New Arizona law on immigration is stirring it up
-
Glory Days
which is exactly how this law will work. the cop will put clues together(besides race, thats always discrimination) and have reason to believe you are here illegaly. then will then require proof of citizenship because they will have a illegal alien caseLJ wrote:
I have to tell the gov't how much money I made and how many employees I have and every employee I have had on the payroll or paid money to. A simple investigation would solve that problem if I had all illegals working for me and never claimed an employee or 1099 but a gov't investigator came to my work site and found people working for me. They will then require info of who is working for me because they will have a tax fraud case, aka PROBABLE CAUSE, against meGlory Days wrote: dont business have a presumption of innocence too? why should they have to prove if their employees are legal or not?
-
tk421
DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!Glory Days wrote:
which is exactly how this law will work. the cop will put clues together(besides race, thats always discrimination) and have reason to believe you are here illegaly. then will then require proof of citizenship because they will have a illegal alien caseLJ wrote:
I have to tell the gov't how much money I made and how many employees I have and every employee I have had on the payroll or paid money to. A simple investigation would solve that problem if I had all illegals working for me and never claimed an employee or 1099 but a gov't investigator came to my work site and found people working for me. They will then require info of who is working for me because they will have a tax fraud case, aka PROBABLE CAUSE, against meGlory Days wrote: dont business have a presumption of innocence too? why should they have to prove if their employees are legal or not?
-
LJ
No it won't. The law says that the cops can require proof of citizenship on reasonable suspicion. How many times do we have to go over this?Glory Days wrote:
which is exactly how this law will work. the cop will put clues together(besides race, thats always discrimination) and have reason to believe you are here illegaly. then will then require proof of citizenship because they will have a illegal alien caseLJ wrote:
I have to tell the gov't how much money I made and how many employees I have and every employee I have had on the payroll or paid money to. A simple investigation would solve that problem if I had all illegals working for me and never claimed an employee or 1099 but a gov't investigator came to my work site and found people working for me. They will then require info of who is working for me because they will have a tax fraud case, aka PROBABLE CAUSE, against meGlory Days wrote: dont business have a presumption of innocence too? why should they have to prove if their employees are legal or not?
-
Glory Days
which will lead to probable cause when you have no proof of citizenship. just like in your situation, when your payroll does not match your number of employees(reasonable suspicion), the state will ask you for proof of who is working there, when you cant that will be probable cause that you have illegals there.LJ wrote:
No it won't. The law says that the cops can require proof of citizenship on reasonable suspicion. How many times do we have to go over this?Glory Days wrote:
which is exactly how this law will work. the cop will put clues together(besides race, thats always discrimination) and have reason to believe you are here illegaly. then will then require proof of citizenship because they will have a illegal alien caseLJ wrote:
I have to tell the gov't how much money I made and how many employees I have and every employee I have had on the payroll or paid money to. A simple investigation would solve that problem if I had all illegals working for me and never claimed an employee or 1099 but a gov't investigator came to my work site and found people working for me. They will then require info of who is working for me because they will have a tax fraud case, aka PROBABLE CAUSE, against meGlory Days wrote: dont business have a presumption of innocence too? why should they have to prove if their employees are legal or not?
