Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think its any of his business. He can say what he wants as can anyone but unless you live in Georgia.. its really not really your fight, its ours.
Well Georgia is part of the United States, so technically it is "everyones" fight. And I don't think he embarrassed himself. Just because a belief is "popular" doesn't automatically make it "right" and people on the other side of the issue can have an opinion about it and speak their opinion when they want to.
I don't care if "this is Georgia", people with different views can live here. Some of you would love to wall off this state and run off all the liberals... sounds very anti-American... more like a bunch of nazi's.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,993,141 times
Reputation: 7333
Do you want to know how I know this country's democracy is going to hell in a hand basket? People never take the time to understand the laws that are passed before they get too bent out of shape on them. This is what HB 87 (the new Immigration law)actually says:
A BILL to be entitled an Act to enact the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011"; to amend the O.C.G.A., so as to provide for definitions; to provide for a private cause of action; to require private employers to use an employment eligibility verification system and provide for civil penalties; to provide for offenses; to provide for the investigation of illegal alien status; to provide authority for law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws and to provide immunity; to provide for civil and criminal penalties; to modify provisions relating to training peace officers; to establish grant funding; to provide for the verification of the immigration status of foreign nationals; to provide that counties shall receive additional funding for confinement of state inmates; to require proof that private businesses are participating in the employment eligibility verification system; to provide for identification cards; to enact the "Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act"; to provide for related matters; and for other purposes.
So if you are like most people and have trouble form of English used in government, I'll help you out with what this new "law" does and does not do.
What this law clearly is not
No where in the above summary does it state this law will only affect those who commit crimes. Rather, it remains extremely ambiguous for how it could be applied and I'll speak on what that could mean below.
I'd like to first state though that I believe immigrants to this country should have a higher standard than citizens when it comes to adhering to the law. When someone migrates to this country they should do so with the goal of bettering their/family lives due to the opportunities we have here and to contribute to society at large by abiding by the law and working as hard as their ability allows them. To do any different would literally be akin to pooping on the millions of people who immigrated to this country over the centuries and helped make America what it is and they should lose their America privileges.
What this law clearly is
So here are the things this law does do:
-Requires employers to verify the legal status of all of their employees (not a bad thing)
-Provides funding for training and the legal enforcement of Federal immigration law in State courts
-Provide funding to County jails to hold those suspected or proven of not being legal residents of the United States separately from the general inmate population
-Require all immigrants to carry identification proving their legal status on their person at all times
-Allow law enforcement to investigate the legal status of any one whether a law has been broken or not
That last point is the one that makes this law unworthy of remaining in place and why it is so controversial. The reason why this law was written so ambiguously was to avoid making the law illegal (by contradicting the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection clause of the ) by specifically calling what would constitute someone being suspected of not being a legal resident.
How exactly would one determine that? Is it by the way they dress? Their accent? The type of job they work? Where they live? Would a white Canadian born in Toronto who sounds and looks like an average Midwesterner but is here illegally be more or less likely to be picked up by a police officer for an immigration violation than a Mexican who is here illegally but lives in a crappy part of town and supports his family via day labor jobs? Would a Russian immigrant from a poor family and a thick accent who came here legally and works hard everyday to provide for his family be more or less likely to be picked up by a police officer for an immigration violation than a Nigerian with a great education who studied in American schools all his life (thus having a more American accent), immigrated here legally, and got a job but overstayed his visa and is now illegal?
As you can see, without creating one standard to suspect any resident of being illegal, it would have to be left up to the judgement and the prejudices of the law enforcement officer to determine that. Under that system it would be impossible for this not to come down to whatever people consider to be the hallmarks of being an illegal alien and those hallmarks almost always are ones based on ethnic or racial stereotypes. That is against the law and the Federal judiciary has proved time and again that you can not make laws that favor one group of citizens/residents over another group of residents. We are all equal when it comes to the law (well, at least in theory) and thus should all be treated equally.
In order for this law as it is written to be 100% fair is for every one to be subject to it. That would mean, as the "law" currently exists, you could potentially be pulled over or stopped at any time by a law enforcement officer and asked to prove your legal status. Also, as the "law" currently exists, if the documentation you produce is deemed "insufficient" by the law enforcement officer, they have been given the ability by this "law" to arrest you and hold you until your status is confirmed.
I don't know about you, but I would refuse to prove my citizenship to any government man, law enforcement or not.
These provision of the law need to be removed as there is no easy or fair way to implement them. I am fine with leaving the citizenship/residency verification portions in place for employment and inmates.
Last edited by waronxmas; 05-16-2011 at 10:49 AM..
He couldn't be more off base by comparing immigration to the Civil Rights struggle; two completely different situations.
Just how does the Georgia immigration law affect those who come here legally?
Well, I looked it up and here's something that was confusing to me. The new law says:
Quote:
16-11-201.
