GO ARIZONA!

Here’s the constitution… it specifies a census every 10 years for representation purposes… and ONLY every ten years… until the next census, those numbers are the numbers all of us go by for federal representation purposes…

Out side this box is speculation…. It means jack-crap and is in admissible in any sort of analysis of the facts because it is, by definition, opinion. Otherwise, I could speculate that due to the increasing hositlity towards illegal immigrants, the whole hispanic population drops relative to the whole, just as the Jewish population did in Germany and Russia prior to the holocaust and progroms… And were I to make such a specualtion, it would be entirely within the realm of reason and possibility. Ergo, this is why we don’t speculate in drawing and apportioning representation on what “might be”…

I’d like you to draw a square. Put 1% at the lower left corner. Now then put 20% at the upper left corner. Now put 2000 at the lower left corner, and 2025 at the lower right corner. Got it so far? Now here it gets complicated. Put a dot somewhere close to 11.3% in 2000. Then put a dot at 16.8% in 2025. Now, you can use a ruler if you like, draw a line between those dots. Can you see that your line is pointing upward toward the upper right hand corner of your box? How well you have done. This is population growth. You can now see that the Latino population is growing and it is no longer what it was in 2000.

So, because that line is pointing up, you can’t take 11.3% (a number from 2000) and apply it to 308 million (a number estimated for 2010), and expect to derive any meaningful conclusion from it.

Would you like to try those numbers again?

So your calculation data are faulty and the results are objectively wrong.

‘

I used latest census data and your own figures from your previous post… and the year is 2010, not 2025.

Information for crime statistics taken from a survey by the local citizen’s group using the police blotter printed.

I’m calling you out on your “recent local research” about crime rates at 45% by unauthorized immigrants. Please share with us where you got this data.

And for the record, in 2000 (a full decade ago) the percentage was 11.3% of the population. The population was not 308 million in 2000 as you claim — that is the estimate from Census for 2010.

Likewise, as I explained, the Latino population is growing at a fast rate and is no longer at 11.3% of the US population, but somewhere closer to the 16.8% currently estimated for 2025. We will have a better idea once the Census has completed its work for 2010.

So your calculation data are faulty and the results are objectively wrong.

I am perfectly aware that the intent of the law is to harass unauthorized immigrants. My issue is with the method used to acheive that goal.

It is not justifiable to trample the rights of citizens in an effort to deport unauthorized immigrants. Furthermore, our Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all persons in our jurisdiction (specifically prohibiting unequal treatment on the basis of national origin), even criminals and law breakers.

That is what distinguishes the American justice system from tyranny. It appears you have small regard for the Constitution, and little understanding of it, if you would tear it up to facilitate this wild eyed crackdown.

The feds decline to do their duty! For DECADES! So, when the federal government decides it won’t enforce the laws of the land in defense of the people victimized by illegal immigrants, it can hardly be upset if the states decide to do it for them.

You still miss the entire capability of the law… a LEO who stops a vehicle full of illegals for a traffic offense… finds the driver has no license and isn’t even here legally. The rest in the truck are found in similiar condition, being illegals that is. They all get deported. Well, now word gets round that it isn’t a place friendly to law-breakers and the problem solves itself… namely, the illegals will go where they’re welcome, like California… and when CA goes bankrupt, NO BAILOUT. you reap what you sow.

You want your state to turn a blind eye to federal law and national security, that’s fine. Leave the rest of us to enforce the LAW.

And for the record, your estimated 11 million (some put it closer to 12.5) undocumented is, according the the Pew Hispanic Center, 57% Mexican, 24% other Latin countries, with the remainder 19% being from the rest of the world… thats about 6.3 million mexicans alone and 8.9 million hispanics. Compared to the 11.3% of the 308 million you give (34.8 million hispanics), that means in reality, 1 in every 4 is here illegally… And while that is a nationwide average, the large concentration in the south means this number is probably closer to 1 in 3 or so… recent local research puts the crime rates at alittle under 45% perpetrated by illegal immigrants…

No doubt you’ve seen the news about a man deported 9 times, now accused of rape….

The problem is not solved by your logic.

We’ll get Census results soon but official estimates are of 308 million people living in America. Our best estimates, from official sources, and confirmed by a large number of independent sources, are of 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Thus, whipping out the calculator, you can see that we’re talking about roughly 3.5% of the population.

In 2000, about 11.3% of the US population were hispanic, and that number is growing. By 2025 the Census estimates 16.8%, so for screams, let’s say 14% of the US population today is hispanic.

So you are saying it is ok to treat 14% of the population with suspicion and require police to ask of these citizens what they are not required to provide under normal circumstances (proof of identity), in order to go after the 3.5% of our population without a visa whom you (wrongly) assume are all hispanic.

