the half-hearted attempts by both sides of the political spectrum. We're tired of turning our heads. Now, we want real action. Arizona may be the test of what is yet to come. Doing nothing with illegal immigration has brought the border states to the brink of bankruptcy... California, Arizona, New Mexico. We tried being nice, and that only seems to encourage more of it. It's time to man-up on the issue.
If Arizona is really this serious with immigration, why not sign a order to hire more officers to stand post on the border? Or actually come up with an effective plan to stop the illegals from crossing over? Riding around arresting every illegal they see is not an effective solution to their problem. They are simply adding more tasks to the officers and adding more cost to the tax payers who are paying for the housing and feeding of the illegal immigrants.
If your area is flooded because there is a hole in the dam, how long are you going to pay people to carry the water out in 5 gallon buckets before you finally stop the leak? Deportation/Prosecution isn't solving a damn thing. It's only costing billions in tax dollars. Billions that could be put towards a viable solution.
-
If Arizona is really this serious with immigration, why not sign a order to hire more officers to stand post on the border? Or actually come up with an effective plan to stop the illegals from crossing over? Riding around arresting every illegal they see is not effectively fixing the problem. They are simply adding more tasks to the officers and adding more cost to the tax payers who are paying for the housing and feeding of the illegal immigrants.
If your area is flooded because there is a hole in the dam, how long are you going to pay people to carry the water out in 5 gallon buckets before you finally stop the leak? Deportation/Prosecution isn't solving a damn thing. It's only costing billions in tax dollars. Billions that could be put towards a viable solution.
America seem facinated with fighting ongoing wars of attrition like Vietnam, The Gulf War, The War on Drugs, and now immigration.
-
This is all good feedback, but I haven't seen or heard one idea that I believe would work. What's the viable solution? You seem to have a problem with everything other than open borders and amnesty, and I'm dead-set against those options and so are a lot of other people. Build a fence... Build a wall... How 'bout a mine field too??? I'm all for it! You guys come up with an excuse against everything... Plug the hole. By all means!
-
This is all good feedback, but I haven't seen or heard one idea that I believe would work. What's the viable solution? You seem to have a problem with everything other than open borders and amnesty, and I'm dead-set against those options and so are a lot of other people. Build a fence... Build a wall... How 'bout a mine field too??? I'm all for it! You guys come up with an excuse against everything... Plug the hole. By all means!
And none of them liked my solution. Bullets are cheap............
But we could arrest all of the illegals and put then to work widening the Rio Grande. Once it is widened to at least 100 yds wide, we then add alligators, crocs, and piranha. That would even save on the number of bullets wasted. Then we could not be accused of being inhumane. It would be a natural process.
-
This is all good feedback, but I haven't seen or heard one idea that I believe would work. What's the viable solution? You seem to have a problem with everything other than open borders and amnesty, and I'm dead-set against those options and so are a lot of other people. Build a fence... Build a wall... How 'bout a mine field too??? I'm all for it! You guys come up with an excuse against everything... Plug the hole. By all means!
I've already given a viable solution. Instead of throwing money away on prosecution and deportation, utilize those billions and hire a private sector to correct the problem. The United States Government can't do it. The state of Arizona can't do it. We are literally throwing money away every day.
Get a decent strategy in motion, then let the government handle the deportation process. Until then, Arizona will keep barking with no bite, and we'll keep wasting millions a day on ICE operations.
-
I've already given a viable solution. Instead of throwing money away on prosecution and deportation, utilize those billions and hire a private sector to correct the problem. The United States Government can't do it. The state of Arizona can't do it. We are literally throwing money away every day.
Get a decent strategy in motion, then let the government handle the deportation process. Until then, Arizona will keep barking with no bite, and we'll keep wasting millions a day on ICE operations.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/17/immigration-costs-rising-rapidlty-new-study-says/?test=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/17/immigration-costs-rising-rapidlty-new-study-says/?test=latestnews)
Updated May 17, 2010
Cost of Illegal Immigration Rising Rapidly in Arizona, Study Finds
By Ed Barnes
- FOXNews.com
Arizona’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers even more than once thought -- a whopping $2.7 billion, according to researchers at the public interest group that helped write the state's new immigration law.
Arizona’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers even more than once thought -- a whopping $2.7 billion in 2009, according to researchers at the public interest group that helped write the state's new immigration law.
Researchers at FAIR – The Federation for American Immigration Reform -- released data exclusively to FoxNews.com that show a steady cost climb in multiple areas, including incarceration, education and health, in the last five years.
