Has SB 1070 affected anybody's decision to move to AZ? (self moving, state)

[Ritchie_az]

Let's just call it a hunch!

Or speculation based on no facts....

[SacalaitWhisperer]

Originally Posted by AnnieA

I know I shouldn't laugh but I did......

If that wasn't so pathetic it'd be funny.

[Grannysroost]

Originally Posted by Gurbie

Quote:
illegals face the likely-hood of having their case heard by a less-than-sympathetic jury.
That's the way it should be! They are not citizens. Literally, the very first thing they did in America was break the law. Why should they get any sympathy for breaking another law?>>>

I used the wrong word there. I shouldn't have said sympathetic, I should have said impartial. The accused is always entitled to an impartial jury, regardless of his/her citizenship. Whether they "broke another law" or not is exactly what the trial is meant to determine. Illegals are not entitled to sympathy from juries, but they are entitled to fairness, same as everyone else. In the over-heated atmosphere in Arizona right now, how good are their chances of getting it?

Okay, I have issues with this law (SB 1070)on the basis of possible racism with legal immigrants. I am against illegals, illegal babies being born on US soil to get bennies and citizenship....but, I have to ask this...If illegal, why would they have a right to a trial and impartial jury as illegals...I thought that was for citizens?

[AnnieA]

Originally Posted by SacalaitWhisperer

If that wasn't so pathetic it'd be funny.

what he said or what I said......?

..Grannysroost....Okay, I have issues with this law (SB 1070)on the basis of possible racism with legal immigrants. I am against illegals, illegal babies being born on US soil to get bennies and citizenship....but, I have to ask this...If illegal, why would they have a right to a trial and impartial jury as illegals...I thought that was for citizens?

that was exactly what I was thinking when I read the post....they broke the law by coming across the border uninvited, why should they receive partiality....?

[sbsoso]

I am moving out of the state because of this bill (no, I am not an immigrant). I have finally had enough of the Jan Brewer Era. Time to move to a place where fear mongering is not the only avenue used for getting re-elected. (or in Brewers case just "elected")

[Ritchie_az]

Time to move to a place where fear mongering is not the only avenue used for getting re-elected.

Please post when you leave so we know this isn't just lip service.
Also, I find it interesting that you list "fear mongering" by Jan Brewer as a main reason for leaving. So far, the fear mongering I have seen has been from the anti-1070 crowd. So what specific fear mongering is bothering you so much that it would make you move?

[SeptemberRays]

I lived in AZ 2004-2005 before returning to California. Once the bill came out I seriously
thought about returning to AZ. Big thumbs up in MY book.

[Ritchie_az]

I lived in AZ 2004-2005 before returning to California. Once the bill came out I seriously
thought about returning to AZ. Big thumbs up in MY book.

I suspect that more people feel this way than the opposite....

[.45acp]

Originally Posted by Grannysroost

Okay, I have issues with this law (SB 1070)on the basis of possible racism with legal immigrants. I am against illegals, illegal babies being born on US soil to get bennies and citizenship....but, I have to ask this...If illegal, why would they have a right to a trial and impartial jury as illegals...I thought that was for citizens?

Aliens have the same rights to due process as everyone else. Re: Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896), Plyler v. Doe (1982)

"While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans."

You have not actually read the bill. Do so: SB1070 - 492R - House Bill Summary

[.45acp]

Originally Posted by pathrunner

Has SB 1070 affected anybody's decision to move to AZ?

No. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other because justice will be served. I believe the law is unconstitutional because it attempts to override Federal law and states cannot do that. I agree the Federal government should uphold its immigration laws after severe immigration reform, including enforcing e-verify so that employers can no longer profit from cheap labor. Make these people citizens and the first thing they'll do is join a union. That's why most conservatives and employers want things to stay the way they are. Though they won't really be caught on tape (or whispering) that that's what they want.

You've never read the Bill have you? SB1070 - 492R - House Bill Summary

You hear what you want to hear... from anecdotal talking heads who've never bothered to read it either.

This is not an immigration matter... it's an illegal alien w/o papers matter. If anyone (from anywhere) enters the US they MUST carry a Consuler Visa at the very least. Or... a passport... or a INS Green Card. It's not a suggestion it's Title 8 USC §§ 1304.

The media keep calling it an immigration law. It's not and never was intended as such. It's a means to identify illegals. Crossing the border w/o authorization is a Federal felony (8USC). Cops have been doing this exact same thing for as long as I can remember... but SB 1070 made it universal w/certain caveats to insure uniformity of enforcement w/an ARS cite when effected.

"It is well established that the authority of state police to make arrests for violation of federal law is not limited to those situations in which they are exercising delegated federal power. Rather, such arrest authority inheres in the States’ status as sovereign entities. It stems from the basic power of one sovereign to assist another sovereign. This is the same inherent authority that is exercised whenever a state law enforcement officer witnesses a federal crime being committed and makes an arrest. That officer is not acting pursuant to delegated federal power. Rather, he is exercising the inherent power of his state to assist another sovereign.

There is abundant case law on this point. Even though Congress has never authorized state police officers to make arrest for federal offenses without an arrest warrant, such arrests occur routinely; and the Supreme Court has recognized that state law controls the validity of such an arrest. As the Court concluded in United States v. Di Re, "No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall." 332 U.S. 581, 591 (1948). The Court’s conclusion presupposes that state officers possess the inherent authority to make warrantless arrests for federal offenses. The same assumption guided the Court in Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, they may initiate an arrest on the basis of probable cause to think that an individual has committed a federal crime.

The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have expressed this understanding in the immigration context specifically. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983). The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations," United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984).

As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ‘to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.’" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable. Rather, the inherent arrest authority extends generally to both categories of federal immigration law violations" All the talking heads keep referring to 'Federal law'... as tho they understodd what that is. Here's the rhyme and verse: Title 8 U.S.C. § 1226, provides for apprehension and detention of aliens.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32270.pdf
State and Local Authority to Enforce Immigration Law: A Unified Approach for Stopping Terrorists | Center for Immigration Studies
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P48.pdf

'Sanctuary'? Direct violation of Title 8 U.S.C. §§1373 and 8 U.S.C. 1644


"For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them.

BOYD v. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER., 12 S. Ct. 375, 143 U.S. 135 (U.S. 02/01/1892)

[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES