If you have a particular encounter with another citizen or LEO, post it here.
 #33618  by stephpd
 
organized_mayhem wrote:And nowhere are they saying they can pull someone over just because they are/look Mexican.

Here is a link to a PDF of the Arizona law.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf


Please show me where it says they can stop someone for looking foreign without any other reason.
Watch the video in Tony's post and see if what they are doing isn't exactly what many say the laws says they can't.

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=3743&start=20
 #33649  by Shrek
 
First off, I want it straight that I don't care if someone is orange, black, blue, purple, or striped. If someone is bad, they are bad. If they are good, they are good. That's all.

Secondly, I included Europeans and Canadians in the spirit of being PC. I should have known better than try because, well, anyone that knows me knows that I'm not PC in the least and I think the whole idea of worrying whether or not you are going to offend someone is a load of crap anyway. No matter what your thoughts are on anything, someone will be offended, guaranteed. Europeans and Canadians generally aren't a significant problem with regard to illegal immigration for this country. As per Wikipedia the breakdown is "in 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe; and 4% were from the rest of the world." Of course we all know these numbers aren't 100% accurate because if they are illegals, there is no way of getting an accurate count.

Now, as far as the fourth amendment, I certainly don't like the idea of "showing papers" upon demand. However, I do not consider it as unreasonable, and the key word is unreasonable, to present documentation as to the legal standing of my occupancy of this country,(I wasn't trying to sound lawyerly but I guess that's how it came out) An example of said documentation would be a social security card. Cops run the number, if you're in the system you belong here. If not then you don't. Same goes with a Visa or RA card. Hispanics would be targeted 80% of the time but, they are 80% of the illegal immigration problem. If someone is shot in a robbery and the witnesses say the shooter was a white male the police are not going to start searching for a black female. I do understand the AZ. law is only checked during traffic stops.

It's also not that they are here. It's what the criminal element portion of them are doing while they are here." Between 1,806 and 2,510 people in the U.S. are murdered annually by illegal aliens.
As detailed by Edwin Rubenstein in Criminal Alien Nation, criminal illegal aliens are a growing threat. In summary, he reports:

In 1980, our Federal and state facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens but at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in U.S. correctional facilities, as follows

* 46,000 in Federal prisons
* 74,000 in state prisons
* 147,000 in local jails

The article also notes that approximately 27% of all prisoners in Federal custody are criminal illegal aliens and the majority (63%) of those are Mexican citizens. With 267,000 illegal aliens incarcerated, as of 2003, just the incarceration costs at $25,000 per inmate per year is $6.7 BILLION per year. In fiscal 2004, the Federal govt. spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate criminal aliens. This total included $280 million of reimbursements made to state and local governments under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program [SCAAP] - a Department of Justice program managed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) - but SCAAP funds cover less than 25% of the full cost of incarcerating criminal aliens, leaving the balance of 75% to be picked up by the local jurisdiction. It is worth noting that all the incarceration costs, some $5.6 billion in 2004, are ultimately paid for by the taxpayers. As extensive as these direct costs are, there are also indirect costs imposed on the victims, including loss of income and property, uncompensated hospital bills, and treatment for resulting emotional and psychological trauma."
Some of the above statistic were brought to you by: http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_ ... crime.html
The point still is if they weren't here, none of the crimes they commit would be happening.
Just look at the AZ. rancher who let the illegals cross his ranch unmolested. One gut shot him and left him to die and as far as I know, was never arrested.
I also know that alot of the illegals are honest, hard working people. But, they need to immigrate here legally.

Now, if one of y'all can think of a better solution, I'm all ears.

OK. I've said my piece. Have at it boys and girls.
 #33662  by Mr.Skellington
 
Shrek wrote:
Now, if one of y'all can think of a better solution, I'm all ears.

OK. I've said my piece. Have at it boys and girls.
Since current laws aren't being enforced we could start with that.

Some portions of the AZ bill like holding the employers and those who provide lodging for illegals accountable are keepers.

Eliminating access to our social programs would strip away another incentive.

Closing the anchor baby loophole by properly defining a natural born citizen as one born to parents whom are legally citizens.

Increasing our border security with barriers, surveillance devices, and increasing the combination of border patrol agents and National Guardsmen actively patrolling our borders.


Notice that none of those methods come close to bringing up 4th amendment issues. Most of those things remove the incentives to remain here like jobs and free socialized programs. The last suggestion makes it tougher for the douche bags who's intentions are to engage in a violent crime spree or sell narcotics.

This is the Federal governments responsibility, its time each party stop with the BS amnesty talk and get to whats got to be done to send them packing and make sure they don't come back. I just won't accept it be done at the expense of our rights.


The last portion of this thread should be merged with the AZ Bill thread
 #33680  by scampbell3
 
This is an interesting read...enjoy

CRS Report for Congress
Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement
http://www.votolatino.org/reports/the_r ... cement.pdf


State and Local Authority to Enforce Immigration Law: A Unified Approach for Stopping Terrorists
By Kris W. Kobach
June 2004
http://www.cis.org/StateEnforcement-LocalEnforcement


NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
Facts About Federal Preemption
How to analyze whether state and local initiatives are an unlawful attempt to enforce federal immigration law or regulate immigration
http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/LocalL ... -06-28.pdf

722 F.2d 468
Raul GONZALES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The CITY OF PEORIA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 82-5432.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 17, 1983.
Decided Dec. 16, 1983.
http://openjurist.org/722/f2d/468/gonza ... -of-peoria


728 F.2d 1298
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Domingo SALINAS-CALDERON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 82-2433.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
March 7, 1984.
http://openjurist.org/728/f2d/1298/unit ... s-calderon


176 F.3d 1294
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ontoniel VASQUEZ-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 98-6325.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
May 11, 1999.
http://openjurist.org/176/f3d/1294/unit ... ez-alvarez


264 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2001)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOSE DE JESUS SANTANA-GARCIA and GONZALO ALONSO RUIZ-TOVAR, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-4087
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
September 5, 2001
http://openjurist.org/264/f3d/1188


270 F.3d 611 (8th Cir. 2001)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ-ARREOLA, APPELLEE.
No. 01-1034
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Submitted: June 12, 2001
Filed: October 12, 2001
http://openjurist.org/270/f3d/611/unite ... ez-arreola


544 U.S. 93
MUEHLER ET AL.
v.
MENA.
No. 03-1423.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued December 8, 2004.
Decided March 22, 2005.
http://openjurist.org/544/us/93/muehler-et-al-v-mena