FAIR’s cost estimates – compiled for a comprehensive national immigration report it plans to release next month – include several new cost areas, including welfare and the justice system, that weren’t in previous reports.
FAIR admits that the cost to implement the new law in some of those categories, such as incarceration, will add to the economic strain on the state. But overall, it says, the loss of immigrants either from the deterrent effect of the law, voluntary exodus or from mass deportations, will help the state financially.
Also, the savings to the state will far overwhelm any fallout from boycotts (estimated at between $7 million and $52 million) being threatened in the wake of the law's passage, according to FAIR spokesman Bob Dane.
FAIR's new breakdown shows that illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs.
The organization concedes that enforcing Arizona SB1070, the new law that allows local police to ask for immigration documents and arrest those who don’t have them, will increase the state’s incarceration costs, police training budgets and prosecution expenses -- but it says those numbers can’t yet be estimated with certainty. Also, it says, some of those costs will be offset by revenues from fines levied against businesses charged with knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, as well as from immigrants themselves who might be charged with minor crimes and fined before being deported.
But the Immigration Policy Center, a major opponent of the new law, says FAIR's data do not accurately portray SB1070's potential outcome. “They count the costs and don’t look at the benefits. We tend to look at the benefits more closely,” said Council spokeswoman Wendy Sefsaf.
“It is like having a roommate and counting how much they cost in toilet paper and incidentals without looking at the benefits of having help with the rent,” she said.
“Overall, every comprehensive study has shown that immigrants are a net benefit to states. If you add their children, they are a very great benefit.”
The Center’s cost crunching found that "if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product and approximately 140,324 jobs,” -- a disaster for the Grand Canyon State.
But FAIR’s numbers tell a far different story.
(Because of the polarizing nature of the debate and the lack of solid figures on everything from the number of illegal immigrants in the state to how to accurately figure their share of the costs, there are no numbers either side agrees on or has not challenged.)
Jack Martin, the chief researcher on the report, says his data, in fact, do include benefits like the estimated $142.8 million in taxes paid by an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants, and he says the Council’s numbers are unrealistic.
“They assume every illegal alien will leave right away," Martin said. "That is not going to happen.”
He said FAIR'S new estimates far exceed the report he wrote in 2004, which helped gain support for the passage of the Arizona law. In 2004, he said, he estimated that illegal immigrants cost the state $1.3 billion -- less than half the new estimate.
He said the new numbers put a reliable cost estimate on the economic impact of illegal immigration -- not just in Arizona, because the debate there largely ended with the passage of the immigration law, but nationally, as the debate spreads across the country.
”The numbers just keep growing,” Dane said.
Both Dane and Martin said that among FAIR’s most important findings was an estimate that tax revenues to the state will actually increase if illegal immigrants leave.
“We discovered after looking at places where big raids were made that salaries went up after the raids because employers now had to pay competitive wages to Americans.” Martin said. “And that will mean more money for the state.”
-
I'm not arguing that Arizona's economy isn't strained by illegals. I'm saying they can't financially take on the burden of handling illegals themselves. As I've already stated, they are only making a lot of noise hoping to create enough of an outcry from the citizens to pressure the federal government into wholesale changing their policies. IMO, it's working.
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html (http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html)
http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html (http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html)
Now, we've got media other than Arizona claiming that terrorist are also crossing the unsupervised border.
-
Our very own immigration issue...
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/23538647/detail.html (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/23538647/detail.html)
Warrant Issued For Illegal KSU Student's Arrest
Posted: 6:06 am EDT May 13, 2010
Updated: 12:52 pm EDT May 13, 2010
KENNESAW, Ga. -- There were new developments Thursday in the controversy surrounding a Kennesaw State University student who is not a legal citizen.
Channel 2 Action News received an e-mail from the Cobb County sheriff who filed a warrant for her arrest.
Jessica Colotl is a senior at KSU. Police said they caught her driving without a license and sent her to an immigration detention center.
The sheriff said she gave them a false address while in custody, which is a felony charge.
Some want KSU president Dan Papp fired because he wrote a letter to federal officials on Colotl’s behalf.
“She’s here illegally and she’s taking slots from people who have played by the rules and have become legal residents or who are citizens. The rule of the law has to be upheld,” said Phil Kent of the Americans for Immigration Control.
Colotl’s friends told Channel 2 Action News reporter Lori Geary that her parents brought her to the United States when she was 10 years old.
