Arizona passes strict illegal immigration bill...Part II (Phoenix, Page: crime, mortgage)

[AZDesertBrat]

Originally Posted by lyzzard

Banks weren't exactly looking at citizenship and overlooked a lot of things when they were giving out loans in previous years (especially to those who shouldn't have gotten them). Also, illegals were buying homes in poorer neighborhoods that were dirt cheap (under 30k), even by today's standards. When you have 2 or 3 families all living under one roof working as much as they can, wherever they can, for however much they can... it doesn't cost as much as a single family trying to buy a home. Also, for the ones who did landscaping... landscapers can get away with a lot of over charging on home owners who don't know better.

There are a lot of illegals living here that have legal family willing to open a home loan for them, possibly co-sign for them, or have a bank account back in their home country that they can use here in the US. Then there are the ones with stolen ID's and SS#'s.

~On a side note, I have seen some homes that were foreclosed on in "certain areas" that had extensions put on the homes that were totally out of code and illegally done. This is how smaller homes were made bigger. Now those homes are having a hard time selling because of the costs to bring everything up to code.

They must have "overlooked" a LOT, or had some fancy wheelin' dealin' going on. I can't even get a bank loan for a used car because of my income level. That's why I'm still driving my 24 year old Honda Accord which, lucky for me, is still going good! I see Hispanics driving older cars too but a lot are driving nice newer cars/trucks. I can't.

Yes, I know about a bunch of them living in one place. My parents rented out apts. for years and when they rented to Hispanics they had to keep watch because they rotated people in and out like a merry go round sometimes. They would come as 'visitors' and if they overstayed they got the rent raised but for 2 BR 1 BA apts. my parents put strict limits on occupancy too. When they started having chickens in the apt. my mom put her foot down! lol My parents didn't know, sometimes, if the occupants were legal or illegal but would figure it out over time. They didn't kick them out if they were illegal but they put the kabosh on more relatives moving in. They even tried *bribery* by making Mom and Dad the BEST Mexican food in the world but that didn't work either. lol

[Wyoming Darrell]

Originally Posted by Isitmeorarethingsnuts?

But I guess you're happy with a smooth talker that will sue a state to prohibit them from protecting American Citizens. I find it interesting that with all the issues facing this country during the last election you would choose religion as your deciding factor. That speaks volumes.

I didn't know that keeping a state from taking away someones Constitutional rights was a way to "...prohibit them from protecting American citizens...". I would have thought it was the other way around.
She did not say religion, she said religious fanatics. Your reply speaks volumes.

[Wyoming Darrell]

Originally Posted by R_Cowgirl

Good. That means you have written strongly worded statements to your Senators opposing Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. Good for you princess. Her support of Sharia law is the scariest thing I've seen in years - esp for someone who will be sitting on the Bench for 30 years. '
Ok - off topic. sorry Granny.
But Princess, just responding to your comment.

Responding to some inaccuracies in your answer. Sorry the url is so long.


Elena Kagan and the sharia charge | Michael Tomasky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

[SacalaitWhisperer]

Illegals have been pouring in to the USA since the 1950s. Mod Cut: Snarky attacks.

Where was the outrage for the last five or so DECADES? Why the sudden outrage?

[xwideopenskyx]

Originally Posted by SacalaitWhisperer

Illegals have been pouring in to the USA since the 1950s. Mod cut.
Where was the outrage for the last five or so DECADES? Why the sudden outrage?

The outrage is not sudden. It has been building over decades and has finally reached it's peak.

[lyzzard]

Originally Posted by Wyoming Darrell

Responding to some inaccuracies in your answer. Sorry the url is so long.


Elena Kagan and the sharia charge | Michael Tomasky | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

You could apply the same concepts that were mentioned at the end of the article here with the SB1070 law. How many went about berating, belittling, and running amok about the law without actually reading it? Then they read it and started scratching their heads, finally really thinking about it and what it really means, not what others speculate it means.

[Gurbie]

Originally Posted by Isitmeorarethingsnuts?