-
LJ
That doesn't give probable cause that illegals are working for me. that gives probable cause to THEN investigate further that I was doing something illegal. It begins as a tax fraud case, then goes from there. See, the problem is, that I already gave them probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, because they witnessed a crime. They did not just maybe have a hunch in their brain to approach me and make me prove my innocence. They witnessed a crime and therefore have a case in which they have to prove my guilt. One is how the legal system is supposed to work, one is not. Why do we have to keep going over this? I went over this stuff with one of my lawyer buddies over lunch the other day as we were talking about this law. In his opinion, as a trial lawyer, the U.S. Supreme Court would most likely throw out any case where a cop had merely reasonable suspicion that someone was not a citizen and arrested them after they could not show documentation that they are, in fact, a citizen. I'm probably going to take a good trial lawyer's word for it.Glory Days wrote:
which will lead to probable cause when you have no proof of citizenship. just like in your situation, when your payroll does not match your number of employees(reasonable suspicion), the state will ask you for proof of who is working there, when you cant that will be probable cause that you have illegals there.LJ wrote:
No it won't. The law says that the cops can require proof of citizenship on reasonable suspicion. How many times do we have to go over this?Glory Days wrote:
which is exactly how this law will work. the cop will put clues together(besides race, thats always discrimination) and have reason to believe you are here illegaly. then will then require proof of citizenship because they will have a illegal alien caseLJ wrote:
I have to tell the gov't how much money I made and how many employees I have and every employee I have had on the payroll or paid money to. A simple investigation would solve that problem if I had all illegals working for me and never claimed an employee or 1099 but a gov't investigator came to my work site and found people working for me. They will then require info of who is working for me because they will have a tax fraud case, aka PROBABLE CAUSE, against meGlory Days wrote: dont business have a presumption of innocence too? why should they have to prove if their employees are legal or not?
-
Glory Days
you dont need probable cause to investigate further, you need reasonable suspicion to investigate further. you need probable cause to arrest. this law gives cops probable cause to arrest when you have no proof of citizenship.LJ wrote: That doesn't give probable cause that illegals are working for me. that gives probable cause to THEN investigate further that I was doing something illegal. It begins as a tax fraud case, then goes from there. See, the problem is, that I already gave them probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, because they witnessed a crime. They did not just maybe have a hunch in their brain to approach me and make me prove my innocence. They witnessed a crime and therefore have a case in which they have to prove my guilt. One is how the legal system is supposed to work, one is not. Why do we have to keep going over this? I went over this stuff with one of my lawyer buddies over lunch the other day as we were talking about this law. In his opinion, as a trial lawyer, the U.S. Supreme Court would most likely throw out any case where a cop had merely reasonable suspicion that someone was not a citizen and arrested them after they could not show documentation that they are, in fact, a citizen. I'm probably going to take a good trial lawyer's word for it.
like my bank robber scenario. cop sees a guy wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer pacing back and forth in front of a bank(not a crime, but reasonable suspicion). cop investigates further, asks the guy a few questions, the guy is nervous, avoids eye contact. cop does a Terry seach and finds a gun.(probable cause), arrest. -
LJ
Which is within the bounds of the law. Arresting for not producing an ID is not.Glory Days wrote:
you dont need probable cause to investigate further, you need reasonable suspicion to investigate further. you need probable cause to arrest. this law gives cops probable cause to arrest when you have no proof of citizenship.LJ wrote: That doesn't give probable cause that illegals are working for me. that gives probable cause to THEN investigate further that I was doing something illegal. It begins as a tax fraud case, then goes from there. See, the problem is, that I already gave them probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, because they witnessed a crime. They did not just maybe have a hunch in their brain to approach me and make me prove my innocence. They witnessed a crime and therefore have a case in which they have to prove my guilt. One is how the legal system is supposed to work, one is not. Why do we have to keep going over this? I went over this stuff with one of my lawyer buddies over lunch the other day as we were talking about this law. In his opinion, as a trial lawyer, the U.S. Supreme Court would most likely throw out any case where a cop had merely reasonable suspicion that someone was not a citizen and arrested them after they could not show documentation that they are, in fact, a citizen. I'm probably going to take a good trial lawyer's word for it.
like my bank robber scenario. cop sees a guy wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer pacing back and forth in front of a bank(not a crime, but reasonable suspicion). cop investigates further, asks the guy a few questions, the guy is nervous, avoids eye contact. cop does a Terry seach and finds a gun.(probable cause), arrest.