In other words, under your proposal 75% of the people detained and harassed will be statistically citizens, treated as non-citizens and asked to show documents they are under no legal obligation to provide.

So, let’s take your proposal to the next level. Why don’t we throw four times as many people in jail as commit crimes, even though they are innocent, just to be sure we’ve got all the criminals?

Hey who cares if 75% are innocent. Some of them are criminals, right?

If he lies but does so that doesn’t reveal nervousness or attempt to lie (the same judgement call we empower TSA to make and I think we can agree most LEOs are far better trained than TSA agents), the officer carries on and the illegal goes on. No harm, no foul. If the illegal becomes shifty, bolts, or other so action, the officer asks to see ID. In that instance, an illegal either produces ID, exposing them as illegally in the US or runs or acknowledges their presence as being illegal…

Your implication that there is racism because an officer would likely stop those of mexican descent more than others is ilrelevant. Arizona is not suffering from an influx of illegal aliens from Romania or Great Britian. So, a new shifty individual hanging around small town Arizona isn’t a common sight except those of the mexican illegal pursuasion. That’s just the truth. Just like 95% of all attempted terrorist bombings by foreigners in the US or against US assests abroad are, SHOCK, of Middle East appearance… So, if an officer saw a shifty individual who didn’t look like they belonged in their small town, guess what.. they probably DON’T. People don’t just drift into small towns… This isn’t your favorite smut novel of the tall dark handsome stranger. You have to make a special effort to to get to these places and most have no bus stops or such mass transit servicing…

The very same “we can’t target people because of how they look” thought process that we have thus far netted ourselves a few close calls and some body bags for terrorists is the same process that is responsible for thousands of robberies, murders, and other violent crimes every year from illegals… all becuase people refuse call a duck a duck on sight for fear of insulting… And the worst of it is its people who live far away from the problem trying to tell those of us dealing with it how to solve it.

The requirement to “carry ID” does not exist in our country except in certain specific instances, defined by state or federal law.

One, which you mention, is while driving. Another is entering a military base or other secure federal facility, and after the Patriot Act, to board an airplane. So the issue of immigration is not on its face the same as driving a vehicle.

While the privilege of driving and the privilege of circulating in the country as a foreign national do indeed both involve a requirement to present ID in certain circumstances, these guidelines do not extend to individuals not engaged in such activities. Certainly your right to cross the street without being molested by the police is as defensible as the right of the state to go about its business enforcing the law.

So we need to look at what the Constitution says, and the Scotus decisions pertaining to particular cases.

So, just as you are generally not required to present your drivers license if you are not driving, an ordinary citizen (and through the 14th Ammendment, all persons under US jurisdiction, i.e. on our soil, airspace and I would presume US Navy vessels on open seas and diplomatic facilities overseas) is under no requirement to present proof of residency on the mere suspicion of being in the country illegally. Immigrants have the requirement, but you can’t impose that requirement on citizens, so the problem is how to legally tell the difference.

In other words the issue is not at all whether immigrants must carry and produce their green card, which is true, but the means by which law enforcement can carry out such inspection in the color of law. Simply eyeballing somebody on the street and deciding to check their visa status raises a whole host of Constitutionality issues and potentiates the abuse of power. Do we look at their clothing? Can’t do it — Scotus ruled clothing is a generally protected form of expression. Accent? Eye color? Hair color? Skin tone? Surely you can see where this is going. Either these are immutable characteristics or forms of expression, and both categories are generally protected.

While there is a large gray area after Terry (research Terry stop if you don’t know the background), and some states indeed have laws requiring citizens to identify themselves to law enforcement officials, this is not tantamount to carrying documentary proof of ID (i.e. green card, drivers license, etc.). It is enough to simply state your name truthfully.

It is generally true that police may detain and question a citizen briefly when there is “reasonable” suspicion that the individual was involved in or is a material witness to a crime, but the citizen (or person under US jurisdiction) is not generally required to answer any questions and must be released after a brief period of time, or must be arrested. Once arrested, the law enforcement officer has the burden of proof and must explain during arraignment the reasons for the arrest. If they are found unreasonable, the person arrested may pursue a complaint of abuse of power in the color of law under Art 42.

There is also an requirement to ID when taken into police custody, but this cannot be forced under the 5th Ammendment. We have the right in this country to simply not answer. Of course that will delay release from jail, but it is a right. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Certainly I can understand some people’s frustration with the difficulties in legally identifying who is and who is not an authorized immigrant, but I for one am more concerned about the preservation of civil liberties in the day to day operations of law enforcement than I am about cracking down on immigrants who do not, for whatever reason, have their green card.

It would be like issuing driver’s licenses and saying you must have one to drive…. and then protesting when police ask to see it when you are operating a vehicle….