I have a degree in behavioural sciences and I would be interested to know what you are basing this psychological profile on. And I guess as long as the residents keep electing him, the majority think they do have the best LE for the citizens.

Mine is just a layman's opinion, Nuts, but it's based on long, sad experience.

Guys like Arpaio tend to stick around too long. It isn't just a function of age. It isn't impossible for a 78 year old to effectively handle a job that complex- it just isn't very likely. Arpaio has been in LE for a looong time. The times have changed- has he? Sooner or later, everyone has to hang them up. The longer Arpaio holds on, the harder it will be for him to decide when that time comes. He'll get that "what would they ever do around here without me?" complex, if he doesn't have it already.

Meanwhile, he'll stop listening to advice from his staff, because he KNOWS BEST, dammit! Then watch the (costly) errors pile up.

But, you are absolutely right. As long as the residents of the county like the job he's doing, and they keep electing him, the position is his. For better or worse. I always like to say, people get the law enforcement they deserve.

[Ritchie_az]

It isn't impossible for a 78 year old to effectively handle a job that complex- it just isn't very likely. Arpaio has been in LE for a looong time. The times have changed- has he? Sooner or later, everyone has to hang them up. The longer Arpaio holds on, the harder it will be for him to decide when that time comes. He'll get that "what would they ever do around here without me?" complex, if he doesn't have it already.

So, when all other arguements fail, go with old-age? Really? I've known some very hard-working and wise folks in their 90's. I'm sure many of the residents of Sun City would not only disagree, but would take offense. But this isn't the first time you've generalized a group people on this board, either, so what should I expect?

[Wyoming Darrell]

Originally Posted by lyzzard

You could apply the same concepts that were mentioned at the end of the article here with the SB1070 law. How many went about berating, belittling, and running amok about the law without actually reading it? Then they read it and started scratching their heads, finally really thinking about it and what it really means, not what others speculate it means.

Very good point about people being radical about sb1070 without reading it. An enormous amount of the people arguing this issue have never bothered to read it. This happened on both sides of this issue and is one of the reasons there is so much contention about it. Another is that many people simply won't accept that an idea that does not reflect their own values has any merit.
What scares me most, though, are the people that are now threatening Judge Bolton for upholding the Constitution. How can they say "....uphold this law or we will kill you...".

[.45acp]

Originally Posted by Wyoming Darrell

Very good point about people being radical about sb1070 without reading it. An enormous amount of the people arguing this issue have never bothered to read it. This happened on both sides of this issue and is one of the reasons there is so much contention about it. Another is that many people simply won't accept that an idea that does not reflect their own values has any merit.
What scares me most, though, are the people that are now threatening Judge Bolton for upholding the Constitution. How can they say "....uphold this law or we will kill you...".

Bolton is an embarrasssment. She 'did not' uphold the Constitution or the United States Code. If you actually read SB 1070 yourself you'd know that. "Federal law specifically empowers state and local law enforcement officials to enforce it; indeed, it often mandates enforcement of federal law by state and local officials. SB 1070 merely directs state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law when they have a “reasonable suspicion” that a person might be in violation of federal immigration law. It might be fashionable to imagine the horror scenarios of police officers asking anyone with Hispanic or Native American features or surnames to produce their “papers.” The law, however, does not, on its face, direct police to do so. Nor does it confer upon them unfettered discretion in its enforcement."

1. Aliens not requiring 'documents? Fail! Title 8 USC §§ 1304.

2. Local Law Enforcement enforcing Federal Law? Fail! Title 8 U.S.C. § 1226, provides for apprehension and detention of aliens.

3. Ignorance of case law. Fail! 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"

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


Title 8 U.S.C. §§1373 and 8 U.S.C. 1644 prohibit sanctuary cities. SB 1070 prohibits such from being created in AZ. I'm just a former cop... it took about 1/2 hour to research the case law cites and statutes. Bolton's a Federal Judge and couldn't do it. On the issue of the United States suing a State... she had no authority to hear the case. All such must be adjudicated by SCotUS.