and how I described the business scenario is how it works. Business rights and personal rights are different. -
Glory Days
they arent being arrested for not producing an ID, they are being arrested for not being a citizen. the cop can run your name and other information to find that out.LJ wrote:
Which is within the bounds of the law. Arresting for not producing an ID is not.Glory Days wrote:
you dont need probable cause to investigate further, you need reasonable suspicion to investigate further. you need probable cause to arrest. this law gives cops probable cause to arrest when you have no proof of citizenship.LJ wrote: That doesn't give probable cause that illegals are working for me. that gives probable cause to THEN investigate further that I was doing something illegal. It begins as a tax fraud case, then goes from there. See, the problem is, that I already gave them probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, because they witnessed a crime. They did not just maybe have a hunch in their brain to approach me and make me prove my innocence. They witnessed a crime and therefore have a case in which they have to prove my guilt. One is how the legal system is supposed to work, one is not. Why do we have to keep going over this? I went over this stuff with one of my lawyer buddies over lunch the other day as we were talking about this law. In his opinion, as a trial lawyer, the U.S. Supreme Court would most likely throw out any case where a cop had merely reasonable suspicion that someone was not a citizen and arrested them after they could not show documentation that they are, in fact, a citizen. I'm probably going to take a good trial lawyer's word for it.
like my bank robber scenario. cop sees a guy wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer pacing back and forth in front of a bank(not a crime, but reasonable suspicion). cop investigates further, asks the guy a few questions, the guy is nervous, avoids eye contact. cop does a Terry seach and finds a gun.(probable cause), arrest. -
LJ
And as I said PAGESago, fine. But the law says that you must produce proof of citizenship and if you don't, they can then take you in.Glory Days wrote:
they arent being arrested for not producing an ID, they are being arrested for not being a citizen. the cop can run your name and other information to find that out.LJ wrote:
Which is within the bounds of the law. Arresting for not producing an ID is not.Glory Days wrote:
you dont need probable cause to investigate further, you need reasonable suspicion to investigate further. you need probable cause to arrest. this law gives cops probable cause to arrest when you have no proof of citizenship.LJ wrote: That doesn't give probable cause that illegals are working for me. that gives probable cause to THEN investigate further that I was doing something illegal. It begins as a tax fraud case, then goes from there. See, the problem is, that I already gave them probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, because they witnessed a crime. They did not just maybe have a hunch in their brain to approach me and make me prove my innocence. They witnessed a crime and therefore have a case in which they have to prove my guilt. One is how the legal system is supposed to work, one is not. Why do we have to keep going over this? I went over this stuff with one of my lawyer buddies over lunch the other day as we were talking about this law. In his opinion, as a trial lawyer, the U.S. Supreme Court would most likely throw out any case where a cop had merely reasonable suspicion that someone was not a citizen and arrested them after they could not show documentation that they are, in fact, a citizen. I'm probably going to take a good trial lawyer's word for it.
like my bank robber scenario. cop sees a guy wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer pacing back and forth in front of a bank(not a crime, but reasonable suspicion). cop investigates further, asks the guy a few questions, the guy is nervous, avoids eye contact. cop does a Terry seach and finds a gun.(probable cause), arrest.
This is stupid, we are just going in circles from pages and pages ago. I've always said that a cops place is to enforce the law, not to interpret the law. -
Glory Days
haha tell me about it, its been 18 pages, 350+ posts.....sigh, i need a life.LJ wrote:
And as I said PAGESago, fine. But the law says that you must produce proof of citizenship and if you don't, they can then take you in.Glory Days wrote:
they arent being arrested for not producing an ID, they are being arrested for not being a citizen. the cop can run your name and other information to find that out.LJ wrote:
Which is within the bounds of the law. Arresting for not producing an ID is not.Glory Days wrote:
you dont need probable cause to investigate further, you need reasonable suspicion to investigate further. you need probable cause to arrest. this law gives cops probable cause to arrest when you have no proof of citizenship.LJ wrote: That doesn't give probable cause that illegals are working for me. that gives probable cause to THEN investigate further that I was doing something illegal. It begins as a tax fraud case, then goes from there. See, the problem is, that I already gave them probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, because they witnessed a crime. They did not just maybe have a hunch in their brain to approach me and make me prove my innocence. They witnessed a crime and therefore have a case in which they have to prove my guilt. One is how the legal system is supposed to work, one is not. Why do we have to keep going over this? I went over this stuff with one of my lawyer buddies over lunch the other day as we were talking about this law. In his opinion, as a trial lawyer, the U.S. Supreme Court would most likely throw out any case where a cop had merely reasonable suspicion that someone was not a citizen and arrested them after they could not show documentation that they are, in fact, a citizen. I'm probably going to take a good trial lawyer's word for it.
