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.
See bold: Which makes immigration federal issue, not a state one, which goes back to my original argument that Arizona's "papers please" law is unconstitutional. No state has no right to make laws pertaining to a federally delegated issue, than certainly doesn't have the duty to enfore federal law. All AZ needed to do was petition the Congress-through it's own Representatives/Senators [remember them].
You say criminals, I say, thanks for my corn, strawberries, hamburgers, apples, blueberries, fish fillets, car wash, all around greasing the economy.
So you think that all illegals are just picking produce? They aren't in the construction industry, restaurant, hotel, etc. business which are jobs that Americans will do? By the way, there are unlimited visas for legal immigrant farm workers so the farmers have no excuse hiring illegal aliens instead except they just want to reap higher profits which is why all employers hire them instead of Americans. And you are good with that?
See bold: Which makes immigration federal issue, not a state one, which goes back to my original argument that Arizona's "papers please" law is unconstitutional. No state has no right to make laws pertaining to a federally delegated issue, than certainly doesn't have the duty to enfore federal law. All AZ needed to do was petition the Congress-through it's own Representatives/Senators [remember them].
You say criminals, I say, thanks for my corn, strawberries, hamburgers, apples, blueberries, fish fillets, car wash, all around greasing the economy.
Well it would seem that the estimated 460,000 illegals in AZ is Az's problem.
My wife a legal immigrant was instructed when she received her greencard that she must carry it at all times in the event that she was asked for ID by law enforcment. No big deal at all really, that is unless you don't have one.
My corn? Well I am fortunate enough to grow my own. car wash? Yep do that myself also. Hamburgers? I buy my beef local and it is processed through the local butcher shop. I buy by the half. Apples and Blueberries. We pick our own blue berries and the apples come from a local orchard. I could be wrong but unless the Shultz's are here illegally I don't owe that to an illegal either.
Once again. We owe illegals not a thing, least of all special rights and or priveleges.
By the way last I heard illegals account for only 24% of agricultural labor or maybe its 24% of illegals work agriculture.
Now me I worry about the construction jobs lost to illegals as well as any other person lowballed by illegals who dont pay taxes.
So you think that all illegals are just picking produce? They aren't in the construction industry, restaurant, hotel, etc. business which are jobs that Americans will do? By the way, there are unlimited visas for legal immigrant farm workers so the farmers have no excuse hiring illegal aliens instead except they just want to reap higher profits which is why all employers hire them instead of Americans. And you are good with that?
should I have sat here and list EVERY industry that relies on them? I would have been here for an hour.
But thanks for proving my point....we need them in every industry.
So give them a visa or punish those who hire them. They wouldn't come here if they couldn't have a job.
Well it would seem that the estimated 460,000 illegals in AZ is Az's problem.
My wife a legal immigrant was instructed when she received her greencard that she must carry it at all times in the event that she was asked for ID by law enforcment. No big deal at all really, that is unless you don't have one. My corn? Well I am fortunate enough to grow my own. car wash? Yep do that myself also. Hamburgers? I buy my beef local and it is processed through the local butcher shop. I buy by the half. Apples and Blueberries. We pick our own blue berries and the apples come from a local orchard. I could be wrong but unless the Shultz's are here illegally I don't owe that to an illegal either.
Once again. We owe illegals not a thing, least of all special rights and or priveleges.
By the way last I heard illegals account for only 24% of agricultural labor or maybe its 24% of illegals work agriculture.
Now me I worry about the construction jobs lost to illegals as well as any other person lowballed by illegals who dont pay taxes.
Well considering the fact I just got back from Cali....every menial job was done by Mexican immigrants. and all the people ordering food or w/e seemed no to care. Good for you? But the other 309,999,999 Americans don't think or act like you. Which of course is only your problem.
Last time I checj every single one of us was related to an immigrant. We owe our ancestors their common decency and the respect. We ought to respect why people come here. Not just toss them out, because "the'y aren't like us" That gringoistic attitude does nothing for no one.
should I have sat here and list EVERY industry that relies on them? I would have been here for an hour.
But thanks for proving my point....we need them in every industry.
So give them a visa or punish those who hire them. They wouldn't come here if they couldn't have a job.
Really? Who built those houses before illegals lowballed the industry driving legals from their trades?