“It is sad that Ms. Colotl’s parents chose to enter the United States illegally and ultimately put her in this position,” said Sheriff Neil Warren of the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office. “However, Ms. Colotl knew that she was in the United States without authority to be here and voluntarily chose to operate a vehicle without a driver’s license; which is a violation of Georgia law. She has further complicated her situation with her blatant disregard for Georgia Law by giving false information.”
KSU officials said they granted Colotl in-state tuition because she graduated from a Georgia high school. School officials said they will now charge her out-of-state tuition.
Cobb County Sheriff’s Office officials continue to look for Colotl.
Copyright 2010 by WSBTV.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
If any of us had been pulled over and lied to the police about our address, we'd probably still be in jail. Prosecute her and send her and her family back to Mexico.
-
Our very own immigration issue...
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/23538647/detail.html (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/23538647/detail.html)
Prosecute her and send her and her family back to Mexico.
Guess which immigration detention center she was being housed at.
Jessica Colotl is a senior at KSU. Police said they caught her driving without a license and sent her to an immigration detention center.
And that little bit of information is very misleading. Cobb County released her to ICE after she cleared her crime of operating a vehicle without a license. ICE sent her to an immigration detention center. The Cobb County sheriff doesn't have the authority to send ANYONE to an immigration detention center.
And here, is where I separate myself from the "deport them all" crowd. This girl has been in the United States since she was 7 years old. America is all she knows. She speaks English very well and is an intelligent girl. She made a huge mistake by not applying for citizenship as soon as she turned 18, but she was put in a situation where she would have put her entire family at risk by applying.
I would rather have 100 people like her, working to be a productive member of society, than I had some of the shitbag Americans whose only contribution is keeping community corrections up and running.
Fine her for operating a vehicle without a license (which Cobb County already did), give her a chance to become a legal citizen and let her finish college. She'll likely become a valuable member of our society.
-
Guess which immigration detention center she was being housed at.
And that little bit of information is very misleading. Cobb County released her to ICE after she cleared her crime of operating a vehicle without a license. ICE sent her to an immigration detention center. The Cobb County sheriff doesn't have the authority to send ANYONE to an immigration detention center.
Big Deal! I'm all for it. When we find an illegal alien, call ICE and let them deal with it. Simple enough...
And here, is where I separate myself from the "deport them all" crowd. This girl has been in the United States since she was 7 years old. America is all she knows. She speaks English very well and is an intelligent girl. She made a huge mistake by not applying for citizenship as soon as she turned 18, but she was put in a situation where she would have put her entire family at risk by applying.
I would rather have 100 people like her, working to be a productive member of society, than I had some of the poopbag Americans whose only contribution is keeping community corrections up and running.
Fine her for operating a vehicle without a license (which Cobb County already did), give her a chance to become a legal citizen and let her finish college. She'll likely become a valuable member of our society.
Poor little illegal immigrant girl... Boo hoo hoo... Nevermind the fact that her position in that school likely kept someone else from going there who is likely in this country legally. She is smart enough to know right from wrong. She's apparently a good student, and I wish her well. By all means, I agree with you. However, we can't cherry-pick one over the other when enforcing our laws. She is in this country illegally. She needs to be deported along with her family.
-
When we find an illegal alien, call ICE and let them deal with it. Simple enough...
That's exactly what happened.
http://www.mdjonline.com/view/full_story/7362958/article-ICE-releases-illegal-KSU-student (http://www.mdjonline.com/view/full_story/7362958/article-ICE-releases-illegal-KSU-student)
"According to the deferral letter from ICE, Ms. Colotl remains an 'alien illegally or unlawfully within the U.S.' and would be subject to removal proceedings if the conditions of her deferral are not met,"
ICE released her with conditions that would allow her to finish school AND gain legal citizenship. Simple enough, right?
Apparently not for the Sheriff of Cobb County. Although she paid her fines with that county. Although Cobb County released her to Immigration. Not enough for Cobb County. Because they were pissed about ICE giving her a legal chance to remain in the country, they dug enough to find more charges. :taunt:
-
ICE released her with conditions that would allow her to finish school AND gain legal citizenship. Simple enough, right?
Apparently not for the Sheriff of Cobb County. Although she paid her fines with that county. Although Cobb County released her to Immigration. Not enough for Cobb County. Because they were pissed about ICE giving her a legal chance to remain in the country, they dug enough to find more charges. :taunt:
Oh, come on! If we had provided a false address, we would have been thrown in jail. Who are you kidding?
-
Oh, come on! If we had provided a false address, we would have been thrown in jail. Who are you kidding?
She was already in jail. You really believe The Cobb County Sheriff's Office checks to verify address information on every person after they've been released from custody? Why not just verify it while the person is in jail?