like my bank robber scenario. cop sees a guy wearing a ski mask in the middle of summer pacing back and forth in front of a bank(not a crime, but reasonable suspicion). cop investigates further, asks the guy a few questions, the guy is nervous, avoids eye contact. cop does a Terry seach and finds a gun.(probable cause), arrest.
This is stupid, we are just going in circles from pages and pages ago. I've always said that a cops place is to enforce the law, not to interpret the law. -
majorspark
Every tax year all citizens of this country have to "show their papers" to the government backing up their income claims and tax liability. Whether it be random or reviewed by an IRS agent, the government can demand an audit of your records to prove your compliance with federal tax law.LJ wrote: I have to tell the gov't how much money I made and how many employees I have and every employee I have had on the payroll or paid money to. A simple investigation would solve that problem if I had all illegals working for me and never claimed an employee or 1099 but a gov't investigator came to my work site and found people working for me. They will then require info of who is working for me because they will have a tax fraud case, aka PROBABLE CAUSE, against me
Especially in the case of random audits, where is the probable cause? How is this not a violation of our 4th amendment right be secure in our papers against unreasonable searches and seizures? One could just tell them to go to hell and just give them their name, they would just make it impossible for them to do business.
Point being we allow these kinds of encroachments of government power, yet in the case of this Arizona law many stand up against government. Really what is the difference? I wish many on the left would posses such zeal in some of these other areas.
I have been torn on this law in Arizona. Most of my comments have been that of playing devil's advocate because of so many other similar law enforcement tactics that know one thinks twice about.
I would have to research this but couldn't the governor of Arizona just declare a state of emergency and send the Arizona national guard to patrol the border?
Regardless of the constitutionality of this law it is pointless in that the cost to Arizona to enforce it will be so great. The state will be footing the bill for attorneys to defend those rounded up by the state and then prosecuted by the state. -
majorspark
In reality this is true. It is how the system works. Is it just? What about a sole proprietorship? Or really any business entity. Why should any business legally operating within the US be subject to different rights? I am not saying you espouse this in your statement. You are just stating the facts as they exist. I am just asking the question.LJ wrote: and how I described the business scenario is how it works. Business rights and personal rights are different. -
Mr. 300
Hmmmm, upholding the law sounds just so darn reasonable. The rule of law has specific steps for people to be here legally, and those that are not here by those steps are breaking the law. Again, it mat not be perfect, but just like healthcare that had a lot of negative response from the people, something is better than nothing according to Obama. He should be extremely happy about this.
Wasn't one of the cries from the masses that healthcare reform trampled on the rights of Americans?? This is following those footsteps. -
FatHobbit
I believe the 16th amendment allows Congress to collect an income tax.majorspark wrote: Every tax year all citizens of this country have to "show their papers" to the government backing up their income claims and tax liability. Whether it be random or reviewed by an IRS agent, the government can demand an audit of your records to prove your compliance with federal tax law.
Especially in the case of random audits, where is the probable cause? How is this not a violation of our 4th amendment right be secure in our papers against unreasonable searches and seizures? One could just tell them to go to hell and just give them their name, they would just make it impossible for them to do business.
Point being we allow these kinds of encroachments of government power, yet in the case of this Arizona law many stand up against government.
So everyone who is in favor of the Arizona law is also in favor of government healthcare? I think was LJ's point. Some people here are all about the consitution when it suits them, but as soon as they want something they seem to have no problem throwing it out.Mr. 300 wrote:just like healthcare that had a lot of negative response from the people, something is better than nothing according to Obama. He should be extremely happy about this.
Wasn't one of the cries from the masses that healthcare reform trampled on the rights of Americans?? This is following those footsteps. -
majorspark
FatHobbit wrote: I believe the 16th amendment allows Congress to collect an income tax.