(a) As used in this Code section, the term (1) 'Harboring' or 'harbors' means any conduct that tends to substantially help an illegal alien to remain in the United States in violation of federal law but shall not include a providing services to infants, children, or victims of a crime; a person providing privately funded social services; a person providing emergency medical service; or an attorney or his or her employees for the purpose of representing a criminal defendant.
Does that mean if your yard guy or the guy who puts a roof on your house turns out not to have sufficient ID then you are guilty of harboring an illegal alien? Or if you know of somebody who you suspect might not have adequate ID and you don't turn them in, are you harboring them?
I mean, how far does it go? Sounds to me like one of those things where if somebody in the government gets in for you for some reason, then just about anybody could get hung up in this thing. At the very least you might have to hire lawyers and spend a couple of years battling it out over what the language really means. I could see a judge saying, "Buddy, what is it you don't understand about 'any conduct that tends to substantially help an illegal alien to remain in the United State?' Around here any conduct means any conduct."
I couldn't possibly care less about what Santana says, I'm just annoyed to the backteeth that my money will be used to try to defend a law that's patently unconstitutional on it's face. I'm so tired of politicians creating stuff that they know will be overturned just to get votes from the ignorant and uninformed. Every constitutional scholar on the planet has stated that this law is unconstitutional. Arizona has lost millions in revenue from people boycotting the state, and Georgia jumps on board anyway. I really do think we need a constitutional amendment to prevent legislators from writing bills that they know are unconstitutional. They're a waste of time, money and simply make the state look stupider than all get out.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,993,141 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
I mean, how far does it go? Sounds to me like one of those things where if somebody in the government gets in for you for some reason, then just about anybody could get hung up in this thing. At the very least you might have to hire lawyers and spend a couple of years battling it out over what the language really means. I could see a judge saying, "Buddy, what is it you don't understand about 'any conduct that tends to substantially help an illegal alien to remain in the United State?' Around here any conduct means any conduct."
That part of the law irks me too. In laymen terms it basically says "If you are a doctor, lawyer or rich enough to employ a nanny/maid/housekeeper/nurse who is illegal you are cool. Everyone else is screwed."
Yeah, one of the big things about the Georgia bill is that it puts a lot of the onus on the you-know-whatus of Georgia residents. I have the feeling a lot of folks are going to be surprised when they find themselves tangled up in this thing.
You can say, "Wait, that isn't intended to apply to me!" but the arresting officer or the prosecutor will say, "Tell it to the judge."
What exactly is this fight? What issues is Georgia having with illegal immigration? Is it those pesky people from 'bama?
WOW, ignorance truly must be bliss! What "issues" is GA having with illegal immigration??
Well lets see, we rank 7th in the nation in the number of illegals. So that means that over 400K INVADERS/illegals have taken residence in OUR state and are bilking this state dry. Education, healthcare and entitlements are just a few of the FREE services that said INVADERS recieve!
Also, google how many AMERICAN CITIZENS in this state alone have been KILLED by illegals over the last decade or the number of INVADERS that we are currently housing in our prisons or jails.
I could go on and on in regards to the "issues" that GA is facing from illegal immigration.
Yep. Sounds like yet another of those proverbial slippery slopes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
Yeah, one of the big things about the Georgia bill is that it puts a lot of the onus on the you-know-whatus of Georgia residents. I have the feeling a lot of folks are going to be surprised when they find themselves tangled up in this thing.
You can say, "Wait, that isn't intended to apply to me!" but the arresting officer or the prosecutor will say, "Tell it to the judge."
Funny how entertainers eventually think everyone is interested in their personal opinions. Stick to the music Devadip.
Funny how, no matter what poiltical belief you subscribe to, or religion you practice, or race or ethnicity you belong to, at the end of the day, this is still ther United States Of America...
And, entertainer or not, Mr Santana is entitled to his opinion, and the right to express said opinion...why do some people labor under the illusion that what THEY say is the Holy Gospel, and everyone else is just supposed to sit down and shut up, because they've got some look on their face, or tone in their voice, we're supposed be shrinking violets and NOT speak up?
And what I just said, again, applies to ALL situations, and ALL people...I may not agree with what you say, but this is America, and I will defend to the last your right to say it...
"Stick to the music Devadip"? Uh-uh...if you have something on your mind, Mr Santana, speak up and speak out, right or wrong...last time I looked, there wasn't a 'National Your Opinion Isn't Important Because You're An Entertainer' law on the books
(I realize I may have just contradicted myself a bit, and if so, I apologize, but I absolutely cannot abide people telling OTHER people that their opinion is bogus because they're a _______ [insert appropriate race, political party, sexual orientation, religion, fan of whatever sports team, resident or non-resident of, etc, here])
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm...Well How About This?