I'm guessing one of her ICE conditions was that she couldn't be arrested again.
-
She was already in jail. You really believe The Cobb County Sheriff's Office checks to verify address information on every person after they've been released from custody? Why not just verify it while the person is in jail?
I'm guessing one of her ICE conditions was that she couldn't be arrested again.
Lies upon lies upon lies. Eventually your luck runs out. Hers did. Now she should be allowed to stay on a student visa and her family, who broke the law, should be deported. It's the chance they took. If she gets a degree along with the FREE education she got from tax-paying citizens, then she got more than could have been hoped for when her parents came here illegally. She WILL be an asset to this country once she is legal. Give her the same chance that all students here on a student visa have.
Cobb county should have let it go, but she raised a big stink and wanted public support against the system. Sometimes you just don't mess with the system.
-
This is all good feedback, but I haven't seen or heard one idea that I believe would work. What's the viable solution? You seem to have a problem with everything other than open borders and amnesty, and I'm dead-set against those options and so are a lot of other people. Build a fence... Build a wall... How 'bout a mine field too??? I'm all for it! You guys come up with an excuse against everything... Plug the hole. By all means!
I'm all for plugging the hole. Using government resourses to round them up after they're here is a waste of money, and just a never-ending job. I actually don't even have a problem with putting up a fence, and manning it with armed personnel.
-
I'm all for plugging the hole. Using government resourses to round them up after they're here is a waste of money, and just a never-ending job. I actually don't even have a problem with putting up a fence, and manning it with armed personnel.
That's bullshit. Every time a person breaks the law in this country, it should be a priority to determine whether or not that person is here illegally. If so, the individual should be DEPORTED. There may not be a practical way to round up and deport all of them, but the ones that break the law should be addressed.
As is stands now, there are an overwhelming amount of PDs that do not allow their officers to even inquire about legal status, even in violent cases.
This is the issue that the Arizona law was most concerned with addressing. This makes it legally acceptable for a law enforcement officer to inquire into legal status without reprisal from the department or the ACLU.
-
That's bullshit. Every time a person breaks the law in this country, it should be a priority to determine whether or not that person is here illegally. If so, the individual should be DEPORTED. There may not be a practical way to round up and deport all of them, but the ones that break the law should be addressed.
As is stands now, there are an overwhelming amount of PDs that do not allow their officers to even inquire about legal status, even in violent cases.
This is the issue that the Arizona law was most concerned with addressing. This makes it legally acceptable for a law enforcement officer to inquire into legal status without reprisal from the department or the ACLU.
You're reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking.
-
I actually don't even have a problem with putting up a fence, and manning it with armed personnel.
I think you're one Lawyer on here were able to meet in the middle. :bar:
-
You're reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking.
Identifying and deporting them for any reason is essentially "rounding them" up according to most of your colleagues in the legal world. So it is one and the same.
-
I think you're one Lawyer on here were able to meet in the middle. :bar:
It's a simple pragmatic approach. You'll never deal effectively with a cockroach problem using a can of Raid every time you see one of the fuckers. Preventing them from every gaining a foothold in the first place is the best medicine. If they have gained one, you first stop further influx, then the war of attrition will actually work, and won't have to continue ad infinitum.
-
It's a simple pragmatic approach. You'll never deal effectively with a cockroach problem using a can of Raid every time you see one of the fuckers. Preventing them from every gaining a foothold in the first place is the best medicine. If they have gained one, you first stop further influx, then the war of attrition will actually work, and won't have to continue ad infinitum.
That is absolutely inhumane. My suggestion of shooting anyone that crosses the border is much more humane than poisoning them. Disgusting. :sad:
-
That is absolutely inhumane. My suggestion of shooting anyone that crosses the border is much more humane than poisoning them. Disgusting. :sad:
AGREED! What a monster!!!
-
I don't think the American people are as divided over this as the libs and the media woudl have us believe. Many feel this way: (in an email)
LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT.
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.
IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.
IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.
IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.
IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.
IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.
IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET
* A JOB,
* A DRIVERS LICENSE,
* SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
* WELFARE,
* FOOD STAMPS,
* CREDIT CARDS,
* SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
* FREE EDUCATION,
* FREE HEALTH CARE,
* A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
* BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
* THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT
* AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION
-
I don't think the American people are as divided over this as the libs and the media woudl have us believe. Many feel this way: (in an email)
As sad as that email sounds and many will call it propaganda - it is all true. I laugh at first. But then I think its reality.