I am aware of that. I have stated before that the 16th amendment was a mistake and should be repealed. And just because the federal government is given the power to collect an income tax does not mean they should be able to do it by any means.
The constitution also gives the federal government the power to define who are legal citizens. But that does not mean they should be able to enforce it by any means.
My point is it just appears to me that we allow similar government authority in some of these other areas with to enforce compliance with law with appearently little complaint, yet in case some are up in arms. -
FatHobbit
I'm not sure that we should repeal it, but the means to collect it could definitely use some improvement.majorspark wrote:FatHobbit wrote: I believe the 16th amendment allows Congress to collect an income tax.
I am aware of that. I have stated before that the 16th amendment was a mistake and should be repealed. And just because the federal government is given the power to collect an income tax does not mean they should be able to do it by any means.
I understand your point. I don't think we should easily give up protections that are built into the constitution. IMO it would be better to require people to prove they are citizens when they attempt to access the social programs that everyone is claiming bankrupts the states.majorspark wrote: The constitution also gives the federal government the power to define who are legal citizens. But that does not mean they should be able to enforce it by any means.
My point is it just appears to me that we allow similar government authority in some of these other areas with to enforce compliance with law with appearently little complaint, yet in case some are up in arms. -
0311sdpClose the Mexican border by whatever means needed, deport all illegal aliens. We have a system in place to become a citizen of the this country. Just inforce the laws we already have. No politician wants to do what's right because they don't want to lose the Hispanic vote, which anymore is a large number. This is the same problem in all areas of politics now, no one cares about doing what needs done they only care about being re-elected to their high paying, great benefits jobs while the country slides down the crap hole.
-
cbus4life
They really aren't that high paying...0311sdp wrote: Close the Mexican border by whatever means needed, deport all illegal aliens. We have a system in place to become a citizen of the this country. Just inforce the laws we already have. No politician wants to do what's right because they don't want to lose the Hispanic vote, which anymore is a large number. This is the same problem in all areas of politics now, no one cares about doing what needs done they only care about being re-elected to their high paying, great benefits jobs while the country slides down the crap hole. -
ptown_trojans_1
Before I'd support that policy, I'd like to see concrete proposals of how that would be carried out, who would do, on what grounds, how long would it take, how much would it cost, etc.0311sdp wrote: Close the Mexican border by whatever means needed, deport all illegal aliens. We have a system in place to become a citizen of the this country. Just inforce the laws we already have. No politician wants to do what's right because they don't want to lose the Hispanic vote, which anymore is a large number. This is the same problem in all areas of politics now, no one cares about doing what needs done they only care about being re-elected to their high paying, great benefits jobs while the country slides down the crap hole.
Its an easy thing to say, but not really developed as a policy. -
majorspark
There is a very real foreign invasion going on in the American southwest. I think it is high time someone in the federal government gets moving on developing that policy. Congress needs to grow a pair and adress this invasion. If they continue to ignore it, at some point it will explode into civil unrest.ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Before I'd support that policy, I'd like to see concrete proposals of how that would be carried out, who would do, on what grounds, how long would it take, how much would it cost, etc.
Its an easy thing to say, but not really developed as a policy. -
cbus4lifeI just don't understand why we can't just deploy the National Guard or some element of the military to the border, set up outposts and the like, and secure the hell out of it. Seems like it would be rather simple...
We mobilized quite effectively to invade a country that didn't even pose a threat to us, why can't we do the same to stop an invasion into our own country that is actually having harmful effects...
Wouldn't cost us much at all, relatively speaking. I know the border is very, very large, but we have the capability to occupy the area without much trouble at all, i would think. -
tk421
Like I said before, treat the border like the border of a military base. They wouldn't let anyone onto Andrews or some other base, I don't know why we just let anyone waltz into the country. Wall it off and set up sentries. It may cost a billion or so at first, but I'd rather pay that much for some serious security than blow it on some of the stupid things politicians do.