I work in a factory. In fact it is 1 of the largest paper mills in the country. Not 1 employee is an illegal.
Farms all around where I live. Its a tight community. Yet none use illegals.
Justify it all you like. Illegals do take jobs Americans will do. We just won't work for substandard wages. Thats why we have laws.
So we don't need them in every industry nor even some industries.
It is neither the state's right NOR duty to enfore federal laws and mandates. State's can make their own laws pertaining to drug usage-for example, small amounts of pot are criminalized anymore. That's a state law.
That is in violation of federal law. Will the feds enforce it?
You just confirmed that if States can create laws that go against federal law, then they can surely create laws that mirror federal laws.
should I have sat here and list EVERY industry that relies on them? I would have been here for an hour.
But thanks for proving my point....we need them in every industry.
So give them a visa or punish those who hire them. They wouldn't come here if they couldn't have a job.
You just don't get it do you or you are in extreme denial. Industries don't need them except to increase their profits. There is no shortage of American workers. So you are saying that it is ok for employers to break the law and hire illegal aliens instead of Americans just so they can increase their profits? If they became legalized then the employers would have to pay them the same wage as an American so what would legalizing them solve?
Again you want to reward the immigration law breakers with a visa yet punish the employers? They are both guilty!
Well considering the fact I just got back from Cali....every menial job was done by Mexican immigrants. and all the people ordering food or w/e seemed no to care. Good for you? But the other 309,999,999 Americans don't think or act like you. Which of course is only your problem.
Last time I checj every single one of us was related to an immigrant. We owe our ancestors their common decency and the respect. We ought to respect why people come here. Not just toss them out, because "the'y aren't like us" That gringoistic attitude does nothing for no one.
Oh the race card!!!!!
I am married to a legal immigrant. Yes that means she applied, waited for and was granted a VISA.
Can you say that the majority of illegals even attempted to apply for a VISA?
I didn't think so.
70% of AZ agrees with me. 65% of the USA agrees with me.
Most Americans are not too lazy to wash their own cars or even wax them.
My only problem? I believe you presume a great deal.
Do we need illegals? I sure don't. Do we need laws? Yes we do. Do we need to enforce our laws? Yes we do. Do we need to be selective about who we allow entry? Yes we do.
Do we owe illegals anything? No not a thing.
Do we owe any applicant a VISA? No we don't.
We do allow more immigration than any other country on the planet. In fact more than all combined. I would say that by any measure that is pretty darned generous.
Toss them out? If they didn't enter legally that is exactly what we should do.
Well considering the fact I just got back from Cali....every menial job was done by Mexican immigrants. and all the people ordering food or w/e seemed no to care. Good for you? But the other 309,999,999 Americans don't think or act like you. Which of course is only your problem.
Last time I checj every single one of us was related to an immigrant. We owe our ancestors their common decency and the respect. We ought to respect why people come here. Not just toss them out, because "the'y aren't like us" That gringoistic attitude does nothing for no one.
Yes, those menial jobs are being done by mostly ILLEGAL Mexicans not legal Mexican immigrants. You do know the differnce between legal and illegal, don't you? Those menial jobs use to be done by our youth as a stepping stone into the labor market and so they would have some spending money. They can no longer get those jobs because employers are hiring illegals instead and wouldn't hire an American unless they speak Spanish to fit in.
What does having LEGAL immigrant ancestors have to do with ILLEGAL immigration? I respect those who come here legally not those who do not. Of course immigrants aren't going to be like us but so what? I don't expect them to be at first just to come here legally. What's with this gringoistic attitude remark? Pulling the race card, are you?
You've got a very good argument there, but it doesn't address my arguments.
First, immigration is a federal issue because it's about American citizenship, not Arizonan citizenship. Your police powers argument is not relevant, because police powers have nothing to do with citizenship issues.
you are right, police powers have nothing to do with citizenship issues, they are law enforcement issues, and NO WHERE in the constitution, so far as i have been able to find, police powers have NEVER been enumerated at the federal level.