FEDERAL LAW SAYS IF YOU ARE NOT A CITIZEN YOU MUST CARRY PROOF OF IMMIGRATION STATUS-
—————

Yes, that is true, but not the issue.

The issue is the constitutionality of how the law is enforced.

maybe he should take his own advice.

This has been law since 1940!!!!! And ruled constitutional!

NON-CITIZENS HAVE NO RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS, as ruled by the Supreme Court…. We have treaties with other countries where we extend each other’s citizens certain rights an such under our laws but these are only treaties… they can be revoked at any time.

——

That is simply not true, no matter how much you repeat it. The facts speak for themselves.

The laws in Arizona were drafted by FAIR (as were those in California, Farmers Branch Texas and elsewhere that later failed), a group whose stated purpose is to restrict all forms of immigration.

The critical weakness of that idea is of course that undocumented immigration occurs in direct proportion to restrictions on legal immigration. FAIR’s concept of sustainability is ludicrous, and I think most people who have studied immigration in an intellectually honest way will one way or the other have to agree.

Please look at immigration statistics from ICE. In the latest report, you will see that the vast majority of legal immigrants are granted visas on the basis of immediate family (most commonly marriage). Work visas are way down the list after that. Finally, the number of lottery visas — that is, virtually the only chance most people in the world have of being allowed to immigrate — is paltry.

If FAIR achieves its goal of reducing immigration to 200,000 – 300,000 immigrants per year, it will mean that people in this country will never get to see their husbands, wives or children again. It would be a prohibition not only on immigration but the rights of matrimony and a slap in the face to those who claim to be true supporters of “family values”.

As it stands, the US did not even grant its full quota of 50,000 diversity visas last year. In other words, under the status quo the line doesn’t move. Can you affirm with any credibility that focing immigrants from China, Haiti, the Phillipines, or elsewhere to wait ten years or forever helps limit illegal immigration?

Our Founding Fathers listed restrictions on immigration as one of the main complaints against the tyranny of colonial rule. Nothing has changed. We are still a nation of immigrants. This is one of the most basic and fundamental aspects of our society.

But if you look at other countries, such as Canada, you will see that intolerance of illegal immigration is compensated by one of the most liberal legal immigration policies anywhere in the world. As a result, you will see that illegal immigration to Canada is virtually insignificant.

This is not even to consider the obvious advantages to our nation and economy of legalizing most of the immigrants in the country with an irregular visa status. That simple and sustainable policy would drastically reduce the expenditures on deportation efforts as well as bring about more responsible behavior on the part of the unauthorized population.

But go on conservatives, keep being afraid of everything for no reason. It’s amusing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless they add more amendments), pretty funny for a law that many claim is perfect. Why hitch your wagon to this dead white elephant. See you in court.

I don’t think any more need be said. And yes, I have familal experience to justify that stance.

Also, food for thought: Legalize drugs, especially marijuana, and you remove a HUGE part of the problem rightfully or wrongfully associated with “illegals”, increase the coffers in border states (probably wiping out any “need” to close hospitals (!) ), reduce substantially the violence also associated, especially recently, with Mexican drug cartels, and relieve large numbers from the US prison population by allowing those who really shouldn’t be there in the first place to go free.

One more thing, if “illegals” are such a problem that laws targeting the brown ones need passing, why then aren’t there more specific laws in states that have a huge violence problem with the _white_ ones, like New York and other east coast states? I, myself have worked places that employ large numbers of illegal Polish immigrants, for example; also the day to day violence perpetrated by Russian “illegals” is legendary. It once again boils down to racism, pure and simple.

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.
How do I know?
For this is what I have done.
And I am Caesar.” — Julius Caesar

By the way, I challenge evereyone to actually read Arizona’s bill. Those who oppose it, haven’t read it.

I also notice that your claims are from an anti-immigration website. I want their sources in terms of the costs. Also, did they calculate the amount of revenue generated by the labor of immigrants, which has helped cities grow immensely in the last few years? Think about all the resorts, homes, shopping centers, malls, restaruants, and other projects built thanks to their labor- how much money is that generating for the economy?

Why are we so concerned about this particular law? From a April 2008 article on the California for Population Stabilization; “According to a study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), 60 percent of all illegal immigrants are in six states, with California having the largest estimated number at 3,470,00. The total cost impact to these states is estimated at $27 billion annually for K-12 education, health care and criminal incarceration. This means California’s burden of accommodating illegal aliens is more than $11 billion annually, or an average of $3,200 per person, with the costs for those in the prison system well above this average number.” (http://www.capsweb.org/content.....;menu_id=8).

Currently, California’s budget gap is 19.9 billion. (Governor’s Budget Summary 2010-11) (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/.....ummary.pdf)

Now do you see why people are so concerned about illegal immigration?