-
QuakerOatsA Legal Immigrant's Take on Arizona's Immigration Law
By Boris Epshteyn
As a legal immigrant, I neither empathize with nor support those who break the law in order to gain admission into the United States of America.
I am a legal immigrant. My family and I emigrated from Russia to New York in 1993. We applied for permission to do so in 1990. Throughout those three years we went through numerous background checks and interviews and we waited patiently to be granted the right to move to America.
My status as a legal immigrant shapes my perspective on the illegal immigration issue in general, and Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 recently adopted by the state of Arizona in particular. When confronted by critics of this legislation, who have urged me to empathize with illegal immigrants, I draw the following comparison: when a person goes into a bank with a check and receives cash for it, that person follows the legal and proper procedure for obtaining money; however, when a person robs a bank with a gun, that person, too, has received cash, but by way of committing an illegal act. Both individuals leave the bank with money, however, one is a law abiding citizen while the other is a criminal.
As a legal immigrant, I neither empathize with nor support those who break the law in order to gain admission into the United States of America. The background checks and interviews that we experienced as a part of the legal immigration process proved to the American authorities that my family did not harbor a criminal past, communicable diseases or extreme views. Those who skirt the procedures are not only breaking the law by entering the country illegally, they are robbing the United States of the chance to vet them. These illegal aliens disrespect the American rule of law. They disrespect legal immigrants like me who stood in line to come here. And they disrespect all American citizens at large who are kept safe by the immigration rules and processes.
It is counterproductive to denounce the Arizona bill as the left has at every turn. It would be much more constructive to offer Arizona and its citizens an alternative -- something the federal government has failed to do. Arizona's illegal immigration problem manifests itself in overcrowded schools and hospitals, rampant violence and has left Phoenix with the second highest kidnapping rate in the world, right behind Mexico City.
Arizona has exercised its constitutional right to deal with the problem that has bankrupted the state. Polls show that 70 percent of Arizonans and a majority of Americans support the measure.
President Obama has led the charge against Arizona’s new immigration law. He is capitalizing on this divisive issue for political gain by wrongfully painting supporters of the bill as racist.
As president of the United States, it is Mr. Obama's job to protect its citizens. He should not frivolously interfere with states as they deal with the problems that they face, especially those, such as illegal immigration, that federal institutions do not deal with adequately. Speaking both as a legal immigrant and an American citizen, I urge President Obama to put away his political interests. If his opposition to the legislation is truly genuine, then he needs to step up offer real alternatives to SB 1070.
Boris Epshteyn is a political strategist, attorney and business consultant in New York City. He served as a communications aide on the McCain – Palin 2008 presidential campaign. He is a frequent guest on Foxnews.com's "The Strategy Room" and appears occasionally on other Fox News Channel programs. Contact him at [email protected].
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/05/boris-epshteyn-arizona-immigration-law-sb-obama-america-legal-immigrant/ -
I Wear Pants
Because we had to hang dudes in sandy places on the other side of the world.cbus4life wrote: I just don't understand why we can't just deploy the National Guard or some element of the military to the border, set up outposts and the like, and secure the hell out of it. Seems like it would be rather simple...
We mobilized quite effectively to invade a country that didn't even pose a threat to us, why can't we do the same to stop an invasion into our own country that is actually having harmful effects...
Wouldn't cost us much at all, relatively speaking. I know the border is very, very large, but we have the capability to occupy the area without much trouble at all, i would think. -
Writerbuckeye
Under the previous administration, progress was being made on the use of a virtual fence along the Mexican border to help shore up areas where illegals were getting into the country.
A poster on an OSU board I frequent was one of the folks who worked on that project for a couple years, and he was excited at how successful it was during periodic testing -- at locating illegals (using things like infrared technology) and then sending out border patrols to round them up and send them home.
So what happened to this promising project?
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/17/virtual-fence-along-u-s-mexico-border-halted-as-napolitano-sh/
Of course, I haven't heard one peep from the mainstream media talking about any of this. It's a shame the public is mostly unaware of how this administration has abandoned its responsibilities where our Southern border is concerned.