Quote:
And secondly, nothing you've said counters the problem with the fact that the Arizona law, by leaving it up to an officer's discretion, and by targeting immigrants, is in and of itself, an incentive to racial profiling. It provides an incentive for police officers to look for specific characteristics that could indicate that someone is an illegal immigrant, and gives an officer additional power because of that suspicion. What makes one person more suspicious than another?
ok, you keep forgetting, or have never learned, the fact that federal law REQUIRES ALL NON US CITIZENS TO CARRY IDENTIFICATION AND PROOF THAT THEY ARE HERE LEGALLY. this means that every non US citizen MUST carry a passport and a visa or resident alien card, green card, state issued drivers license, state issued ID card, etc.
Quote:
I agree with most everyone that the federal government should be doing more to help Arizona with its illegal immigration problems. And I understand why Arizona is trying to force the federal government to do so via this law. As I said before, the law would be more Constitutional if it didn't leave it to the officer's discretion, but forced EVERYONE to meet the same criteria for proving AMERICAN citizenship. By leaving it up to the individual officer, they are opening the door to widespread abuse of the law.
when a police officer pulls you over for a traffic violation, what is the first thing they ask you for? thats right license, registration and proof of insurance. if you provide these items, ALL QUESTION OF YOUR RIGHT TO BE HERE LEGALLY IS ANSWERED NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS, PERIOD!!! how many times does that need to be repeated for you to understand that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Its funny how quickly a jump to the tenth amendment is made. But remember, naturalization and securing borders is a federal responsibility granted by the constitution. And above all, states don't have the rights, people do. And to quote the fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
People are protected, not just from federal government, but state governments too. As a citizen, what reasonable suspicion would AZ use to search me, and for my papers?
Yes. It is federal responsibility to secure the borders and deal with international affairs. It is the law. States are secondary. They are not entitled to run a parallel law of their own.
If it is a law described for the federal government, then yes, states can't run their own. If a state has the power, as is the case with employment, then yes, it can write its own rules.
AZ could have achieved the goal by writing the law within its authority, by using channels such as employment.
again show me where in the constitution that the federal government has been enumerated with police powers. answer you cant find it because it isnt there, and for good reason. the framers of the constitution did not want a strong federal government. they wanted strong state governments, with federal oversight. they also wanted uniform regulations in regards to citizenship, and other things. they didnt want different citizenship requirements for new york than virginia. but it was left up to the states to enforce the laws of the land, not the federal government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
The major problem with this law is the requirement for someone to prove they are a citizen to a State official. State officials do not have the right to ask.
If I had to travel in Arizona I would be very glad I look like my German ancestors.
again read the federal law, and then read the state law. if you provide a state issued drivers license, ALL QUESTION OF YOUR RIGHT TO BE HERE LEGALLY ENDS, PERIOD!!!! the only way that would change is if you provided a fake license.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
If an agency has been granted the authority to enforce the federal laws, yes. When they are not, they can' devise their own. It would be deemed an encroachment. For example, Congress is entitled to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia while states are entitled to appoint the officers and have the authority to train under the guidelines provided by the congress. If any state decides to create its own militia, well, that would be encroachment.
An attempt to meet political and personal end by ignoring the constitution would be criminal. Where do you stand?
Its the law. And according article 6 of the US constitution establishes the supremacy: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In other words, states can add to, but not replace or override federal laws. In fact, as it pertains to EEO, many states have an expanded version of the law that goes beyond the minimum set by the federal government.
the arizona law SB1070 does not override federal law, it compliments federal law. the supremacy clause still does not enumerate law enforcement powers onto the federal government, it merely establishes that when the feds make a law, it overrides state law that is counter to the federal law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
You just repeated the post to which I had already responded. For that reason, here we go again...
If an agency has been granted the authority to enforce the federal laws, yes. When they are not, they can' devise their own. It would be deemed an encroachment. For example, Congress is entitled to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia while states are entitled to appoint the officers and have the authority to train under the guidelines provided by the congress. If any state decides to create its own militia, well, that would be encroachment.
PS. States can (and are expected to) enforce federal laws, as I have clearly mentioned earlier referencing the constitution. But they can't supersede federal authority by creating their own version, again something I've now repeated.
again though the federal government does not have police powers enumerated to it in the constitution, thus that power is the right of the states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmkcin
And money and work force....and any credibilty the fascist state of Arizona presented to the Union.
you continue to show your ignorance and prejudice dont you?
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.
